Are we really suppose to take global warming cultists seriously?

[JR-]

Oh yes the global warming is gonna skyrocket socialism.

i'm not claiming it would.

[JR-]

And I'm sorry, Furunculu5, there's no universal plan to free the proletariat (far from all socialists and communists can even agree on what the proletariat is, or if it exists at all). I'd be more scared of more "liberal" politicians who use their democratic power to control their people.

my apologies, i did mean to draw direct inference between saving the world and freeing the proletariat, just to demonstrate the continuity of ideological zeal.

[JR-]

Who's supporting a theory is irrelevant. Al Gore's movie is not the science. If people is making money out of global warming, what does it really matter?

it does if it's driving political movement, and you believe it has become a self-perpetuating gravy-train.

doubly so when you thought the fan-base were idiots the first time around!

[Viking]

There is big money to be made for a variety of industries. The cultists fool themselves, mainly. It is a semi-religious movement based on the old concepts of sin, revelation, apocalypse and redemption.

I blame Jezus Christ.

The IPCC does not call for apocalypse; though of course bringing such stuff in gives you more crediblity.

i'm not claiming it would.

Yes you more or less did by agreeing to Fragony's statement.

it does if it's driving political movement, and you believe it has become a self-perpetuating gravy-train.

doubly so when you thought the fan-base were idiots the first time around!

Until the clima sceptologists came with their Greek philosophy science, ad hominem and fancy T-shirts, there were no "fans" of global warming science. This cult-claim derives from the pathethic idea that humanity cannot impact the climate in anyway because then we would have to reconsider most of our energy sources. The important thing is to find alternative energy sources that can relieve us from the dependance upon oil. Just cutting the CO2-emissions will do no good to the economy.

Enviromentalists like the global warming idea, maybe socialists also; but that does not change the science in any way.

[JR-]

Yes you more or less did by agreeing to Fragony's statement.

Until the clima sceptologists came with their Greek philosophy science, ad hominem and fancy T-shirts, there were no "fans" of global warming science. This cult-claim derives from the pathethic idea that humanity cannot impact the climate in anyway because then we would have to reconsider most of our energy sources. The important thing is to find alternative energy sources that can relieve us from the dependance upon oil. Just cutting the CO2-emissions will do no good to the economy.

Enviromentalists like the global warming idea, maybe socialists also; but that does not change the science in any way.

that is why i said; "i kind of agree", as a way introducing my opinion that the green movement is formed from the wreckage of the USSR and all it stood for. i do not believe that global warming will lead to a resurgence in socialism.

unlike your idea that the pro-green movement was a reaction to the climate-septics, i personally favour my idea that they are by and large ex commies/marxists/socialists looking for a new cause, so the rest of the paragraph is an irrelevance to me i'm afraid. but yes, finding alternative energy sources is a jolly good idea.

in fact the science does change, all the time as a result of new data, reinterpreting old data, and an ever better understanding of complex systems.

[Viking]

that is why i said; "i kind of agree", as a way introducing my opinion that the green movement is formed from the wreckage of the USSR and all it stood for. i do not believe that global warming will lead to a resurgence in socialism.

unlike your idea that the pro-green movement was a reaction to the climate-septics, i personally favour my idea that they are by and large ex commies/marxists/socialists looking for a new cause, so the rest of the paragraph is an irrelevance to me i'm afraid. but yes, finding alternative energy sources is a jolly good idea.

in fact the science does change, all the time as a result of new data, reinterpreting old data, and an ever better understanding of complex systems.

Again: who favours it does not change the science. Who is behind it might very well, thought the instituitions that supports man made global warming are the same old reliable major institutions that always has existed; in gross contrast to the clima sceptic instutions that most (serious) scientists never ever have heard about.

I'm not sure what you mean by "pro-green movement", I've read scientific reports on the issue created by normal scientists; where does this movement come into the picture?

[JR-]

you said:

Until the clima sceptologists came with their Greek philosophy science, ad hominem and fancy T-shirts, there were no "fans" of global warming science.

i responded:

unlike your idea that the pro-green movement was a reaction to the climate-septics, i personally favour my idea that they are by and large ex commies/marxists/socialists looking for a new cause, so the rest of the paragraph is an irrelevance to me i'm afraid. but yes, finding alternative energy sources is a jolly good idea.

to which you retorted:

I'm not sure what you mean by "pro-green movement", I've read scientific reports on the issue created by normal scientists; where does this movement come into the picture?

a response which makes no sense given the sequence of the conversation...................?

[Husar]

I blame Jezus Christ.

Blasphemy!

[drone]

I honestly don't know how much of a driving force behind the green movement they are, but definitely many socialists/communists/anti-capitalists and so on have embraced the green movement as a means to an end.

Which is weird, considering how well the communists treated the environment when they were in power.

[Viking]

you said:

i responded:

to which you retorted:
a response which makes no sense given the sequence of the conversation...................?

I haven't mentioned the "green movement" earlier. The only "fans" of any global warming "science" as I see it, is those who applaude any science that is sceptic to global warming without really reading into it what it says nor seek to find how reliable this source is, despite that it contradicts all reports from the respected scientific institutions.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Personally I think it are socialist forces who want to break western power.

What of enlightened neo-liberals then?

The next French revolution: Nicolas Sarkozy sets out his plans for a green future

President Sarkozy will attempt to claim leadership of the environmental movement tomorrow, but his promises of a radical, green France risk falling victim to a reluctance to raise taxes, drop speed limits or touch the country’s reliance on nuclear power. “Carbon labels” for supermarket products and anti-pollution incentives for new cars are among ideas that are likely to be endorsed by Mr Sarkozy when he presides over the conclusion of a two-day summit of French and global experts, campaigners, business groups and other lobbies.

“Super-Sarko” promised a masterplan for a green revolution in his election campaign in the spring. After his election in May, Mr Sarkozy signalled his desire for a “change of consciousness” by creating a new super-ministry, for the Environment and Sustainable Development, which groups energy and transport. Jean-Louis Borloo, its chief since June, ranks second to François Fillon, the Prime Minister. “We have no alternative but to change the rules radically and bring about an environmental revolution,” Mr Borloo said this month when six working groups produced 30 pages of proposals. “Our biggest challenge is to reorganise society before dwindling resources force us towards a society of restrictions,” he said.

Link

[ICantSpellDawg]

long link

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

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

Senate Report Debunks "Consensus"
Complete U.S. Senate Report Now Available: (LINK)

Complete Report without Introduction: (LINK)

INTRODUCTION:

Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.


The new report issued by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee’s office of the GOP Ranking Member details the views of the scientists, the overwhelming majority of whom spoke out in 2007.



Even some in the establishment media now appear to be taking notice of the growing number of skeptical scientists. In October, the Washington Post Staff Writer Juliet Eilperin conceded the obvious, writing that climate skeptics "appear to be expanding rather than shrinking." Many scientists from around the world have dubbed 2007 as the year man-made global warming fears “bite the dust.” (LINK) In addition, many scientists who are also progressive environmentalists believe climate fear promotion has "co-opted" the green movement. (LINK)


This blockbuster Senate report lists the scientists by name, country of residence, and academic/institutional affiliation. It also features their own words, biographies, and weblinks to their peer reviewed studies and original source materials as gathered from public statements, various news outlets, and websites in 2007. This new “consensus busters” report is poised to redefine the debate.


Many of the scientists featured in this report consistently stated that numerous colleagues shared their views, but they will not speak out publicly for fear of retribution. Atmospheric scientist Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, author of almost 70 peer-reviewed studies, explains how many of his fellow scientists have been intimidated.



“Many of my colleagues with whom I spoke share these views and report on their inability to publish their skepticism in the scientific or public media,” Paldor wrote. [Note: See also July 2007 Senate report detailing how skeptical scientists have faced threats and intimidation - LINK ]



Scientists from Around the World Dissent



This new report details how teams of international scientists are dissenting from the UN IPCC’s view of climate science. In such nations as Germany, Brazil, the Netherlands, Russia, New Zealand and France, nations, scientists banded together in 2007 to oppose climate alarmism. In addition, over 100 prominent international scientists sent an open letter in December 2007 to the UN stating attempts to control climate were “futile.” (LINK)



Paleoclimatologist Dr. Tim Patterson, professor in the department of Earth Sciences at Carleton University in Ottawa, recently converted from a believer in man-made climate change to a skeptic. Patterson noted that the notion of a “consensus” of scientists aligned with the UN IPCC or former Vice President Al Gore is false. “I was at the Geological Society of America meeting in Philadelphia in the fall and I would say that people with my opinion were probably in the majority.”


This new committee report, a first of its kind, comes after the UN IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri implied that there were only “about half a dozen” skeptical scientists left in the world. (LINK) Former Vice President Gore has claimed that scientists skeptical of climate change are akin to “flat Earth society members” and similar in number to those who “believe the moon landing was actually staged in a movie lot in Arizona.” (LINK) & (LINK)


The distinguished scientists featured in this new report are experts in diverse fields, including: climatology; oceanography; geology; biology; glaciology; biogeography; meteorology; oceanography; economics; chemistry; mathematics; environmental sciences; engineering; physics and paleoclimatology. Some of those profiled have won Nobel Prizes for their outstanding contribution to their field of expertise and many shared a portion of the UN IPCC Nobel Peace Prize with Vice President Gore.



Additionally, these scientists hail from prestigious institutions worldwide, including: Harvard University; NASA; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR); Massachusetts Institute of Technology; the UN IPCC; the Danish National Space Center; U.S. Department of Energy; Princeton University; the Environmental Protection Agency; University of Pennsylvania; Hebrew University of Jerusalem; the International Arctic Research Centre; the Pasteur Institute in Paris; the Belgian Weather Institute; Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute; the University of Helsinki; the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S., France, and Russia; the University of Pretoria; University of Notre Dame; Stockholm University; University of Melbourne; University of Columbia; the World Federation of Scientists; and the University of London.


The voices of many of these hundreds of scientists serve as a direct challenge to the often media-hyped “consensus” that the debate is “settled.”



A May 2007 Senate report detailed scientists who had recently converted from believers in man-made global warming to skepticism. [See May 15, 2007 report: Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics: Growing Number of Scientists Convert to Skeptics After Reviewing New Research – (LINK) ]


The report counters the claims made by the promoters of man-made global warming fears that the number of skeptical scientists is dwindling.


Examples of “consensus” claims made by promoters of man-made climate fears:


Former Vice President Al Gore (November 5, 2007): “There are still people who believe that the Earth is flat.” (LINK) Gore also compared global warming skeptics to people who 'believe the moon landing was actually staged in a movie lot in Arizona' (June 20, 2006 - LINK)


CNN’s Miles O’Brien (July 23, 2007): The scientific debate is over.” “We're done." O’Brien also declared on CNN on February 9, 2006 that scientific skeptics of man-made catastrophic global warming “are bought and paid for by the fossil fuel industry, usually.” (LINK)


On July 27, 2006, Associated Press reporter Seth Borenstein described a scientist as “one of the few remaining scientists skeptical of the global warming harm caused by industries that burn fossil fuels.” (LINK)

Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, Chairman of the IPCC view on the number of skeptical scientists as quoted on Feb. 20, 2003: “About 300 years ago, a Flat Earth Society was founded by those who did not believe the world was round. That society still exists; it probably has about a dozen members.” (LINK)

Agence France-Press (AFP Press) article (December 4, 2007): The article noted that a prominent skeptic “finds himself increasingly alone in his claim that climate change poses no imminent threat to the planet.”



Andrew Dessler in the eco-publication Grist Magazine (November 21, 2007): “While some people claim there are lots of skeptical climate scientists out there, if you actually try to find one, you keep turning up the same two dozen or so (e.g., Singer, Lindzen, Michaels, Christy, etc., etc.). These skeptics are endlessly recycled by the denial machine, so someone not paying close attention might think there are lots of them out there -- but that's not the case. (LINK)



The Washington Post asserted on May 23, 2006 that there were only “a handful of skeptics” of man-made climate fears. (LINK)



ABC News Global Warming Reporter Bill Blakemore reported on August 30, 2006: “After extensive searches, ABC News has found no such [scientific] debate” on global warming. (LINK)



# #



Brief highlights of the report featuring over 400 international scientists:


Israel: Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem has authored almost 70 peer-reviewed studies and won several awards. “First, temperature changes, as well as rates of temperature changes (both increase and decrease) of magnitudes similar to that reported by IPCC to have occurred since the Industrial revolution (about 0.8C in 150 years or even 0.4C in the last 35 years) have occurred in Earth's climatic history. There's nothing special about the recent rise!”



Russia: Russian scientist Dr. Oleg Sorochtin of the Institute of Oceanology at the Russian Academy of Sciences has authored more than 300 studies, nine books, and a 2006 paper titled “The Evolution and the Prediction of Global Climate Changes on Earth.” “Even if the concentration of ‘greenhouse gases’ double man would not perceive the temperature impact,” Sorochtin wrote.



Spain: Anton Uriarte, a professor of Physical Geography at the University of the Basque Country in Spain and author of a book on the paleoclimate, rejected man-made climate fears in 2007. “There's no need to be worried. It's very interesting to study [climate change], but there's no need to be worried,” Uriate wrote.





Netherlands: Atmospheric scientist Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, a scientific pioneer in the development of numerical weather prediction and former director of research at The Netherlands' Royal National Meteorological Institute, and an internationally recognized expert in atmospheric boundary layer processes, “I find the Doomsday picture Al Gore is painting – a six-meter sea level rise, fifteen times the IPCC number – entirely without merit,” Tennekes wrote. “I protest vigorously the idea that the climate reacts like a home heating system to a changed setting of the thermostat: just turn the dial, and the desired temperature will soon be reached."



Brazil: Chief Meteorologist Eugenio Hackbart of the MetSul Meteorologia Weather Center in Sao Leopoldo – Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil declared himself a skeptic. “The media is promoting an unprecedented hyping related to global warming. The media and many scientists are ignoring very important facts that point to a natural variation in the climate system as the cause of the recent global warming,” Hackbart wrote on May 30, 2007.



France: Climatologist Dr. Marcel Leroux, former professor at Université Jean Moulin and director of the Laboratory of Climatology, Risks, and Environment in Lyon, is a climate skeptic. Leroux wrote a 2005 book titled Global Warming – Myth or Reality? - The Erring Ways of Climatology. “Day after day, the same mantra - that ‘the Earth is warming up’ - is churned out in all its forms. As ‘the ice melts’ and ‘sea level rises,’ the Apocalypse looms ever nearer! Without realizing it, or perhaps without wishing to, the average citizen in bamboozled, lobotomized, lulled into mindless ac#ceptance. ... Non-believers in the greenhouse scenario are in the position of those long ago who doubted the existence of God ... fortunately for them, the Inquisition is no longer with us!”



Norway: Geologist/Geochemist Dr. Tom V. Segalstad, a professor and head of the Geological Museum at the University of Oslo and formerly an expert reviewer with the UN IPCC: “It is a search for a mythical CO2 sink to explain an immeasurable CO2 lifetime to fit a hypothetical CO2 computer model that purports to show that an impossible amount of fossil fuel burning is heating the atmosphere. It is all a fiction.”



Finland: Dr. Boris Winterhalter, retired Senior Marine Researcher of the Geological Survey of Finland and former professor of marine geology at University of Helsinki, criticized the media for what he considered its alarming climate coverage. “The effect of solar winds on cosmic radiation has just recently been established and, furthermore, there seems to be a good correlation between cloudiness and variations in the intensity of cosmic radiation. Here we have a mechanism which is a far better explanation to variations in global climate than the attempts by IPCC to blame it all on anthropogenic input of greenhouse gases. “



Germany: Paleoclimate expert Augusto Mangini of the University of Heidelberg in Germany, criticized the UN IPCC summary. “I consider the part of the IPCC report, which I can really judge as an expert, i.e. the reconstruction of the paleoclimate, wrong,” Mangini noted in an April 5, 2007 article. He added: “The earth will not die.”



Canada: IPCC 2007 Expert Reviewer Madhav Khandekar, a Ph.D meteorologist, a scientist with the Natural Resources Stewardship Project who has over 45 years experience in climatology, meteorology and oceanography, and who has published nearly 100 papers, reports, book reviews and a book on Ocean Wave Analysis and Modeling: “To my dismay, IPCC authors ignored all my comments and suggestions for major changes in the FOD (First Order Draft) and sent me the SOD (Second Order Draft) with essentially the same text as the FOD. None of the authors of the chapter bothered to directly communicate with me (or with other expert reviewers with whom I communicate on a regular basis) on many issues that were raised in my review. This is not an acceptable scientific review process.”



Czech Republic: Czech-born U.S. climatologist Dr. George Kukla, a research scientist with the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at University of Columbia expressed climate skepticism in 2007. “The only thing to worry about is the damage that can be done by worrying. Why are some scientists worried? Perhaps because they feel that to stop worrying may mean to stop being paid,” Kukla told Gelf Magazine on April 24, 2007.



India: One of India's leading geologists, B.P. Radhakrishna, President of the Geological Society of India, expressed climate skepticism in 2007. “We appear to be overplaying this global warming issue as global warming is nothing new. It has happened in the past, not once but several times, giving rise to glacial-interglacial cycles.”



USA: Climatologist Robert Durrenberger, past president of the American Association of State Climatologists, and one of the climatologists who gathered at Woods Hole to review the National Climate Program Plan in July, 1979: “Al Gore brought me back to the battle and prompted me to do renewed research in the field of climatology. And because of all the misinformation that Gore and his army have been spreading about climate change I have decided that ‘real’ climatologists should try to help the public understand the nature of the problem.”



Italy: Internationally renowned scientist Dr. Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists and a retired Professor of Advanced Physics at the University of Bologna in Italy, who has published over 800 scientific papers: “Significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming."



New Zealand: IPCC reviewer and climate researcher Dr. Vincent Gray, an expert reviewer on every single draft of the IPCC reports going back to 1990 and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of "Climate Change 2001: “The [IPCC] ‘Summary for Policymakers’ might get a few readers, but the main purpose of the report is to provide a spurious scientific backup for the absurd claims of the worldwide environmentalist lobby that it has been established scientifically that increases in carbon dioxide are harmful to the climate. It just does not matter that this ain't so.”



South Africa: Dr. Kelvin Kemm, formerly a scientist at South Africa’s Atomic Energy Corporation who holds degrees in nuclear physics and mathematics: “The global-warming mania continues with more and more hype and less and less thinking. With religious zeal, people look for issues or events to blame on global warming.”



Poland: Physicist Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, Chairman of the Central Laboratory for the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Radiological Protection in Warsaw: ““We thus find ourselves in the situation that the entire theory of man-made global warming—with its repercussions in science, and its important consequences for politics and the global economy—is based on ice core studies that provided a false picture of the atmospheric CO2 levels.”



Australia: Prize-wining Geologist Dr. Ian Plimer, a professor of Earth and Environmental Sciences at the University of Adelaide in Australia: "There is new work emerging even in the last few weeks that shows we can have a very close correlation between the temperatures of the Earth and supernova and solar radiation.”



Britain: Dr. Richard Courtney, a UN IPCC expert reviewer and a UK-based climate and atmospheric science consultant: “To date, no convincing evidence for AGW (anthropogenic global warming) has been discovered. And recent global climate behavior is not consistent with AGW model predictions.”



China: Chinese Scientists Say C02 Impact on Warming May Be ‘Excessively Exaggerated’ – Scientists Lin Zhen-Shan’s and Sun Xian’s 2007 study published in the peer-reviewed journal Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics: "Although the CO2 greenhouse effect on global climate change is unsuspicious, it could have been excessively exaggerated." Their study asserted that "it is high time to reconsider the trend of global climate change.”



Denmark: Space physicist Dr. Eigil Friis-Christensen is the director of the Danish National Space Centre, a member of the space research advisory committee of the Swedish National Space Board, a member of a NASA working group, and a member of the European Space Agency who has authored or co-authored around 100 peer-reviewed papers and chairs the Institute of Space Physics: “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.”





Belgium: Climate scientist Luc Debontridder of the Belgium Weather Institute’s Royal Meteorological Institute (RMI) co-authored a study in August 2007 which dismissed a decisive role of CO2 in global warming: "CO2 is not the big bogeyman of climate change and global warming. “Not CO2, but water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas. It is responsible for at least 75 % of the greenhouse effect. This is a simple scientific fact, but Al Gore's movie has hyped CO2 so much that nobody seems to take note of it.”



Sweden: Geologist Dr. Wibjorn Karlen, professor emeritus of the Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology at Stockholm University, critiqued the Associated Press for hyping promoting climate fears in 2007. “Another of these hysterical views of our climate. Newspapers should think about the damage they are doing to many persons, particularly young kids, by spreading the exaggerated views of a human impact on climate.”



USA: Dr. David Wojick is a UN IPCC expert reviewer, who earned his PhD in Philosophy of Science and co-founded the Department of Engineering and Public Policy at Carnegie-Mellon University: “In point of fact, the hypothesis that solar variability and not human activity is warming the oceans goes a long way to explain the puzzling idea that the Earth's surface may be warming while the atmosphere is not. The GHG (greenhouse gas) hypothesis does not do this.” Wojick added: “The public is not well served by this constant drumbeat of false alarms fed by computer models manipulated by advocates.”



# # #



Background: Only 52 Scientists Participated in UN IPCC Summary

The over 400 skeptical scientists featured in this new report outnumber by nearly eight times the number of scientists who participated in the 2007 UN IPCC Summary for Policymakers. The notion of “hundreds” or “thousands” of UN scientists agreeing to a scientific statement does not hold up to scrutiny. (See report debunking “consensus” LINK) Recent research by Australian climate data analyst Dr. John McLean revealed that the IPCC’s peer-review process for the Summary for Policymakers leaves much to be desired. (LINK)

Proponents of man-made global warming like to note how the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the American Meteorological Society (AMS) have issued statements endorsing the so-called "consensus" view that man is driving global warming. But both the NAS and AMS never allowed member scientists to directly vote on these climate statements. Essentially, only two dozen or so members on the governing boards of these institutions produced the "consensus" statements. This report gives a voice to the rank-and-file scientists who were shut out of the process. (LINK)

The most recent attempt to imply there was an overwhelming scientific “consensus” in favor of man-made global warming fears came in December 2007 during the UN climate conference in Bali. A letter signed by only 215 scientists urged the UN to mandate deep cuts in carbon dioxide emissions by 2050. But absent from the letter were the signatures of these alleged “thousands” of scientists. (See AP article: - LINK )


UN IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri urged the world at the December 2007 UN climate conference in Bali, Indonesia to "Please listen to the voice of science.”


The science has continued to grow loud and clear in 2007. In addition to the growing number of scientists expressing skepticism, an abundance of recent peer-reviewed studies have cast considerable doubt about man-made global warming fears. A November 3, 2007 peer-reviewed study found that “solar changes significantly alter climate.” (LINK) A December 2007 peer-reviewed study recalculated and halved the global average surface temperature trend between 1980 – 2002. (LINK) Another new study found the Medieval Warm Period “0.3C warmer than 20th century” (LINK)


A peer-reviewed study by a team of scientists found that "warming is naturally caused and shows no human influence." (LINK) – Another November 2007 peer-reviewed study in the journal Physical Geography found “Long-term climate change is driven by solar insolation changes.” (LINK ) These recent studies were in addition to the abundance of peer-reviewed studies earlier in 2007. - See "New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears" (LINK )


With this new report of profiling 400 skeptical scientists, the world can finally hear the voices of the “silent majority” of scientists.



LINKS TO COMPLETE U.S. SENATE REPORT: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007

Complete Report: (LINK) Complete Report without Introduction: (LINK)

# # #

How do i post that "spoilers" thing? I'm taking up whole pages with these articles.

'spoil' and '/spoil' with brac[]ets will work ~Kukri

[JR-]

roflmao, where are you viking?

[Devastatin Dave]

roflmao, where are you viking?

Planet Al Gore in the Clinton quadrent.

[LittleGrizzly]

I wouldn't say global warming lends itself to socialism paticularly well, all that cash that could be spent on welfare programs and the like...

and not wasting energy and finding alternate power sources are just sensible really.... so i can see why they would be seen as socailism

[Viking]

long link



How do i post that "spoilers" thing? I'm taking up whole pages with these articles.

'spoil' and '/spoil' with brac[]ets will work ~Kukri

Oh c'mon, a few angry scientists here and there is irrelevant. Show me a decent and well accepted study pointing out that CO2 releases are not powering the global warming (hint: no such in-depth study exists ).

These randomly selected scientists can't even agree on how to disagree.

[ICantSpellDawg]

These randomly selected scientists can't even agree on how to disagree.

Probably because they are too busy not thinking en masse?

How about this?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Scientists doubt climate change

By S.A. Miller
December 21, 2007


Sen. James M. Inhofe, Oklahoma Republican, said "the endless claims of a 'consensus' about man-made global warming grow less-and-less credible every day."

More than 400 scientists challenge claims by former Vice President Al Gore and the United Nations about the threat of man-made global warming, a new Senate minority report says.

The scientists — many of whom are current or former members of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that shares the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with Mr. Gore for publicizing a climate crisis — cast doubt on the "scientific consensus" that man-made global warming imperils the planet.

"I find the Doomsday picture Al Gore is painting — a six-meter sea level rise, 15 times the IPCC number — entirely without merit," said Dutch atmospheric scientist Hendrik Tennekes, one of the researchers quoted in the report by Republican staff of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.

"I protest vigorously the idea that the climate reacts like a home heating system to a changed setting of the thermostat: just turn the dial, and the desired temperature will soon be reached," Mr. Tennekes said in the report.

Sen. James M. Inhofe of Oklahoma, ranking Republican on the Environment and Public Works Committee, said the report debunks Mr. Gore's claim that the "debate is over."

"The endless claims of a 'consensus' about man-made global warming grow less-and-less credible every day," he said.

After a quick review of the report, Gore spokeswoman Kalee Kreider said 25 or 30 of the scientists may have received funding from Exxon Mobil Corp.

Exxon Mobil spokesman Gantt H. Walton dismissed the accusation, saying the company is concerned about climate-change issues and does not pay scientists to bash global-warming theories.

"Recycling of that kind of discredited conspiracy theory is nothing more than a distraction from the real challenge facing society and the energy industry," he said. "And that challenge is how are we going to provide the energy needed to support economic and social development while reducing greenhouse-gas emissions."

The Republican report comes on the heels of Saturday's United Nations climate conference in Bali, Indonesia, where conferees adopted a plan to negotiate a new pact to create verifiable measurements to fight global warming in two years.

In the Senate report, environmental scientist David W. Schnare of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said he was skeptical because "conclusions about the cause of the apparent warming stand on the shoulders of incredibly uncertain data and models. ... As a policy matter, one has to be less willing to take extreme actions when data are highly uncertain."

The hundreds of others in the report — climatologists, oceanographers, geologists, glaciologists, physicists and paleoclimatologists — voice varying degrees of criticism of the popular global-warming theory. Their testimony challenges the idea that the climate-change debate is "settled" and runs counter to the claim that the number of skeptical scientists is dwindling.

The report's authors expect some of the scientists will recant their remarks under intense pressure from the public and from within professional circles to conform to the global-warming theory, a committee staffer said.

Several scientists in the report said many colleagues share their skepticism about man-made climate change but don't speak out publicly for fear of retribution, according to the report.

"Many of my colleagues with whom I spoke share these views and report on their inability to publish their skepticism in the scientific or public media," atmospheric scientist Nathan Paldor, professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, said in the report.

The IPCC has about 2,500 members.

HEATED DEBATE

The following are comments from some of the more than 400 scientists in a Republican report on global warming:

•"Even if the concentration of 'greenhouse gases' double, man would not perceive the temperature impact."

Oleg Sorochtin of the Institute of Oceanology at the Russian Academy of Sciences

•"I find the Doomsday picture Al Gore is painting — a six-meter sea level rise, 15 times the [U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] number — entirely without merit. ... I protest vigorously the idea that the climate reacts like a home heating system to a changed setting of the thermostat: just turn the dial, and the desired temperature will soon be reached."

Atmospheric scientist Hendrik Tennekes, former research director at the Netherlands' Royal National Meteorological Institute

•"The hypothesis that solar variability and not human activity is warming the oceans goes a long way to explain the puzzling idea that the Earth's surface may be warming while the atmosphere is not. The [greenhouse-gas] hypothesis does not do this. ... The public is not well served by this constant drumbeat of false alarms fed by computer models manipulated by advocates."

David Wojick, expert reviewer for U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

•"The media is promoting an unprecedented hyping related to global warming. The media and many scientists are ignoring very important facts that point to a natural variation in the climate system as the cause of the recent global warming."

Chief Meteorologist Eugenio Hackbart of the MetSul Meteorologia Weather Center in Sao Leopoldo-Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil

•"There's no need to be worried. It's very interesting to study [climate change], but there's no need to be worried."

Anton Uriarte, a professor of physical geography at the University of the Basque Country in Spain

Source: Sen. James M. Inhofe of Oklahoma, ranking Republican on the Environment and Public Works Committe

[Viking]

Probably because they are too busy not thinking en masse?

How about this?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Scientists doubt climate change

By S.A. Miller
December 21, 2007


Sen. James M. Inhofe, Oklahoma Republican, said "the endless claims of a 'consensus' about man-made global warming grow less-and-less credible every day."

More than 400 scientists challenge claims by former Vice President Al Gore and the United Nations about the threat of man-made global warming, a new Senate minority report says.

The scientists — many of whom are current or former members of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that shares the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with Mr. Gore for publicizing a climate crisis — cast doubt on the "scientific consensus" that man-made global warming imperils the planet.

"I find the Doomsday picture Al Gore is painting — a six-meter sea level rise, 15 times the IPCC number — entirely without merit," said Dutch atmospheric scientist Hendrik Tennekes, one of the researchers quoted in the report by Republican staff of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.

"I protest vigorously the idea that the climate reacts like a home heating system to a changed setting of the thermostat: just turn the dial, and the desired temperature will soon be reached," Mr. Tennekes said in the report.

Sen. James M. Inhofe of Oklahoma, ranking Republican on the Environment and Public Works Committee, said the report debunks Mr. Gore's claim that the "debate is over."

"The endless claims of a 'consensus' about man-made global warming grow less-and-less credible every day," he said.

After a quick review of the report, Gore spokeswoman Kalee Kreider said 25 or 30 of the scientists may have received funding from Exxon Mobil Corp.

Exxon Mobil spokesman Gantt H. Walton dismissed the accusation, saying the company is concerned about climate-change issues and does not pay scientists to bash global-warming theories.

"Recycling of that kind of discredited conspiracy theory is nothing more than a distraction from the real challenge facing society and the energy industry," he said. "And that challenge is how are we going to provide the energy needed to support economic and social development while reducing greenhouse-gas emissions."

The Republican report comes on the heels of Saturday's United Nations climate conference in Bali, Indonesia, where conferees adopted a plan to negotiate a new pact to create verifiable measurements to fight global warming in two years.

In the Senate report, environmental scientist David W. Schnare of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said he was skeptical because "conclusions about the cause of the apparent warming stand on the shoulders of incredibly uncertain data and models. ... As a policy matter, one has to be less willing to take extreme actions when data are highly uncertain."

The hundreds of others in the report — climatologists, oceanographers, geologists, glaciologists, physicists and paleoclimatologists — voice varying degrees of criticism of the popular global-warming theory. Their testimony challenges the idea that the climate-change debate is "settled" and runs counter to the claim that the number of skeptical scientists is dwindling.

The report's authors expect some of the scientists will recant their remarks under intense pressure from the public and from within professional circles to conform to the global-warming theory, a committee staffer said.

Several scientists in the report said many colleagues share their skepticism about man-made climate change but don't speak out publicly for fear of retribution, according to the report.

"Many of my colleagues with whom I spoke share these views and report on their inability to publish their skepticism in the scientific or public media," atmospheric scientist Nathan Paldor, professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, said in the report.

The IPCC has about 2,500 members.

HEATED DEBATE

The following are comments from some of the more than 400 scientists in a Republican report on global warming:

•"Even if the concentration of 'greenhouse gases' double, man would not perceive the temperature impact."

Oleg Sorochtin of the Institute of Oceanology at the Russian Academy of Sciences

•"I find the Doomsday picture Al Gore is painting — a six-meter sea level rise, 15 times the [U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] number — entirely without merit. ... I protest vigorously the idea that the climate reacts like a home heating system to a changed setting of the thermostat: just turn the dial, and the desired temperature will soon be reached."

Atmospheric scientist Hendrik Tennekes, former research director at the Netherlands' Royal National Meteorological Institute

•"The hypothesis that solar variability and not human activity is warming the oceans goes a long way to explain the puzzling idea that the Earth's surface may be warming while the atmosphere is not. The [greenhouse-gas] hypothesis does not do this. ... The public is not well served by this constant drumbeat of false alarms fed by computer models manipulated by advocates."

David Wojick, expert reviewer for U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

•"The media is promoting an unprecedented hyping related to global warming. The media and many scientists are ignoring very important facts that point to a natural variation in the climate system as the cause of the recent global warming."

Chief Meteorologist Eugenio Hackbart of the MetSul Meteorologia Weather Center in Sao Leopoldo-Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil

•"There's no need to be worried. It's very interesting to study [climate change], but there's no need to be worried."

Anton Uriarte, a professor of physical geography at the University of the Basque Country in Spain

Source: Sen. James M. Inhofe of Oklahoma, ranking Republican on the Environment and Public Works Committe

Point being it's not joint science that put them in this group, only that they disagree to mainstream science. The article you link to looks like it is written on another planet, I barely ever see any science concluding the fears for global warming are exaggerated given (apart from some US websites). That much is uncertain can in reality mean two things:

1. it will not be as warm
2. it will be even warmer than predicted

Saying much is uncertain is a non-argument.

What is certain is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and that since the industrial revolution human activites has increased the atmospheric concentrations of CO2 with an amazing 31%.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Point being it's not joint science that put them in this group, only that they disagree to mainstream science. The article you link to looks like it is written on another planet, I barely ever see any science concluding the fears for global warming are exaggerated given (apart from some US websites).

Aye. But the problem isn't limited to fringe websites. The problem is the politisation, and the external funding, of much science. This problem is more pronounced in the US then elsewhere. You can buy any science you want in America. The techniques for raising doubt and scientific controversy are well established, and always the same, be it global warming, intelligent design, Acid Rain or the Ozone / CFC problem.

The last two debates are the most sobering, as they both bear such excruciatingly frustrating similarities to the Global Warming debate.

The hole in the Ozone layer environmental disaster was thankfully twarthed when the US chemical giant Dupont gained a patent on CFC substitutes. Overnight, the skeptics dissapeared and the US government changed from opposing CFC reducing measures to being it's biggest proponent.

Oh, I must not forget to mention the humorous irony of the names of the leading US congressional ozone hole skeptics: Doolittle and DeLay.

The good stuff is all in this article here, not in my post. It lists the techniques of the skeptics, and has a warning to environmentalists too:

Unfortunately, it appears that we have not learned our lesson from the past 30 years' experience with the ozone-CFC debate. Once again, we find a theory that has wide support in the scientific community being attacked by a handful of skeptics, publishing outside of the peer-reviewed scientific literature, their voices greatly amplified by the public relations machines of powerful corporations and politicians sympathetic to them. And once again, some environmentalists have responded by presenting a distorted or imbalanced version of the facts, often colored by excessive emphasis on the low-probability scenarios of doom, that the popular press is only too eager to repeat, since prophesies of disaster sell. A balanced and truthful treatment of the Global Warming debate that focuses on presenting an unbiased version of our current scientific understanding is difficult to find. .

[Adrian II]

The good stuff is all in this article here, not in my post. It lists the techniques of the skeptics, and has a warning to environmentalists too:

Oh poppycock. I'll raise you a peer-reviewed scientist and skeptic, Bjorn Lomborg, whose new book Cool It I am reading at the moment. Take this episode concerning the 2001 IPCC report, the first IPCC-document in which the science was openly and shamelessly exchanged for political rhetoric:

The wording of the text changed from ‘there has been a discernible human influence on global climate’ to this line finally included in the official summary: ‘Most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations.’ Yet when asked by New Scientist about the scientific background for this change, Tim Higham, spokesman for the UN Environment Program, responded: ‘There was no new science, but the scientists wanted to present a clear and strong message to policymakers.’

There you go. Science is being 'bought' by governments and UN bodies as well. Whether you and I should buy into it is an entirely different matter.

The scientific track record of environmentalists isn't exactly clean either. Just think of the fossil fuel panic, DDT, the 'global cooling' scare.

I agree that 'science' can be bought, but science can not. 'Climate science' as we know it from today's mass media is a pseudo-religion, a moral argument dressed in scientific garb but with no concomitant substance. A lot of people are going to feel very embarrassed twenty-five years from now.

[JR-]

broadly agreed.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Oh poppycock. I'll raise you a peer-reviewed scientist and skeptic, Bjorn Lomborg, whose new book Cool It I am reading at the moment. Take this episode concerning the 2001 IPCC report, the first IPCC-document in which the science was openly and shamelessly exchanged for political rhetoric:

The wording of the text changed from ‘there has been a discernible human influence on global climate’ to this line finally included in the official summary: ‘Most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations.’ Yet when asked by New Scientist about the scientific background for this change, Tim Higham, spokesman for the UN Environment Program, responded: ‘There was no new science, but the scientists wanted to present a clear and strong message to policymakers.’

There you go. Science is being 'bought' by governments and UN bodies as well. Whether you and I should buy into it is an entirely different matter.

The scientific track record of environmentalists isn't exactly clean either. Just think of the fossil fuel panic, DDT, the 'global cooling' scare.

I agree that 'science' can be bought, but science can not. 'Climate science' as we know it from today's mass media is a pseudo-religion, a moral argument dressed in scientific garb but with no concomitant substance. A lot of people are going to feel very embarrassed twenty-five years from now.

Stercore tauri, Adrian.

I would agree with your post up until the last paragraph. In fact, I already did: 'environmentalists have responded by presenting a distorted or imbalanced version of the facts, often colored by excessive emphasis on the low-probability scenarios of doom, that the popular press is only too eager to repeat, since prophesies of disaster sell. A balanced and truthful treatment of the Global Warming debate that focuses on presenting an unbiased version of our current scientific understanding is difficult to find.'

It is a pseudo-religion, complete with end-of-the-world eschatologies, abstination, penance, punishment by a higher entity for mortal man's sins. It places man outside of nature, humans are said to interfere with nature, as if the two are seperate spheres. The Middle Ages are not over indeed.

However, underneath it all, there is solid science. Human activity is having an impact on the climate.
(It always has had, of course, even termites are responsible for the environment of the African savannah. Global warming is nothing compared to the clearing of Europe's forrests in the past two millenia. A few thousand years ago, an Irish Elk could walk through an uninterrupted forrest from Siberia all the way to Spain, where it would be eaten by lions. But I digress...)
Let me be more precise: carbondioxide emissions impact the earth's climate. It changed the earth's climate over the hundreds of millions of years during which it was substracted from the atmosphere, and it changes it now that it is released back again, in a few centuries. Not even your darling queen of the skeptics, Bjørn Lomborg, denies this. The more important questions are, does it matter, and, in accordance with LomBorg, are we using our resources to their best effect to combat any possible consequences?

The fun in my post was also to show how the roles have been reversed: the Americans solved the Ozone-CFC problem, against stern European opposition and skepticism. How? Because there was a clear solution, there was a direct economic incentive, because only thirty nations were involved in the Montreal agreement, and each nation only had a small delegation of a few persons. How very different from the congresses on global warming. Bali was an excercise in organising a congress that was bound to serve absolutely nothing. If you want to make sure that nothing constructive will come out of it, this was how to go about it.

[econ21]

Oh poppycock. I'll raise you a peer-reviewed scientist and skeptic, Bjorn Lomborg, whose new book Cool It I am reading at the moment.

Lomborg's an interesting chap, but he is not a scientist - as in natural scientist. He's got a PhD in political science, which is not quite the same thing. I'm not sure Lomborg brings more to the subject in technical terms than you or I could, although I admit he has written on it a lot. His most famous publications on global warming are in newspapers and books. I am not aware of him publishing in peer-reviewed natural science journals. (If he has, I'll wager it is not the kind of original techncial research that would qualify as the science of global warming IMO.)

[Adrian II]

Lomborg's an interesting chap, but he is not a scientist - as in natural scientist. He's got a PhD in political science, which is not quite the same thing.

Bjorn Lomborg is associate professor of statistics at Aarhus University. He may not be a biologist or meteorologist, but biologists and meteorologists sometimes make poor statisticians. Lomborg's criticism of certain global warming theories focused on their calculations and predictions, not their biological or meteorological expertise.

My remark about him having been peer-reviewed was a bit of an insider joke, directed at all those who are aware of the controversy caused by Lomborg's first book The Skeptical Environmentalist. That book has been subjected to the mother of all peer-reviews by the Danish Committee for Scientific Dishonesty, by a scientific panel of the Danish Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation, and by various other bodies including both Danish and foreign environmentalist institutes...

[English assassin]

I'll raise you a peer-reviewed scientist and skeptic, Bjorn Lomborg

OK. So, that's one. I realise science isn't democracy or a popularity contest, but could you stack up a few more?

As for the scaremongering, well, gee, waddaya know, I guess if you want to get something done, you have to present the story in language the media understands. When my clients come to see me they want to know if they will win their case*. If I say "yes", its not dumbing down, its not shooting from the hip, its just that they don't want (and to be honest here are not going to understand) a day long lecture on a hundred years of case law and experience gained over longer than I admit to remember in practice.

Doesn't mean the answer isn't "yes" though.


(*or they would if I was a litigator.)

[Adrian II]

OK. So, that's one. I realise science isn't democracy or a popularity contest, but could you stack up a few more?

They are all over the place if you just look for them. Over one hundred scientists -- including prominent climatologists, geologists, marine biologists, etc. -- sent an open letter to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon during the Bali conference.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

National Post
Thursday, December 13, 2007

Open Letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations Dec. 13, 2007

His Excellency Ban Ki-Moon Secretary-General, United Nations New York, N.Y.

Dear Mr. Secretary-General,

Re: UN climate conference taking the World in entirely the wrong direction

It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages. Geological, archaeological, oral and written histories all attest to the dramatic challenges posed to past societies from unanticipated changes in temperature, precipitation, winds and other climatic variables. We therefore need to equip nations to become resilient to the full range of these natural phenomena by promoting economic growth and wealth generation.

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued increasingly alarming conclusions about the climatic influences of human-produced carbon dioxide (CO2), a non-polluting gas that is essential to plant photosynthesis. While we understand the evidence that has led them to view CO2 emissions as harmful, the IPCC's conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity. In particular, it is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions. On top of which, because attempts to cut emissions will slow development, the current UN approach of CO2 reduction is likely to increase human suffering from future climate change rather than to decrease it.

The IPCC Summaries for Policy Makers are the most widely read IPCC reports amongst politicians and non-scientists and are the basis for most climate change policy formulation. Yet these Summaries are prepared by a relatively small core writing team with the final drafts approved line-by-line by government representatives. The great majority of IPCC contributors and reviewers, and the tens of thousands of other scientists who are qualified to comment on these matters, are not involved in the preparation of these documents. The summaries therefore cannot properly be represented as a consensus view among experts.

Contrary to the impression left by the IPCC Summary reports: - Recent observations of phenomena such as glacial retreats, sea-level rise and the migration of temperature-sensitive species are not evidence for abnormal climate change, for none of these changes has been shown to lie outside the bounds of known natural variability. - The average rate of warming of 0.1 to 0. 2 degrees Celsius per decade recorded by satellites during the late 20th century falls within known natural rates of warming and cooling over the last 10,000 years. - Leading scientists, including some senior IPCC representatives, acknowledge that today's computer models cannot predict climate. Consistent with this, and despite computer projections of temperature rises, there has been no net global warming since 1998. That the current temperature plateau follows a late 20th-century period of warming is consistent with the continuation today of natural multi-decadal or millennial climate cycling.

In stark contrast to the often repeated assertion that the science of climate change is "settled," significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming. But because IPCC working groups were generally instructed (see http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/docs/ wg1_timetable_2006-08-14.pdf) to consider work published only through May, 2005, these important findings are not included in their reports; i.e., the IPCC assessment reports are already materially outdated.

The UN climate conference in Bali has been planned to take the world along a path of severe CO2 restrictions, ignoring the lessons apparent from the failure of the Kyoto Protocol, the chaotic nature of the European CO2 trading market, and the ineffectiveness of other costly initiatives to curb greenhouse gas emissions. Balanced cost/benefit analyses provide no support for the introduction of global measures to cap and reduce energy consumption for the purpose of restricting CO2 emissions. Furthermore, it is irrational to apply the "precautionary principle" because many scientists recognize that both climatic coolings and warmings are realistic possibilities over the medium-term future.

The current UN focus on "fighting climate change," as illustrated in the Nov. 27 UN Development Programme's Human Development Report, is distracting governments from adapting to the threat of inevitable natural climate changes, whatever forms they may take. National and international planning for such changes is needed, with a focus on helping our most vulnerable citizens adapt to conditions that lie ahead. Attempts to prevent global climate change from occurring are ultimately futile, and constitute a tragic misallocation of resources that would be better spent on humanity's real and pressing problems.

Yours faithfully, [List of signatories below] Copy to: Heads of state of countries of the signatory persons.

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gerhard Gerlich, Professor for Mathematical and Theoretical Physics, Institut fur 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 Karner, 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 fur 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

Copyright © 2007 CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest MediaWorks Publications, Inc.. All rights reserved.

National Post linky

And a recent U.S. Senate Report mentions 400 skeptic scientists in the relevant fields of expertise.

[Cheetah]

The fact that the effect is within observed natural ranges does not mean that it is not there (i.e. actually they agree that it is there). Also, that the effect (as yet) is within natural ranges does not imply that it is actually a "natural" effect i.e. not caused by humans.

As to the opening question: cultists not, warming yes. Actually the name is misleading but it is a long story.

[econ21]

Bjorn Lomborg is associate professor of statistics at Aarhus University.

Well, he was. He left Aarhus in 2005. He's now at Copenhagen. More importantly, he was in the Department of Political Science. He is now in a Business School. He has no academic qualifications as a statistician. True Professors of Statistics are employed in Maths Departments. All Lomborg did was teach stats to his social science students. (I've also taught statistics to social science students - it's not rocket science, they struggle to understand hypothesis testing.)

He may not be a biologist or meteorologist, but biologists and meteorologists sometimes make poor statisticians. Lomborg's criticism of certain global warming theories focused on their calculations and predictions, not their biological or meteorological expertise.

Indeed, but where I came in was your offering him up as one scientist who was sceptical of climate change. I think when people ask for a scientist who is sceptical of climate change, they are asking for someone in the natural sciences who is near the top of their discipline. Lomborg is at best a user of such science, not a producer of it.

My remark about him having been peer-reviewed was a bit of an insider joke, directed at all those who are aware of the controversy caused by Lomborg's first book The Skeptical Environmentalist. That book has been subjected to the mother of all peer-reviews by the Danish Committee for Scientific Dishonesty, by a scientific panel of the Danish Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation, and by various other bodies including both Danish and foreign environmentalist institutes...

Apparently, Lomborg's only peer-reviewed work in an academic journal is unconnected to statistics or climate change. ("Nucleus and Shield: Evolution of Social Structure in the Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma" in the American Sociological Review.)

[Louis VI the Fat]

Open Letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations Dec. 13, 2007

This is a political letter, with political and economical recommendations. It's signatories should not have been climatologists and geologists, but economists.

Where it does touch on climatological issues, the letter is tendentious to such an extent that I doubt the scientific integrity, at least, the intellectual honesty, of the signatories.

[JR-]

i do not.