1. J.Emerick | 06.13.08

Since when did rational skepticism become “denial”.

I’ve watched the coverage of the AGW question for several years now and, since I have a fairly extensive background in information technology, watched with particular interest how closely actual data would conform to computer-modeled predictions.

Frankly, the conclusion I have drawn from the publication of such data as it has become available is that the answer is “not very”. The modeled predictions for AGW time and time again have been contradicted, not corroborated, by observed data. And far from there being any sort of overwhelming scientific consensus regarding AGW, there rather appears to be growing scientific debate engendered by these contradictions as to how severe AGW actually is, or even if it exists at all. Further scientific discussion is growing about the role of possible causation factors other the CO2 such as the Antarctic ozone hole, solar energy fluctuations, etc. That’s good, because that is what true science is all about - getting to the heart of the facts that prove or disprove the theory.

Thanks to such controversy over the AGW theory, both the quality and quantity of observed data has increased significantly over the last two or three decades, including long term studies such as the British Meteorological Society’s 30-year troposphere temperature survey or the ten-year database from the Argo ocean drift probes. Time and time again, such observed data shows either far less warming or no temperature increase at all or, more recently, actual temperature decrease on a global scale.

It appears to be now widely accepted, even by many of the most rabid AGW proponents, that we are now in a cooling trend and have been since global temperatures peaked around 1997 and that the trend may have accelerated slightly since 2003. Somewhat alarming are recent reports that we have seen an almost .8 degree Celsius average decrease in global temperature readings over the last sixteen months - wiping out the approximately .5 degree Celsius increase recorded over almost three decades that did so much to feed the more emotional AGW advocacy (I expect the “coming Ice Age” Cassandras to start up after a couple of more good hard winters, but that is a subject for another discussion).

The scientific argument now seems to be shifting to whether or not this evident cooling trend is simply another short-term anomaly interrupting an overall long-term warming trend or that it is in itself a long-term continuation of the climate cycle. It is interesting to note that even the language of the argument has been shifting, with “global warming” increasingly being replaced by “climate change” as the growing observed temperature database refuses to support modeled predictions.

Given all of this, some healthy skepticism over the more extreme claims coming from AGW advocates (”twenty meter rise in sea level, disappearance of all Arctic sea ice, etc.) would seem to be warranted. In the end, AGW remains a scientific theory, based in uncomfortably large part upon computer modeling that has shown itself to be very inexact science at best and downright wrong at worst (for example, the NASA algorthms whose flaws were discovered and published by Stephen McIntyre and which NASA later acknowledged were incorrect).

Given this, any forecasts based upon these AGW models should continue to be subjected to very close examination and rigid comparison with hard scientific data before conclusions are drawn that are to be used as the basis for setting in place public policies that could cost billions of dollars and seriously derange multiple enconomies without actually solving a problem that might or might not exist. That’s not denial - it is simple common sense.

2. C.Altemose | 06.13.08

Sir,

Unfortunately a ‘fairly extensive background in information technology’ does not equal a degree in science. I myself do not have one, but I trust the scientists. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the largest body of scientists ever assembled in the history of humanity to evaluate a single issue, has decided that climate change IS happening, and that we ARE causing it. In your long criticism, you fail to refer to a single reputable scientist who hasn’t been laughed out of every scientific circle he travels in (or even ANY scientist, for that matter).

Are you really so confident that everyone else is wrong that you are willing to bet the fate of humanity? If I said to you “there’s a 10% chance you will die if you get on a plane tomorrow,” would you get on the plane?

Probably not. Well the smartest scientists in the world are saying there’s a 95% chance that millions of people will die if we continue polluting. But hey, what are millions of lives compared to the joy of driving humvees?

3. Mike Higgins | 06.14.08

31,000+ American scientists (including 9,000+ Ph.Ds) reject the idea of man-made global warming, as follows:
“There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”

See the list of their names, as well as the peer-reviewed research paper they support, “Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide,” at http://www.oism.org/pproject/.

They further state that, “A review of the research literature concerning the environmental consequences of increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide leads to the conclusion that increases during the 20th Century have produced no deleterious effects upon global weather, climate, or temperature. Increased carbon dioxide has, however, markedly increased plant growth rates. Predictions of harmful climatic effects due to future increases in minor greenhouse gases like CO2 are in error and do not conform to current experimental knowledge.”

John Coleman, founder of The Weather Channel and a life-long student of Earthʻs climate goes even further, “It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM. Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create an illusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental whacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the “research” to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus.”

“I have dug through thousands of pages of research papers, including the voluminous documents published by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I have worked my way through complicated math and complex theories. Here’s the bottom line: the entire global warming scientific case is based on the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from the use of fossil fuels. They don’t have any other issue. Carbon Dioxide, that’s it.”

He continues, “Here is the deal about CO2, carbon dioxide. It is a natural component of our atmosphere. It has been there since time began. It is absorbed and emitted by the oceans. It is used by every living plant to trigger photosynthesis. Nothing would be green without it. And we humans; we create it. Every time we breathe out, we emit carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. It is not a pollutant. It is not smog. It is a naturally occurring invisible gas.”

Finally, he says, “Numerous independent research projects have been done about the greenhouse impact from increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide. These studies have proven to my total satisfaction that CO2 is not creating a major greenhouse effect and is not causing an increase in temperatures… I am very serious about this issue. I think stamping out the global warming scam is vital to saving our wonderful way of life.”

Much more in his comments about the history of the global warming scam and why it continues to be perpetuated by the media and those in and around the federal government for their own personal and career benefit. Read it at http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/19842304.html.

4. JLK | 06.14.08

Altemouse (nice name)
I will start with Lindzer who is a climatologist from MIT and one of the most respected in the country until you fanatics started bashing him. If you would like to leave your e Mail address, I will send you the first 2 dozen or so who ARE respected scientists AND know climatology. Next I will start with the Astrophysicists if you don’t mind who have been tracking the sun and ACTUAL temp readings. Then we can go to the geologists who are finding evidence of sun activity matching temperature fluctuations over the last few hundred thousand years (complete with increased CO2 levels).
The IPCC has a few climatologists but mostly zoologists enviro scientists anthropologists etc. By the way where did Gore get his degreein science? He seems to have a credible voice with the church community. I can almost guarantee you Mr Emerick has more knowledge (not to mention intelligence) in his little finger than Gore has in his whole very large body. (I know his background)
Now if you want to play name the REAL scientist I would be glad to name two for your one complete with CV’s. Guaranteed. Are you up to it?
JLK

5. Paulidan | 06.14.08

Emissions having no effect is not the same as the chemical CO2 causing increases in global mean temperature.

6. Mike Higgins | 06.14.08

Well said, JLK…

31,000+ American Scientists (9,000+ Ph.Ds) Reject Man-Made Global Warming
“There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”

“A review of the research literature concerning the environmental consequences of increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide leads to the conclusion that increases during the 20th Century have produced no deleterious effects upon global weather, climate, or temperature. Increased carbon dioxide has, however, markedly increased plant growth rates. Predictions of harmful climatic effects due to future increases in minor greenhouse gases like CO2 are in error and do not conform to current experimental knowledge.”

Visit http://www.oism.org/pproject/ to see the list and read the peer-reviewed research report that they support.

7. bulgarian solicitor | 06.14.08

The Monitor could have been a little more specific on this one - it is actually 74% of Republican Senators not “Congressional Republicans.”

8. Eoin | 06.14.08

Regarding JLKs comment, it’s worth pointing out that there is nobody named “Lindzer” on the faculty of MIT.

See for yourself: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=o8V&q=site%3Awww.mit.edu+Lindzer&btnG=Search

9. J.Emerick | 06.14.08

Mr. Altemose-

Regarding the IPCC, please carefully read the following quote:

“we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public imagination ..So we have to offer up scary scenarios make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts….each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest”

That quote was, as I understand it, made by a Professor Stephen Schneider of Stanford University who is prominent in the IPCC.

I to have a very high regard for science - science that follows the facts to a logical conclusion and that statement above frankly scares the hell out of me because when persuasion takes priority over facts, what you have is no longer science.

Any “scientist” who makes such a statement does not merit the name. Any organization who retains such a person as part of their structure any longer than it takes to demand his ouster surrenders any pretense of scientific objectivity or credibility.

Close examination of the past predictions and conclusions of the IPCC - many of whose public reports and statments are drafted in the main by political non-scientific functionaries with more of an eye to sensational headlines rather than careful analysis - reveals a pretty poor track record at prognostication that certainly shouldn’t be a basis for public policy.

I share your high regard for true scientists and their profession. However, a very wise man once said, “trust, but verify”. It’s the best advice I can think of when looking at the AGW theory.

Finally, one of the great problems I have with discussions about this issue is that, for too many, it has become a sort of “zero sum” proposition. Skepticism regarding AGW does NOT mean an automatic endorsement of pollution or wasteful use of finite resources. I can give you a couple of dozen sound scientific, economic and esthetic reasons why we should be moving away from fossil fuels for transport and power generation. However, none of them have anything to do with the unlikely possibility that we are going to “bet the fate of humanity” if we don’t unquestioningly accept the conclusions of a single increasingly discredited organization. That is an emotional argument - not a rational one.

10. Ben Jacobs | 06.14.08

The thing that I find fascinating is this statistic from the article: 95% of Democrats and 26% of Republicans think that human-made global warming is occurring beyond a reasonable doubt. Assuming that both groups are equally intelligent and equally well-informed, one is forced to conclude that at least one of the groups (and possibly both) are letting their world-view cloud their objectivity.

J. Emerick touched on the real point: it hardly matters. Global warming aside, we need to wean ourselves off of fossil fuels anyway, for a dozen reasons that we can all name; this has been evident at least since the 1970’s.

If your doctor tells you that you need to lose weight or you might develop diabetes, yes, you can argue with your doctor that the link between obesity and diabetes has not been fully established. But that’s not really the point, is it?

11. eric | 06.14.08

A very interesting discussion. I was quite curious as to where the 31000 signatures of “scientists” may have come from. So I did my own unscientific study of 10 randomly picked names from the petition. My study was not totally random in that I only chose signers who listed a PhD after their name. Although 10 is a small number, I expected that I would find at least one who had even a distant connection to climatology - but not to be. It was actually quite humorous and reminded me of how desperate people can become in trying to justify their beliefs. So - I did a Google search on each of the ten names. Here is what I came up with:
Five of the names came up with no hits (pretty amazing, given that even being a minor author on any published paper will get you a hit on Google).
One person had a patent application for a new form of polyester
One was the chairman of the Department of Chelation Therapy
One was a solid-state physicist
One was a specialist in water quality
One was a Professor of English
One was a computer scientist.
There was not a single mention of “climate” in relation to any of them, other than that they were signers of the petition.
This would be comical if it weren’t so serious.

12. J.Emerick | 06.15.08

A clarification -

The scientist that JLK is referring to is Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at MIT.

Link to his biography: http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen.htm

Link to an very pertinent article: http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html

He makes very interesting reading.

13. Barry | 06.15.08

Eoin:
JLK made a typographical error, he actually shoud have written Richard LINDZEN: http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen.htm and you should be familiar enough with this topic that the error should have been obvious since Dick is highly regarded as an atmospheric physicist by both sides of the debate.
You should also know that realclimate is an activist front site established and funded by Fenton Communications which moderates out all dissenting views regardless of the qualifications of people holding them (even Professors Roger Pielke, senior and junior, fail to get simple queries past activist moderation).
Finally, there are a lot more than 78 Congressmen so your survey margin for error is rather large.
You really need to learn a lot more about whether this is an issue or not prior to blogging on it. The above item is simple green pap and brings nothing to the debate.

14. eric | 06.15.08

It would also be humorous (if it weren’t so serious) that although Emerick states (with no reference) that recent years have reflected a cooling trend, the British weather service reports that the ten hottest years on record on this earth include 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007. Hmmm - there must be a cooling trend in there someplace.

15. JLK | 06.15.08

Sorry about the typo Eoin or whatever…try Lindzen and if that is the best you can do go back to your high school debate class and leave this debate for the grownups.

Eric you make a good point but I am not sure that your 10 out of 30000 is a very good sampling.But you are right, the survey specifically says either graduate or post graduate background in hard sciences are allowed. So out of 30000 you will get quite a few non meteorologists or climatologists since I doubt if there is even half that number in the world.
But I do have a question. How many climatologists are on the IPCC, out of how many signatories (please don’t include those who withdrew their signatures).
In all honesty (no sarcasm) I would like to know because for me at least it has been hard to track down the list of names. I see so many organizations pushing AGW whose founder’s cv’s include lawyers, Zoologists, Ecologists or other unrelated discipline.
Can you serious guys help me out here?
Thanks
JLK

16. Derek Elliott | 06.15.08

“Alaska says it will sue to challenge the listing of polar bears as a threatened species. The designation could block vital oil and gas development. But that was the whole point in the first place…

On April 24 the World Wildlife Fund published a study, based on last September’s data, showing Arctic ice has shrunk from 13 million square kilometers to just 3 million.

What the WWF omitted was that by March the Arctic ice had recovered to 14 million square kilometers and that ice-cover around the Bering Strait and Alaska was at the highest level ever recorded.

We dare to ask how the ice-loving polar bear survived much warmer pre-SUV periods than we are now experiencing, the most recent period being about 6,000 years ago, before Al Gore was born. The species has survived warming and cooling for millennia.”

http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?status=article&id=296348654847602&secid=1501

17. Derek Elliott | 06.15.08

The Toxicity of Environmentalism, George Reisman’s 1990 essay.
“This is an essay, as topical today as when it was first written, which lays bare the hidden agenda of the movement and skewers its every aspect, especially the notion that global warming, real or imagined, is an excuse for collectivist control of the economic system.”
http://www.mises.org/story/1927

18. jurassicpork | 06.15.08

What do expect from a clown like Inhofe, a guy who brought a right wing sci-fi writer (Michael Crichton) to Congress to “prove” global warming is a hoax?

19. Craig Moore | 06.15.08

The propaganda nature of the article’s title says more about the politics of the author than about the congressman. There are many climate forcing sources, both natural and manmade, that leave us only with theory rather than established science to guide us. To tax the US economy to the tune of almost $7 trillion dollars under the failed and deeply flawed cap and trade bill that focused on only ONE climate forcing, carbon, would have been the height of arrogance and a fraud on the people as the temperature would not have been changed by one degree from the pork barrel projects embedded in the democrats bill.

20. Derek Elliott | 06.15.08

“And remember the Arctic Sea ice? The ice we were told so hysterically last fall had melted to its “lowest levels on record? Never mind that those records only date back as far as 1972 and that there is anthropological and geological evidence of much greater melts in the past.

The ice is back.

Gilles Langis, a senior forecaster with the Canadian Ice Service in Ottawa, says the Arctic winter has been so severe the ice has not only recovered, it is actually 10 to 20 cm thicker in many places than at this time last year.”

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=332289

21. J.Emerick | 06.15.08

Jurrasicpork-

You should be aware that “right wing sci-fi writer” “graduated summa cum laude from Harvard College, received his MD from Harvard Medical School, and was a postdoctoral fellow at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies”. He has a forty year background in computer modeling study in relationship to medicine and has published for peer review on that subject as well as several others. He has also taught at MIT (writing) and Cambridge (anthropology). So I think you’ll agree that he is fairly well versed in the scientific method and has some credibility when discussing scientific data and data modeling. And, yes, he does write novels and films - it’s a living.

He is also a well-known PROPONENT of a global warming trend, he has been predicting publicly since 2004 a gradual rise in world temperature of about .8C.

However, he does disagree STRONGLY (I wish we could underline on this site, so everyone please see my ALL CAPS as underlined or italicized rather than shouting - thank you) with the more extreme claims from AGW, especially claims based upon bad science and poor data analysis, and no, he does not think much of the IPCC. He sumarized those disagreements in a talk to the National Press Club in early 2005, which he has rendered into an article on his site with additional data and citations. Here’s the link:

http://www.crichton-official.com/speech-ourenvironmentalfuture.html

He was not trying to “prove” Global Warming was a “hoax” - he was examining the serious data collection and analytical flaws that exist in many sectors trying to turn the wilder claims from AGW supporters into a basis for public policy and their potential for serious unforseen consequences.

Finally, examines flaws in some famous AGW shibboleths including the “Hockey Stick” temperature graph in devastating detail - this may be the best analysis of McKitrick and McIntyre’s extraordinary forensic work in uncovering the original errors that created the graph that I have seen.

What he said was a bit complex, but very thought-provoking, and I encourage anyone doing more than a casual examination of the climate change question to read it.

22. Derek Elliott | 06.15.08

“In last Tuesday’s NRO, Lawrence Solomon reminded us that Lieberman-Warner is based primarily upon the premise that there exists “scientific consensus on [manmade] global warming.” And that this over-talked talking point is based largely upon the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s headline of “2500 Scientific Expert Reviewers.”…

Solomon contacted the Secretariat of the IPCC to learn the names of these 2,500 scientists and just what exactly they endorsed. Writes Solomon:

“I planned to canvas them to determine their precise views. The answer that came back from the Secretariat informed me that the names were not public, so I would not be able to survey them, and that the scientists were merely reviewers. The 2,500 had not endorsed the conclusions of the report and, in fact, the IPCC had not claimed that they did. Journalists had jumped to the conclusion that the scientists the IPCC had touted were endorsers and the IPCC never saw fit to correct the record. There is no consensus of 2,500 scientist-endorsers. Moreover, many of those 2,500 reviewers turned thumbs down on the studies that they reviewed - I know this from my own interviews with them, conducted in the course of writing a book about scientists who dispute the conventional wisdom on climate change.”"

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/06/congress_fiddled_with_warming.html

23. JLK | 06.15.08

To Derek
Thanks for the input on IPCC scientists. I am making a list of the scientists on both sides (with CV’s)and am having trouble finding many that will admit to being members of the church. I have found dozens on the skeptic side but only a handful on the pro side outside of the usual suspects like Hansen and Zoologist hacks like Suzuki.
Maybe I should spend more time on realclimate to get Hansen’s protegee’s POV. He must mention a few, but it sure is hard to read.
JLK
PS To J Emerick…Nice riposte!
PPS To Derek I am also writing a book on business philosophy. (I am a

24. JLK | 06.15.08

Sorry the post decided to “post” on its own.
Anyway to Derek…I am also writing a macro econ book and several chapters are dedicated to my theories on individual axioms and how they evolve into concventional wisdom when they hit the mainstream. Somewhat similar to “Cascade Theory”.But it is appropo to the AGW myth as it was an axiom from the minds of Hansen, Mann and a few others that became CW.
So scientific rigor be damned, full speed ahead in tackling the wrong issues with taxes, curbing of freedoms etc. So when we find ourselves without power or drinking water who will be the next straw man to take the blame?(Sorry guys Dubya will be long gone) And how will we pay for these problems after spending 100’s of billions on the wrong threat?
JLK

25. Ron Pavellas | 06.16.08

Use of the word “believe,” or any of its variants, undermines the argument of any side.

There can be no doubt that climate has always and will always “change.” We should look to see who would profit by effectively arguing any side of the following question: “Can Man do something significant about climate change in the short term–say 25 years, or the span one human generation?” (”Follow the money”).

I ask: “If Man can do something significant about climate change, can we conclude with certainty, and without resorting to the use of the word “believe” or its variants, that in doing it Man will not make things worse for succeeding generations?”

Note that the first part of the Oath of Hippocrates is interpreted as “First, do no harm.” If we set out to be “doctor to the Earth,” this should be our first consideration.

(N.B. “Man” refers to all humans).

26. Brad Arnold | 06.16.08

“Father forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing:”

The pro-carbon lobby is looking for gaps in climate science the way creationists are questioning Darwinian evolution. These people are no “skeptics”. Real skepticism, inherent in science, makes no prior assumptions and is evidence based. The view of the atmosphere as a legitimate open sewer for human-generated carbon gases, makes the prior assumption no anthropogenic global warming takes place, then proceeds to look for errors, real or imaginary, in climate science. –Dr Andrew Glikson, Earth and paleoclimate scientist, Australian National University

Long-time greens are painfully aware that the arguments of global warming skeptics are like zombies in a ’70s B movie. They get shot, stabbed, and crushed, over and over again, but they just keep lurching to their feet and staggering forward. That’s because — news flash! — climate skepticism is an ideological, not a scientific, position, and as such it bears only a tenuous relationship to scientific rules of evidence and inference. –David Roberts, The Nation, 24 February 2008

27. Paul Schierhorn | 06.16.08

Thanks to all for a serious discussion with a minimum of name-calling. For political, if not scientific, reasons, we must wean ourselves from fossil fuels to take power out of others’ hands and put that power back in our own.

And what if, by the time we as a people decide we ARE fouling the atmosphere, it’s too late to do anything about it?

28. Tom Davidson | 06.16.08

RE: Eoin’s response (#9) to JLK’s comments (#5) -
Don’t get hung up on a common typo. Richard Lindze_n_ IS a Professor at MIT. More about him here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen

29. Eoin | 06.16.08

Thanks J. Emerick, Barry, and JLK for alerting me to the existence of Richard Lindzen. As each of you have correctly observed, I am not very familiar with the heroes of the global warming deniers movement, but your links have made me a little more so.

Anyone who is interested should check out Lindzen’s Wikipedia entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen

As well as this factsheet from Greenpeace that details his financial links with the energy industry:

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=17

30. J.Emerick | 06.16.08

Something that stands out for me in many of these posts seems to be an automatic and unquestioned assumption that carbon, in the form of CO2, is the primary, if not sole cause of AGW. This, of course, excludes the roles of methane and other aerosol gasses, both naturally occuring and man-made, as well as other potential causes.

While CO2 comprises about three-quarters of the so-called greenhouse gasses, methane and other aerosols are actually much more efficient heat trappers - yet it is carbon that gets the focus (”carbon-neutral”, “carbon trading”, etc.), the press and the money. Why, for example, are there no concerted efforts for various entities to be “methane-neutral”?

There are other assumptions operating within these posts. There is, of course, the assumption that there is a global warming pattern beyond that of a normal climate cycle dating roughly from around 1920 to the end of the ’90’s.

This appears to be increasingly contradicted by newer, more extensive and more accurate temperature baseline data. As one example, the recent ten-year ARGO ocean drift probe temperature data showed that there simply is no global ocean warming - something that pretty much every AGW model says has to occur. It isn’t. Why?

A bit of anecdotal information; icebergs are once again being sighted in the waters off New Zealand - for the first time in 75 years - indicating that the ocean currents in that area have cooled. What does that mean?

There is the assumption that that any abnormal warming (which may or may not be occuring) is SOLELY (please remember my earlier note about underlining - this is emphasis, not shouting) due to one human activity, specifically the production of excess CO2 (and other, at this point unregulated, “greenhouse” emissions) primarilly from the use of fossil fuels.

This assumption excludes any other causal possibility - e.g. solar activity, heat concentration in urban areas, human population increase (there are slightly more than twice as many people breathing on this planet than there were when I arrived), changes in planetary reflectivity due to deforestation or agriculture, changes in the ozone layer (the Antarctic “hole”), regular cyclic climate changes, etc. Is there currently any conclusive scientific evidence to, at this point in time, support such exclusion of any or all of these alternative causal factors?

Annecdotal information again - graphs of certain patterns of solar activity (not just sunspots - I can see that one coming) match up far more closely over 10, 20 and 30-year time spans with observed global temperature patterns than do most of the computer-based climate models’ temperature predictions. Why?

There is the assumption that global temperature readings have been extensive and accurate over a long enough period to provide a reliable statistical baseline on which to base evidence of an abnormal rise outside of “normal” climate cycles.

This assumption ignores the fact that relatively accurate global temperature readings only began around the time of WWII, that there was a paucity of such readings from the Southern Hemisphere and that, up until ARGO, ocean temperature readings were confined primarily to shipping lanes (a very small fraction of the overall ocean area) and were therefore regarded as highly inaccurate.

So our baseline of accurate global temperatures to average really only stretches back perhaps sixty years at the most and the further back you go, the less accurate it becomes. How do we factor that extraordinarily short and questionably accurate statistical baseline into evaluation of research concerning possible global warming and climate cycles?

Then there is the assumption that the IPCC is objective, apolitical, scientifically rigerous, correct in their conclusions and is the ONLY body doing serious climate science research.

That assumption remains VERY open to multiple questions, as even a cursory survey of world press commentary and on-going scientific research will demonstrate.

Now, there is nothing wrong with assumptions per se, as long as they are recognized as such. Assumptions are good for generating questions, as you can see. These questions can, and often have been, be a good starting point for real science. However, it is very risky to make decisions and take actions based soley upon the assumptions themselves.

You have a very good chance of getting it wrong.

Case in point, for decades the assumption was that the most effective and proper treatment of stomach ulcers was diet and a reduction of stress - and that there was no cure. A couple of doctors, Robin Warren and Barry Marshall, decided not to accept that assumption and, after some extensive research, concluded from their data that the actual cause in most cases was bacterial and that a simple treatment via antibiotics could actually eliminate the problem.

The two held to that position for almost twenty years, despite being subjected to ridicule within the professional medical establishment as deniers and medical crackpots, until peer review and testing of their published conclusions proved them correct.

The question of climate change, and the question of what public policies, if any, should be adopted and applied to climate change needs to be based upon something other than just assumptions - they need to be based upon hard science, accurate and extensive data and dispassionate analysis and peer review of that data from multiple bodies.

Too much of the proposed public policy that is coming out in response to “climate change” is, in my view, being based upon unquestioning emotion-driven acceptance of assumptions that increasingly cannot withstand logical examination and analysis.

Complexity theory will tell you that, the larger or more complex a problem, the greater the chance that a solution will have unforeseen and unexpected consequences. When you start dealing with nation-state or planetary-level actions and events, complexity increases exponentially.

We (all of us are in this together) are, therefore, in great danger of “getting it wrong”. The mess that the rush to Ethanol and biofuel has created (subsidy abuse, supply dislocations, increasing food prices, incipient starvation and food riots in the Third World, etc.) is on-going proof of the potential for such unforeseen and unexpected consequences by well-intentioned but ill-thought-out public policy creation.

Be skeptical - rational thinking is NOT “denial”. And remember that what seems to be the obvious solution to an obvious problem might well be wrong - and the consequences more real and damaging than those of the original problem.

31. Sam | 06.16.08

EOIN,

Thanks so much for sharing that you think Dr. Richard Lindzen is a paid shill of energy companies. His countless years of leading edge research are now in tatters due to your scorn.

When warmists have no facts to challenge, they invariably throw in the paid stooge/shill line, or ID/Creationist and Tobacco lobby lines, or any manner of slanders trying to discredit dissent as objective and lacking in integrity.

I wonder if you will also now start indicating where all your heroes get their funding from. Which environmentalist sites, Leftist political organizations, etc. are funding these purely scientific, truth-finding articles. How much government funding goes to them vs. all that government money flowing to anyone who would publish studies that make it less likely the government-enlarging scam of AGW will be deemed truthful?

I’m sure I won’t hold my breath waiting for perspective on any grass skirt site like this one.

32. Derek | 06.16.08

Same old arguments…booring. Same propaganda…yaaawwwwnnn. Riddle me this.

So apparently the new prevailing opinion from the folks that brought you Global Warming is that you are a “Denier” if you are on the side of ALL THE EMPIRICAL DATA. Well we’re just learning new stuff every day aren’t we. Holocaust deniers are called such because they deny something that is captured in volumes of record books, film, written accounts, etc etc. But somehow in a world where persistent and increasingly bleak Global Warming predicted temperatures have never come, ocean heating has happened in reverse (ie cooling) and generally nothing has that has been predicted has happened, the people that DON’T believe in Global Warming bear the stigma of the “deniers”.

As popular as this verbage is becoming, nobody has taken a second to make that observation on the complete misuse of the word, especially from a scientific standpoint. Yet you are all so convinced that the science is bulletproof.

Global warming is a scam. I know it is a scam because it was stolen from me. Except I called it the theory of “Stupid People Are Too Stupid To Know How Stupid They Are”. It that context it has proven itself true times over. In the GW context it is only catching on with those who cannot mentally comprehend the incredibly simple concept of “deny”.

33. JLK | 06.16.08

Eoin
I hear you are actually the MODERATOR of this site. Wow and I thought the CSM was politically “neutral”!!
Anyway you have just made all of us denier’s points better then we could. By saying you are “unfamiliar” with any scientists (and there are literally hundreds out there) who disagree with your views. Now I call that real intellectual rigor. Just look at the pages that agree with your preconceived notions.
Even though it is painful, us “deniers” are FORCED to read the pro AGW drivel as it is everywhere. Of course we find very little science but a whole of polemic.You know the usual “neo con, right wing this or that yadda yadda yadda”.
JLK
PS Again if you would like the list I am compiling of “denier” scientists I would be glad to send along with their CV’s. As there are a lot, I don’t think even Exxon could afford to pay them all off. Just tell me where to send..you might learn something

34. JLK | 06.16.08

Hey guys…just a thought
There are some really good thinkers contributing to this site and it would be really cool if somehow you could join me in bashing other media sites that assume that the “science is in” on AGW. The “Economist” is one of my faves. They say things like “all serious scientists” believe in AGW. So you should join the fun over there and elsewhere.
JLK

35. Eoin | 06.16.08

You’re leaving me for the Economist? I thought things were going so well!

36. Derek | 06.16.08

Eion,

37. Derek | 06.16.08

…(cont’d)oops!

Eion,

As a chemical physicist, former USAF scientist, holder of patents and a committed pursuer of truth, I have come to the conclusion that the science behind GW is bogus, and the sketchy details surrounding the theory and the politics reek of it. But I won’t bash you like others have despite our difference of opinion, because science doesn’t work that way either. However there is a way it does work. And those of us who understand that, seek to maintain the integrity of it. Think about anything you’ve ever worked hard on; something at work, or scoring your wife/girlfriend, or maybe a victory or award. Now think about someone coming in with some half [expletive] effort, maybe they plagarized, maybe they cheated, maybe they lied, but everyone bought it, and your great moment is now ruined. That is how we see the GW debate. The science is too loose yet sure of itself. Suddenly every conceivable socioeconomic scenario is totally driven by it, like there was some huge, comprehensive process going on that we never caught on to. And yet nothing is coming out in the wash. Science doesn’t work that way. In science, many years of thinking creates a premise. With years of arduous testing and revision of this premise, a small progress is made. Even seemingly “overnight” discoveries really just snowballed from preexisting ideas. Science is not a Pop Culture Phenomenon, and doesn’t need to be brought to you by Dave Matthews and Toyota. AGW is a cheapo ripoff version of real science, promoted by the biggest enemies to science, and presented disingenuously. The same thing all you hippies always claimed to be against. And it stands to hurt alot.

So none of us are paid schills of anyone. Just people that cherish truth and science and feel really hosed. So for that reason, we must now leave your used up forum and follow JLK over to ruffle feathers at The Economist. Unlike your politicians, we genuinely seek to preserve what is right and true and good, for FREE! Hope you see the error of your ways…

38. roadrun | 06.16.08

Don’t forget to test the water.

First a bit about the air (this doesn’t need to be said in Shanghi or Bejing) – put your car in the garage, close the door. Start your car. Ponder the effects of an archaic type of combustion engine on a closed system and remember that Earth is a closed system. You are free to use a Tesla or a Chevy. Consider what it means that man, while having the intelligence to move forward, refuses to do so.

Now, about the water – forget about ice and check the melted water that covers 78% of the Earth. Seriously. Look into the goings on in the water. Really!

What is all this hubbub about anyway? “Are humans doing it or is it just happening anyway” is akin to saying “the house is on fire but I don’t think I caused it so I’ll sit and watch Wrestle Mania some more”. Advancement of this often silly human race has always been a boon to mankind in near incalculable ways. “Should we really waist time and money trying to go to the moon?” met with the same heel digging but you would have to spend a great deal of time trying to figure out everything that is part of your everyday life that came from that goofy endeavor.

Is this really about how much money it would cost to advance life on this planet or is it really about that nobody who had money before (insert said advancement in this space) came about, thought of it? Who knew that some kid named Bill Gates was going to end up in the exclusive fraternity who didn’t invite him? I think the whole thing is all about those in the Petroleum Club trying to hold on to status.

What do we get from the advancements being demanded? I don’t know and neither do you. But I do know it will change life in ways that will be astounding and amazing.

Or you can go back to Wrestle Mania and call yourself clever for your arguments about why people who don’t like Wrestle Mania are idiots and not as smart as you are.

39. Eoin | 06.17.08

Roadrun, your comments are downright Cary-Tennis-esque! Food for thought.

But nobody should close the garage door while leaving the engine running. The stuff that comes out of the tailpipe isn’t good for you.

As for Derek and JLK, I simply don’t think that a debate with you over the scientific basis of anthropogenic global warming is possible. A debate requires some sort of common ground, and its clear that our worldviews have nothing whatsoever common.

After reading all of your comments, it’s clear to me that we’re relying on different standards of evidence, different vocabularies, and different notions of verification and falsification. Do you disagree?

This isn’t like other scientific debates, like the ones over the warm-bloodedness of dinosaurs or the composition of comets. It’s not even a scientific debate at all, but rather a debate between two radically different frameworks, each of which claims to be the one true science.

Comparing the conceptual networks of those who continue to deny that global warming is caused by humans with that of those who affirm it is like trying to compare Aristotle’s Physics to Newton’s Principia. It’s not that Aristotle is a bad version of Newton. It’s that they’re completely different.

This isn’t relativism. In the same way that Newton’s description of the world is more accurate and precise than Aristotle’s, more useful in predicting nature, the anthropogenic global warming theory does a better job at getting at reality than any of the competing paradigms.

I know you’ll disagree with that last sentence. You think that your view is closer to the truth. But our reasons for disagreement are not resolvable, because we’re operating under different sets of rules. We’re even operating under different sets of rules for deciding what the set of rules should be. Again, do you disagree?

Please tell me if you think I’m wrong, but I simply don’t think there’s any fruitful discussion to be had here between us.

40. J.Emerick | 06.17.08

Eoin-

“the anthropogenic global warming theory does a better job at getting at reality than any of the competing paradigms.”

AGW theory’s “proofs” have relied in almost their entirety upon various elaborate computer models of future climatic conditions demonstrating alarming above normal temperature increases and accompanying effects over the next 100 years. But observed and recorded data is not matching up with these models’ earlier predictions as the years go by. This is happening time and time again and the best answer AGW proponents can give is to revise the models again and again.

You need to get clear on this - computer models looking at climate behaviors are NOT (underline, again) reality - they are a function of belief, not science, because they cannot be empirically tested as their conclusions exist in a future space and time for which you have no observed data. Like extra-terrestrial life, AGW cannot be considered PROVED because you have no substantiating data available.

Such models are a PREDICTION of a POSSIBLE reality. If you want them to move from the realm of belief to that of science, you must test their predictions against real data as the time line passes from the future to the present. Only if the observed, empirical, REAL data matches up with the computer model’s PREDICTED data for that time frame have you then successfully PROVED the validity of the model.

Observed data (reality) should be explaining, validating and supporting AGW’s (theory) predicted behavior as rendered by the models - not the other way around. In “getting at reality” it seems that you have more accurately stood reality on its head from a scientific point of view; what is believed in is what exists.

If you accept these models as valid and act upon their conclusions without empirical proof, you actually are more Aristotelian in your world view - you are declaring that the models reflect “reality” because you firmly believe them to do so even in the absence of any confirming empirical evidence - you are in effect taking AGW on FAITH in the same way that the Aristotelians hewed to the principle that the sun revolved around the earth - that it did so simply because Aristotle said it did so.

However, if you, like me and many others, demand that these models’ conclusions be validated by real data before they are accepted as a “description of the world [that] is more accurate and precise”, only then will you have joined the Newtonians in affirming that the only reality that is to be held valid is one tested and demonstrated by observed data confirming a hypothesis. Only then are you looking at the world through the eyes of science.

Your own words seem to indicate that, for you, AGW is closer to religion than it is to science.

Actually, I would have to agree.

41. roadrun | 06.17.08

a) – Use a Tesla for the garage experiment and you will get my point.

b) – Forget Polar Bears and take a serious look at what is going on in the water. I know nobody gets warm and fuzzy feelings about baby phytoplankton but just maybe you should consider it.

c) What I am trying to say is simply to step back a bit from the microscope and look at the obvious. There is trouble brewing and it really is becoming more serious. Who-Done-It isn’t the issue here.

From what I see, nobody disputes the fact that something is going on here. Mores the pity that suggested solutions, whether successful or not, are HUGE advancements for everyone. Well, that’s not entirely true is it? Those who are part of the status quo may or may not benefit from the resulting power output, or monetary dominance. Although, the popular capitalistic mantra does state that those who don’t keep up deserve to fall by the wayside. So, it doesn’t really even disagree with the religious teachings after all does it?

To me it comes down to a bunch of intellectuals arguing over “advance or just stay where we are” with such eloquent points that it obscures the forest.

Oh, and — I work in quantum mechanics and undisputed leading edge technologies every day (not “used to” like several who for whatever reason feel it helps to post credentials) – and it is completely beside any point whatsoever.

42. JLK | 06.17.08

Okay Eoin

Now you are speaking our language a bit more. The problem has been PERFECTLY demonstrated in the two submissions by Emerick and Roadrun. Whereas Emerick is demanding SCIENTIFIC RIGOR,Roadrun is doing garage expeeriments toprove incredibly complex theories to “prove” the paradigm and then accepting that our beloved governments will do these wonderful things proven science or no.
Emerick looks at things from an empirical science POV. My field is macro econ.
What scares me are these amateur ecologists who take on faith that a solution, while costing trillions will fix all of our ills in the process. Unfortunately that is not the case. A resource draining carbon trading scheme only makes a few “money” guys rich and beggars the taxpayer while corrupting the government through MASSIVE lobbying efforts by various industries who want to be among the “winners picked by the congress.
I closely observed the Euro scheme of 2005-2008 and found it to be a fiasco. Utilities participated in an Enron-like trading scheme to churn worthless credits up and up while charging ratepayers for the privilage.The credits hit a high of 30 euro before crashing to earth by the expiration of the contract.
The result? Only FOUR of the signatories have a better record than the US of curbing emissions.
So all I want is to have our resources go to the right place. I STRONGLY submit that clean water is MUCH more important than carbon. It is a problem that is poised to sicken and kill MILLIONS in a very short time frame.
So if you guys can convince me that Lierberman-Warner will clean up the world’s water supply I will be right there with you.
This is not philosophical Eoin it is REALITY.
JLK
PS Yeah, yeah if we all didn’t undertand at least the basics of quantum we shouldn’t be here. But what has that got to do with weather forecasting Roadrunner? I think Bohr and Heisenberg would be laughing at your post from their graves.

43. roadrun | 06.17.08

Please allow me to revert to literature and philosophy.

The global warming debate, to me, is what Herrmann Hesse called The Glass Bead Game and the participants are jockeying for title of Magister. Anyone familiar with Hesse’s novel understands the meaning of the phrase — go jump in a lake.

44. JLK | 06.17.08

Eo
JLKin..sorry about the typos

45. JLK | 06.17.08

Okay last post
Roadrun has shown his true colors. Hesse was a mystic who was beloved by the marijuana addled university guys back in the 60’s and 70’s (yes I admit I am pretty old) But then we grew up and took Hesse for what he was. A weird mystic with an incredibly oblique way of coming up with obtuse conclusions.
And calling him a “philosopher” is like calling Al Gore a “scientist”.
I would recommend Leibniz if you want scientific philosophy.
So to the great relief of Eoin and the rest I will be moving back to the “Economist” and others with my new blog buddy Derek and my old one Emerick.
The bloggers there are much more erudite.
JLK

46. roadrun | 06.17.08

JLK — you are too transparent.

47. Gene | 06.17.08

Eric, you say:

“Five of the names came up with no hits (pretty amazing, given that even being a minor author on any published paper will get you a hit on Google)”

First, you apparently are misinformed about how good Google and the other popular search engines are. Google (and Yahoo!, etc.) do NOT search within the databases of scientific literature. By structure, they simply cannot. So, yes, you will find some hits on various individuals with regard to publications, but generally only if they take time to post at least a bibliography of papers and presentations on-line somewhere. Even then, with the way Google “ranks” papers, you may find little as their search system makes use of periodic “crawlers” that generate results that are posted into indexes hosted on Google’s servers. The Google searches are not live, generating real-time results, they are merely a search of the Google index. See http://www.osti.gov and http://www.osti.gov/ostiblog/ for more on this problem of searching what OSTI calls the “deep web” for hard science research results and reports.

Also, some scientists may not do a lot of research, but that should not necessarily mean they are unqualified to speak in a subject discussion wherein they have training and or experience. Thus, missing some of authors by performing a Google search really means little.

That some of the signatories are professors of subjects other than climatology, geology, astrophysics, meteorology or whatever is interesting, but Al Gore is no scientist, either. Neither, more than likely, are many of the bureaucrats and politicians who constructed the several IPCC “Summaries for Policymakers” actual scientists, or even extensively trained in any of the sciences, must less paleoclimatology or any other climate-related field. Just because Al Gore has a few volunteer or paid advisors does not get past the fact that he is not a scientist, no more so than the guy (or girl) who drives the train, installs software on computers, or drives a garbage truck is not an engineer.

Remember too, that the IPCC policymaker summaries are completed first, announced/publicised/published and then the scientists who write the actual IPCC reports must adjust the detailed report to match those summaries. (Note: there are only abut a dozen or so authors for each section of the IPCC scientific reports, selected for gender and geographic diversity, whatever that means. On top of that, the process is time-consuming and some scientists may be unavailable or feel their time is best spent elsewhere. As a result, one might surmise that the UN IPCC does not necessarily get either the best or the brightest in those specific fields, and there is some evidence that at least a few of those key authors tend to regard their own work as being much better and more appropriate to highlight in the IPCC reports than that of other scientists.) None of this should be considered proper for true scientific endeavors, nor do I consider it appropriate in most other cases. I’ve written much over the years on technical subjects and studies. I always write the report first, then create the executive summary, so the IPCC approach seems to suggest not just basic backwardness, but also preconception in observations, results, conclusions and recommendations.

Finally, the IPCC was established nearly 20 years ago as I recall. They consider their mission to find a solution to Global Warming, not to consider if the evidence is there and then come up with a solution. Thus, the possibility of yet another proconception exists. It is as if I, as an engineer, was told to design a road or building and told to assume the swamp on which it was to be built would hold the weight as well as if it was founded on bedrock. Guess who would get sued when that project failed? Does the IPCC have any such responsibility? Does Al Gore (at a reported $200,000 honorarium per speaking engagement)?

If Al Gore and the IPCC turn out wrong, what do we do about the trillions of dollars diverted away from human rights, education, medical research on Alzheimers, AIDS/HIV, malaria prevention, heart disease, stroke, infrastructure needs, clean water and healthful food for the millions who need these things around the world? The list of such needs is large, even if you or I don’t particularly feel impacted by any of these. And money spent today on one thing is not available for anything else…

48. Gene | 06.17.08

Eoin:

Gee, a scientist with links to the energy industry… Scandalous? No, B.S.

How about the money spent in academic institutions on research for government, to the tune of BILLIONS? You don’t think that a standard research report recommendation from many university and government researchers is for more study, and therefore more money? Do you not understand that academics in universities obtain tenure (permanence in their posts) based on how much research money they bring in? How many classes they teach or how good they are as teachers means essentially nothing at the university level. Where do you thing the phrase “publish or perish” came from? It’s different in community colleges, but they are not “research institutions.”

Throw the money argument out, it swings both ways (although government money seems to be a lot bigger pot than industry’s).

For the record, I’m an independent consultant in engineering and emergency preparedness. I’ve worked for government (local, state and federal), industry (not oil companies that I recall), and even citizen groups. So what? That’s a pretty broad base, so does that mean I can’t voice opinion or professional judgement against any of those groups? Hardly!

49. Eoin | 06.18.08

Okay, I’ll take the bait. If you were an unscrupulous climatologist whose only concern is to score more government funding, wouldn’t you keep insisting that man-made climate change is unproven and needs further study?

Or would you say that the science is settled and the debate over?

Which do you think would bring in more dollars?

50. Scott | 06.19.08

I followed some of the links and did a little searching on Google for Lindzen, and unlike much of the heated and personalized argument on this subject, he writes very calmly, and his objections (to methods that produce ‘alarming’ conclusions about global warming) seem to be based on reasonable scientific concerns.

The Cato institute link above was interesting, but possibly a little dated (1992), but searching turned up this more recent PDF:

http://junkscience.com/mar08/Lindzen-Rahmstorf-Exchange.pdf

courtesy of the following blog

http://motls.blogspot.com/2008/03/lindzen-vs-rahmstorf-exchange.html

I found the difference in tone between the Lindzen and Rahmstorf papers to be thought-provoking. Certainly Lindzen doesn’t come across as any kind of crackpot — quite the opposite.

51. roadrun | 06.19.08

The Global Warming Discussion

Players:
Dr, Smith – a General practitioner (Democrat)
Dr. Jones – a neuron surgeon (Republican)

Act I

Dr. Smith – Dr. Jones, I have a patient exhibiting signs of a brain tumor.
Dr. Jones – Oh you liberals are always seeing signs of some patient having a brain tumor.
Dr. Smith – No really, he has seizers, began to talk funny and his face droops.
Dr. Jones – It’s not a tumor
Dr. Smith – Is too
Dr. Jones – Is not.

Act II

Dr. Smith – Look Dr. Jones. I had my patient scanned in an MRI and there is a tumor right here.
Dr. Jones – An MRI? What’s an MRI
Dr. Smith – You know what an MRI is!
Dr. Jones – No I don’t.
Dr. Smith – It’s where the magnetic field of a proton is used to image ..
Dr. Jones – Proteins don’t have magnetic fields
Dr. Smith – I didn’t say proteins, I said protons. But proteins certainly do have magnetic fields.
Dr. Jones – Oh what a liberal dope! You are telling me you think I can pick up a protein with a magnet?
Dr. Smith – Uh, no I didn’t say that. It’s not exactly that way really.
Dr. Jones – Okay, then get some scientists to study magnetic fields, which I hear that we don’t actually understand, and bring me a paper showing me that MRI really does work the way they say it does.
Dr. Smith – but we don’t need to know exactly how it works to a tee. We use these things every day for the past 20 years and here is a scan showing a tumor in my patients brain.
Dr. Jones – I’m not going to operate until you can prove that a protein has a magnetic field.
Dr, Smith – I said …… Uh, okay. I’ll see what scientists I can get to prove this to you.
Dr. Jones – And I’ll get my own scientists saying that we don’t actually know that much about magnetic fields.

Act II
Dr, Jones – Alright, see these papers on proteins.
Dr. Smith – How many times do I need to say it is protons!
Nurse – Dr.s, uh, the patient is dead.

52. concerned citizen | 08.31.08

To the guys putting stock in that list of “scientists” who signed the petition, I hate to burst your bubble.

Without even mentioning the vast number of duplicate names (go check it out for yourself, pick a state), 90% of the “scientists” on there are not even in climatology or any related field. Most of them are in completely unrelated subjects, and do not have experience or recent education in the subject of climate change/global warming. Anybody can be a skeptic, but that doesn’t mean they are credible.

I don’t go to a Mathemetician to try my case in court. I go to an Attorney.
I don’t go to an Economist to remove my tumor. I go to a Surgeon.
I don’t go to an Anthropologist to manage my stock portfolio. I go to a licensed Financial Advisor.
And I don’t go to a Mechanical Engineer who designs air conditioning systems for my house, to educate me about climate change.

There may be some climatologists or related scientists who have signed this bogus petition, but who would know because the list has been so fluffed up with air, to make it look bigger than it is.

If these guys were truly credible, they wouldn’t take just any old person who has a degree. It makes the whole thing look shady.

Not to mention it prominently includes people like Ian Clark, Lindzen, Robinson, Seitz, and Tim Patterson. Anyone who has spent hours and hours reading about this very complicated topic has already come across tons of material that discredits these quacks. Oh yeah, and the “Oregon Institue” that created the petition is a non-profit run by 6 people. SIX. So don’t get all excited thinking the word Institute gives it any weight or credibility. It’s only reason for existence was to create this bogus petition. It has no other function.

PS - meteorologists are weathermen.

1. Skeptics Global Warming » Blog Archive » 74 percent of Congressional Republicans are climate deniers | 06.13.08

2. How to Debate Climate Change with Conservative Skeptics: Part 2 | Max Gladwell | 07.01.08