From Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. Climate Science Weblog
There is a letter to the President published by the Cato Institute that headlines [thanks to ICECAPand Dr. Patrick J. Michaels to alerting us to it];
With all due respect Mr. President, that is not true.
The letter is signed by over 100 scientists.
Climate Science wants to comment on the specific statements of science in the letter which is reproduced below:
“We, the undersigned scientists, maintain that the case for alarm regarding climate change is grossly overstated. Surface temperature changes over the past century have been episodic and modest and there has been no net global warming for over a decade now.1,2 After controlling for population growth and property values, there has been no increase in damages from severe weather-related events.3 The computer models forecasting rapid temperature change abjectly fail to explain recent climate behavior.4 Mr. President, your characterization of the scientific facts regarding climate change and the degree of certainty informing the scientific debate is simply incorrect.”
Comments by Climate Science
- “Surface temperature changes over the past century have been episodic and modest and there has been no net global warming for over a decade now.”
This is correct using the global average surface temperature. An effective analysis of this issue has been presented at the weblog http://rankexploits.com/musings/category/climate-sensitivity/. However, using the global average upper ocean heat content changes, the warming in the 1990s and early 2000s ended in 2003, so the more rigourous metric for global warming indicated “no net global warming” for 6 years.
- After controlling for population growth and property values, there has been no increase in damages from severe weather-related events.
This is a correct statement which has been extensively discussed and summarized at http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/category/climate-change; see also Chapter 2 in Pielke, R.A., Jr. and R.A. Pielke, Sr., 1997: Hurricanes: Their nature and impacts on society.
- The computer models forecasting rapid temperature change abjectly fail to explain recent climate behavior.
This is a robust conclusion both on the global scale (e.g. see) and on the regional scale (e.g see and see).
The dismissive response on Real Climate and on Grist to this letter do not provide the objective scientific rebuttal to these science claims. This is unfortunate and is misleading policymakers, but, as we have learned and reported many times on at Climate Science and elsewhere (e.g. see and see), this is the way the IPCC and CCSP community deals with solid science that disagrees with their perspective.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I wrote both of my Senators and my Congressman. If there was ever a time for a grass-roots movement, now is it.
But the science is settled and I have my new taxes ready for all to enjoy. I need them to offset the pork and foolish bailouts that I have engineered and signed.
This is a perfectly legitimate approach to the problem, which like many other logical, reasonable discussions on the subject of AGW, will fail.
Look no further than the latest budget to understand why.
Of an estimated $2.7-3.2trillion, roughly $900billion in revenue comes from carbon credits/carbon taxes. In order to admit the truth regarding this discussion, the president would have no choice but to find an addition source of revenue to make up for the $900billion shortfall. Image the president going to the democratic party and explaining that they would have to cut $1trillion in spending from the budget that HE proposed.
As I’ve said before…AGW is a revenue mechanism for politicians. The fact that it’s been a funding mechanism for scientists goes hand in hand with this.
If someone could go to the president with an alternative for funding 1/3 of his budget, I’m sure he’d be much more likely to listen. Until then?…talking to a brick wall.
JimB
Hard to believe, but I think the posts are actually getting better with each day.
Even the tide seems to be turning a little.
When our children and our grandchildren look back at this era, I believe that this simple blog will be recognized as VOX CLAMANTIS IN DESERTO (roughly, the Voice Crying In The Wilderness) that saved us from ourselves. Provided, of course, that the ominous threat of government censure doesn’t get any worse.
Write your Senators and Congressman! But as important, let’s start making a conscious effort to spread the word of WattsUp. Tell your friends, tell your frenemies, text and email and tweet. Write the address on the back of your business card.
Keep it up, Anthony. I think we are witnessing a phenomenon.
Oh, and the sun remains devoid of sunspots. http://solarcycle24.com/
Solar activity will remain at very low levels. Buy coal.
Not being from the US, can you tell me which newspapers this was published in ?? Would be good to forward this on but would be better if I can state which newspapers its in.
Even the tide seems to be turning a little.
Well, as the sea witches know, the tide is a lagging indicator . . .
Superb. I nearly chocked on my cornflakes. This really should be paid for advertising in national newspapers. Perhaps the oil lobby would step in to pay the fees? 😉
Do not think they are going to let you easily “kill goose that lays golden eggs” fed by taxpayers money.
Towards a Global Green Recovery
Recommendations for Immediate G20 Action,
produced on behalf of the German Foreign Office,
http://www.pik-potsdam.de/globalgreenrecovery
Stern message for G20 summit
http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090330/full/news.2009.206.html
Do you want to know the future?…all decent countries have taxed oil, added value tax, etc. “smile though your heart is aching”!
OT: Is it the sun turning into a “green” mode, energy saving cycle, or is it just in the “stand by” mode?
I see myself as a positive person but this will not be (allowed to be) heard.
There will be little in the way of reportage, although the MSM will take the advertising fees thank you very much. Do not expect editorial or journalistic comment. There is a new world order to uphold.
Socialism (Marxism, Environmentalism, Envy) must prevail. Lies are merely a tool to liberate us all. The dream of taxing the very air that we, the great unwashed and irrelevant, breath has come true. The UN is the last best hope for humanity.
Oh yeah, I knew I forgot something.
Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia
The CATO list of diversified and impressive scientific signatories is commendable. I truly hope that JimB (07:03:43)’s conclusion is incorrect although it is very realistic. We should have a better feel after the current European Conference concludes. Perhaps this latest effort will have some effect on restoring a modicum of sanity.
Monbiot is already on the attack
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/mar/30/cato-institute-advert-climate-change-scepticism?commentpage=1
OT: Anthony, there was a guest posting relating to the psychiatric community on the left promoting the idea of climate skeptics as pathologically afflicted. I believe it was on your site but have not been able to locate it and would very much appreciate a link to it.
It seems that the evidence against accepted IPCC stance is being undermined more regularly now. Any thinking person will have now to question the status quo.
Disregard that request, Anthony. I found it.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/?s=pathology
What WILL they think of next? Conference labels skeptics as having mental disorder
Let us all get real here. “Real Climate” are you watching?
Lets see how long it takes for the eco-terrorists to post the following;
1) The CATO institute is not reputable and funded by big oil
2) The scientists are (a) not scientists (b) not climate scientists (c) are tainted by research in oil/tobacco etc etc
I’m guessing it’ll be in the first 25 posts (barring this one!)
@jim B
Your wrote:
“The fact that it’s been a funding mechanism for scientists goes hand in hand with this.”
A longtime acquaintance is the head of the local University’s physics department. He’s retiring this spring and taking control of a solar panel start-up company.
At a recent gathering he opined that his certitude about AGW is – on a scale of 1to10 . . an 11.
He’s just received several million in grants for his company. I smiled and congratulated him. He lowered his voice and conspiratorially whispered that it probably would never be a commercial success.
I’ve known this man for years. I sat beside him at a concert after 9/11 when he complained, before our fannies hit our chair seats – that they shouldn’t have politicized the public concert by playing the Star Spangled Banner before the performance.
The recent election has in his words: liberated him from his wandering in the desert for 40 years.
Now your tax money and mine must support his leftist, Utopian,
politically-correct endeavors.
BTW. His wife has placed her icy hands on mine we we meet for coffee. She laughs about it. Their thermostat is kept turned down so that they can brag about their low to non-existent energy bills. (solar panels)
Give me a break.
If they read this, I’d lose an old friendship.
What hangs in the balance today, is more important.
The threat of AGW, however unscientific, must remain a primary weapon in BO’s Marxist agenda. He will not lightly abandon his stance. In fact, he’ll probably become increasingly rigid, caught between the facts and his doomed plan to spend our way to prosperity. He is removing money from the private sector and dissipating it with great fanfare where it will do less good. This has been tried before and failed. BO’s ignorance and inexperience are a million times more dangerous than all the CO² China and India will emit this century.
These lists you skeptics come up with get funnier each time. Take Edward F. Blick – this guy is a young earth creationist:
“There are over eighty scientific indicators of a young earth. Yet, there is no mention of these in most high school biology books. Instead they state that the earth is billions of years old.”
http://www.valleyhighlands.com/Blogger/page/Bible-Frequently-Asked-Questions.aspx
This is the best you guys can come up with? What a joke!
What’s Obama’s carbon footprint on his G20 victory tour?
As others have pointed out, Obama’s lavish budget depends on “carbon tax income” to succeed — even I was shocked by that. Anyhow, Obama needs the money; hence, mere facts are not enough to stop government “carbon taxes” and other questionable “green” government activities.
According to a recent article in by Doran and Zimmermann, ‘Examining the Scientific consensus on Climate Change’, Eos Volume 90, Number 3, 2009; p. 22-23, about 58% of the general public in the US thinks that human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing the mean global temperature, as opposed to 97% of specialists surveyed.
novoburgo (07:38:03) :
“The CATO list of diversified and impressive scientific signatories is commendable. I truly hope that JimB (07:03:43)’s conclusion is incorrect although it is very realistic. ”
Of course all the assignees are entitled to their opinions but as they are all retired, out of field or oil industry employees they can safely be ignored and ridiculed especially as they think CO2 is a harmless trace gas.
Sarcasm off.
I tire. I tire of railing against the stubborn idiocy that owns great suspicion of everything government does except this errant rubbish. The environmental movement is shooting itself in both feet with this and they are too blinded by the control it offers to see that the damage they are accumulating will last at least a generation. It won’t be a generation limited to less than 20 years by lack of clean water, medicine and electricity either. That is the truly devastating legacy of the green’s push for sustainable whatever. Too much, too soon. When the public’s disillusionment really sets in science and the eco terrorists will lose more than the rest of us put together. The money will be of little consequence.