In January, the University of Illinois conducted a global warming survey of 3146 respondants from a listing in the 2007 edition of the American Geological Institute’s Directory of Geoscience Departments. At first sight, this would appear to represent a good sounding of informed scientific opinion. Widely reported and quoted, it is generally taken to reinforce the so-called ’scientific consensus’ on AGW. viz from CNN “”"

So just where can we find the complete list of these 3146 “respondents”, along with their Scientific Credentials (or a short bio) and any abstract of their public statements in support of man made global warming.

We could then compare that information with the corresponding information on the 700 or so “scientists” who are listed in the US Senate Minority Report of the Senate EPW committee chaired by Senator Ma’am Boxer of California.

It is one thing for a “respondent” to comment anonymously to a preconceived canned questionaire; but quite another to openly under his own name and scientific credentials, to render his scientific opinion of the issue in his own words.

I can state categorically that I am not one of the 3146 “respondents” to the U of Illinois “survey”; but I am listed in that other 700 (once 400) compendium.

Yes, the IPCC and nearly all the other climate models have been proven wrong:
THE WARMING AND MELTING ARE FAR WORSE THAN THOSE MODELS PREDICT.

The models were not alarmist: quite the opposite. “”"

So what ? if the models and the real observational data don’t agree, then at least the models are wrong; so they should be discarded; that is ALL of them that don’t agree with the observed data; note the use of the word “observed” to distinguish it from the “manipulated” or “corrected” data.

And yes; when do you expect that they will have collected a sufficient set of sampled data to convince anybody that it actually can reconstruct correctly the full continuous funtion that is being sampled.

Surely one should at least reach that sufficiency point before asserting the at the results are “much worse” than the models predict.

60 German Scientists Dissent Over Global Warming Claims! Call Climate Fears ‘Pseudo Religion’

Marc Morano, Climate Depot

More than 60 prominent German scientists have publicly declared their dissent from man-made global warming fears in an Open Letter to German Chancellor Angela Merkel. The more than 60 signers of the letter include several United Nations IPCC scientists.

The scientists declared that global warming has become a “pseudo religion” and they noted that rising CO2 has “had no measurable effect” on temperatures. The German scientists, also wrote that the “UN IPCC has lost its scientific credibility.”

This latest development comes on the heels of a series of inconvenient developments for the promoters of man-made global warming fears, including new peer-reviewed studies, real world data, a growing chorus of scientists dissenting (including more UN IPCC scientists), open revolts in scientific societies and the Earth’s failure to warm. In addition, public opinion continues to turn against climate fear promotion.

The July 26, 2009 German scientist letter urged Chancellor Merkel to “strongly reconsider” her position on global warming and requested a “convening of an impartial panel” that is “free of ideology” to counter the UN IPCC and review the latest climate science developments.

Those compensation numbers are astonishing!

ACS is a professional society, not a for-profit corporation, and yet the 2002 salary of then-executive director John K Crum was $586,360. Apparently, this was not enough reward, because in addition to that he received another $134,375 in “awards and bonuses.” Of course, the executive director also needs an expense account, which adds another $14,478, leading to a grand total of $767,834. What contributions were made by the executive director to merit these bonuses and awards?

And the 2002 compensation was small compared to subsequent years: click

Do these people have no shame?? ACS members should be pounding the table, and insisting that their annual dues should go toward supporting and improving the organization, instead of lining the pockets of ACS officers at the expense of working engineers.

Well, at least we can be sure that there are at least 3146 enlightened souls, who, if they have good memory recall, know more than both of us!

But clearly we both smell the same rat.

Gary Lund
Please post here the letter you sent to ACS.

Sorry for the late response. Here it is:

Dear Editor,

In a recent editorial in the June 22, 2009 issue of C&EN entitled “Climate-Change News”, Rudy Baum opines that “the science of anthropogenic climate change is becoming increasingly well established” and that the scientific consensus on the reality of climate change has become increasingly difficult to challenge…..”

I find these statements interesting in view of my own experience investigating this admittedly emotionally charged subject inasmuch as I have arrived at precisely the opposite conclusion. Having recently been prompted to explore the whole anthropogenic global warming/climate change controversy by increasingly frequent claims of scientific consensus, I have personally been unable to find a satisfactory scientific study supporting a anthropogenic CO2 (or related “green house gas” emission) causal link to global temperature changes. Instead, the literature seems to be well populated with studies which implicitly assume an anthropogenic cause for climate change and proceed to address whatever effect being reported upon might result. The reliance of the anthropogenic climate change theory on global circulation models which appear to be poorly validated is hardly incontrovertible proof. One thing that does seem to have resulted from the recent focus on climate change is an apparent increasingly sophisticated understanding of the various natural forces effecting global temperature cycles.

Rather than sneering at opinions at odds with the so-called consensus and resorting to name calling and ad-hominem attacks, one would do well to retain an open mind towards such a politically important subject. The stakes have been raised to high levels and the consequences have the potential to be profound to future scientific funding and economic growth.

Thank you,

Unfortunately there IS a global conspiracy.

I was at ground zero of one of the moves 25 years ago. A NH “school teacher” started a nationwide blitz against Polystyrene. It killed the project my boss was head engineer on. Sweetheart Plastics, McDonald’s burgers and a Polystyrene company were about to break ground on a new plant to recycle post consumer clamshells, cups and cutlery. The project was designed to employ the handicap. No way a lone school teach went against powerful corporations and won, not without help. John Munsell’s e-coli experience shows this.

A friend, John Munsell told me a reporter from a big NY paper spent days with him getting an e-coli story about the events that lead to a woman’s death, a USDA coverup and a Congressional investigation. The owner of the paper killed the story.

In fighting the WTO sponsored Animal ID system I have watch data sources disappear or be replaced with out a date change so the USDA can label farmers “disinformation agents” The history of what is happening to your food supply is here: http://www.google.com/search?q=yupfarming+combs&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=com.ubuntu:en-US:unofficial&client=firefox-a

Check out the control of the money supply by the Federal Reserve or similar systems in other countries, Checkout the changes to the laws about using the American military against civilians (Posse Comitatus), checkout the homegrown terrorist list that includes bumper stickers for third party candidates, checkout the agreement (2/14/008) that allows Canadian Military forces into the USA to be used against American citizens.

Maurice Strong:
“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?” Maurice Strong

He put his beliefs into action with his ties to the UN. In 1970 he began the first in a series of high-level incarnations that included organizing the 1972 Stockholm Conference on the environment, founding and becoming the first head of the U.N.Environment Program, and chairing the 1992 Rio summit on the environment.

And his ties to the Rockefellers. He was a director of the Rockefeller foundation.

Rockefeller has stated:
“The supernational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries.”

2002 Rockefeller autobiography “Memoirs” on page 405: “For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents… to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as “internationalists and of conspiring with others around the world … If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”

David Rockefeller praised the major media for their complicity in helping to facilitate the globalist agenda by saying, “We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. . . . It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries.”

“Once the ruling members of the CFR shadow government have decided that the U.S. Government should adopt a particular policy, the very substantial research facilities of (the) CFR are put to work to develop arguments, intellectual and emotional, to support the new policy, and to confound and discredit, intellectually and politically, any opposition.”
- Admiral Chester Ward, former CFR member and Judge Advocate General of the U.S. Navy

Control of Money, Food, Military and now Energy through a world “Cap and Trade scheme”

No conspiracy here, move along please or we will have to put you in a Hallibuton built detainment center. We are recruiting prison guards into the National Guard as we speak.

Posse Comitatus http://www.towardfreedom.com/home/content/view/911/

Military to be used in flu epidemic: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14543

Possible Mandatory vaccination with untested vaccine, (Congress already passed a law so the government and the vaccine manufacturer can not be sued if it harms or kills you.) http://fas.org/sgp/crs/RS21414.pdf

This is scary when all died in one trial: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/poland/2235676/Homeless-people-die-after-bird-flu-vaccine-trial-in-Poland.html

And Baxer made a mistake:http://socioecohistory.wordpress.com/2009/03/07/live-avian-flu-virus-placed-in-baxter-vaccine-materials-sent-to-18-countries/

New detainment facilities : http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-645

National Guard Corrections Officer – Internment/Resettlement Specialist http://jobview.monster.com/getjob.aspx?JobID=82289279&brd=1&q=internment&cy=us&lid=316&re=130&AVSDM=2009-07-16+09%3a18%3a00&pg=1&seq=1&fseo=1&isjs=1&re=1000

Tracking the bills headed for Congress the last couple of years is scaring the bejees out of me.

Too Easy: You ask for 3 so Richard Lindzen, Roger Pielke, Steve Idso, Landsea, Christy, Balling. My big handicap is that I am so lousy with remembering names, yet I can come up with half a dozen off the top of my head who are clearly experts and who don’t buy the pap that catastrophic global warming due to CO2 is coming. In fact I have a lot of trouble anymore finding serious scientists who do believe it.

If it is science than a scientifically trained reader who reads the published papers should be able to judge. Being a researcher directly in the field should not be necessary unless the published authors are grossly incompetent. Your premise is dead wrong in multiple ways.

A theory that fails to explain observations or fails to predict the results of observations is not a theory anymore.

“The survey MUST have probed deeper. ” I’m not sure if that’s true. The no brainer first question, (Have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels?) probably tells you what was going on. We can manipulate an impression by asking the right questions. Like comparing tempertures to a base, drawn from a known cool period.

Which brings me to my complaint’s about Oreskes work. Her original search parameters biased her sample. And her use of by implication means you can read anything you want into the results. Is this any different?

The manipulation of the responses alone tell us they were likely looking for the answers they wanted. Rather than just following a desire for knowledge.

In my opinion the way this survey was reported and publicised potentially compromises the integrity of that university. If I were its Dean, at the very least I would have the full results tabulated and published somewhere, and maybe they have, suitably obscurely?

I said before, I consider the paper cherry picked and misleading for a number of reasons. The question of it being warmer than 1800 is one.

However one of the problems with research involving asking people opinions. There is a tendency of respondents to try to give the pollster the answer he wants. To be nice.

Sometimes a good researcher will bury the question he really wants to know about in a whole bunch of irrelevant questions. And you don’t ask the important one first. Respondents tend to be more honest in their responses when you ask a whole lot of questions. They stop reading your mind or trying to. And get more honest.

But without seeing the questions, who knows.

If they’re honerable researchers they’ll give all the questions. And a whole lot more. If I were setting us such a design, I’d likely be asking 9 or 10 questions at a minimum.

But that’s just my unscientific opinion.

‘Two questions were key: Have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures? About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82 percent the second. The strongest consensus on the causes of global warming came from climatologists who are active in climate research, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role. Petroleum geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in human involvement.’
The latter two groups were waved aside as essentially irrelevant, strangely.
What is not made obvious is that the 97% of climatologists was only 79 people, but the most intriguing aspect of the survey is curiously never discussed. the clue is in the line ”Two questions were key’. For there were a total of nine questions, the reported two being introductory. The other seven questions and their responses, apparently of no consequence, totally unreported. Now, in a climate change survey of earth scientists, what could these questions of no consequence possibly have related to, perhaps, maybe, CO2 warming and its likely magnitude and severity? Clearly not worth revealing, anyway.

The issue with the whole AGW scam is that scientists DON’T say what you claim they say. Scientists speak with many different and often conflicting voices. There is, of course, the popular myth, which claims that there is such a coherent voice, but some careful reflection will show this not to be the case.

We are often told by Gore and others that 2,500 scientists agree that CO2 is causing global warming that will likely be catastrophic. Yet when we study the AR4 summary for policy makers, these dire predictions are written by a handfull of lead authors. Out of the whole report itself, it is only chapter 9 that deals with GHG forcings. All the rest deals with other topics such as land use and management (or lack of management).

You may be unaware, but the scientists who carried out the original research did not write chapter 9 (or any other chapter). The closest analogy I can give is to compare it with an undergraduate essay. The undergraduate researches the available papers, choses the bits that suit his thesis, and writes his essay, copiously sprinkled with references of course. And even though 100 or so scientists may be referenced (a far cry from the ridiculous 2,500 myth) they are not speaking with their own words, and they are not saying that CO2 is causing the earth to catastrophically warm. Moreover, there is as yet nothing in chapter 9 which proves most of the 20th century warming is caused by CO2. If you don’t believe me, go and read it.

Then there is the question of what is a scientist in the first place. Some AGWers use the argument that a skeptic isn’t a scientist or climate scientist and should be ignored. This belief is born of ignorance. Steve McIntyre has been criticized in this way for being, by training, an econometrician. Yet most people throwing these accusations have no idea of what econometrics is. In actual fact it involves a higher understanding of statistical techniques than most scientists possess. Imagine trying to calculate the elasticity of demand for a product from a sea of constantly shifting data, to separate income effects from substitution effects that act in opposite directions. The complexity is mind blowing. That is why when McIntyre and McItrick said Mann’s hockey stick study was wrong, they were proved correct. That is why if McIntyre says a study is flawed, then his view carries weight.

In 2007, after reading the AR4 summary for policy makers, I WAS alarmed, and I believed it all at the time. But I decided to find out more. I was guided through the ether. First Roger Pielke’s climate science and climate audit, then WUWT. I have read dozens of research papers. I’m not a scientist but I can read an abstract and a conclusion. Doing that often enough has led me to the position I’m now at. Scientists are not agreed on climate catastrophism. Not by a long way.