Shredding the “climate consensus” myth: More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims – Challenge UN IPCC & Gore

From Climate Depot, read more here

INTRODUCTION:

More than 1000 dissenting scientists (updates previous 700 scientist report) from around the globe have now challenged man-made global warming claims made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Vice President Al Gore. This new 2010 320-page Climate Depot Special Report — updated from 2007′s groundbreaking U.S. Senate Report of over 400 scientists who voiced skepticism about the so-called global warming “consensus” — features the skeptical voices of over 1000 international scientists, including many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN IPCC. This updated 2010 report includes a dramatic increase of over 300 additional (and growing) scientists and climate researchers since the last update in March 2009. This report’s release coincides with the 2010 UN global warming summit being held in Cancun.

The more than 300 additional scientists added to this report since March 2009 (21 months ago), represents an average of nearly four skeptical scientists a week speaking out publicly. The well over 1000 dissenting scientists are almost 20 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.

The chorus of skeptical scientific voices grew louder in 2010 as the Climategate scandal — which involved the upper echelon of UN IPCC scientists — detonated upon on the international climate movement. “I view Climategate as science fraud, pure and simple,” said noted Princeton Physicist Dr. Robert Austin shortly after the scandal broke. Climategate prompted UN IPCC scientists to turn on each other. UN IPCC scientist Eduardo Zorita publicly declared that his Climategate colleagues Michael Mann and Phil Jones “should be barred from the IPCC process…They are not credible anymore.” Zorita also noted how insular the IPCC science had become. “By writing these lines I will just probably achieve that a few of my future studies will, again, not see the light of publication,” Zorita wrote. A UN lead author Richard Tol lead author grew disillusioned with the IPCC and lamented that it had been “captured” and demanded that “the Chair of IPCC and the Chairs of the IPCC Working Groups should be removed.” Tol also publicly called for the “suspension” of IPCC Process in 2010 after being invited by the UN to participate as lead author again in the next IPCC Report.

Other UN scientists were more blunt. South African UN scientist declared the UN IPCC a “worthless carcass” and noted IPCC chair Pachauri is in “disgrace”. He also explained that the “fraudulent science continues to be exposed.” Alexander, a former member of the UN Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters harshly critiqued the UN. “‘I was subjected to vilification tactics at the time. I persisted. Now, at long last, my persistence has been rewarded…There is no believable evidence to support [the IPCC] claims. I rest my case!” See: S. African UN Scientist Calls it! ‘Climate change – RIP: Cause of Death: No scientifically believable evidence…Deliberate manipulation to suit political objectives’ [Also see: New Report: UN Scientists Speak Out On Global Warming -- As Skeptics!] Geologist Dr. Don Easterbrook, a professor of geology at Western Washington University, summed up the scandal on December 3, 2010: “The corruption within the IPCC revealed by the Climategate scandal, the doctoring of data and the refusal to admit mistakes have so severely tainted the IPCC that it is no longer a credible agency.”

Selected Highlights of the Updated 2010 Report featuring over 1000 international scientists dissenting from man-made climate fears:

“We’re not scientifically there yet. Despite what you may have heard in the media, there is nothing like a consensus of scientific opinion that this is a problem. Because there is natural variability in the weather, you cannot statistically know for another 150 years.” — UN IPCC’s Tom Tripp, a member of the UN IPCC since 2004 and listed as one of the lead authors and serves as the Director of Technical Services & Development for U.S. Magnesium.

“Any reasonable scientific analysis must conclude the basic theory wrong!!” — NASA Scientist Dr. Leonard Weinstein who worked 35 years at the NASA Langley Research Center and finished his career there as a Senior Research Scientist. Weinstein, is presently a Senior Research Fellow at the National Institute of Aerospace.

“Please remain calm: The Earth will heal itself — Climate is beyond our power to control…Earth doesn’t care about governments or their legislation. You can’t find much actual global warming in present-day weather observations. Climate change is a matter of geologic time, something that the earth routinely does on its own without asking anyone’s permission or explaining itself.” — Nobel Prize-Winning Stanford University Physicist Dr. Robert B. Laughlin, who won the Nobel Prize for physics in 1998, and was formerly a research scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.

“In essence, the jig is up. The whole thing is a fraud. And even the fraudsters that fudged data are admitting to temperature history that they used to say didn’t happen…Perhaps what has doomed the Climategate fraudsters the most was their brazenness in fudging the data” — Dr. Christopher J. Kobus, Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering at Oakland University, specializes in alternative energy, thermal transport phenomena, two-phase flow and fluid and thermal energy systems.

“The energy mankind generates is so small compared to that overall energy budget that it simply cannot affect the climate…The planet’s climate is doing its own thing, but we cannot pinpoint significant trends in changes to it because it dates back millions of years while the study of it began only recently. We are children of the Sun; we simply lack data to draw the proper conclusions.” — Russian Scientist Dr. Anatoly Levitin, the head of geomagnetic variations laboratory at the Institute of Terrestrial Magnetism, Ionosphere and Radiowave Propagation of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

“Hundreds of billion dollars have been wasted with the attempt of imposing a Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) theory that is not supported by physical world evidences…AGW has been forcefully imposed by means of a barrage of scare stories and indoctrination that begins in the elementary school textbooks.” — Brazilian Geologist Geraldo Luís Lino, who authored the 2009 book “The Global Warming Fraud: How a Natural Phenomenon Was Converted into a False World Emergency.”

“I am an environmentalist,” but “I must disagree with Mr. Gore” — Chemistry Professor Dr. Mary Mumper, the chair of the Chemistry Department at Frostburg State University in Maryland, during her presentation titled “Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide and Global Warming, the Skeptic’s View.”

“I am ashamed of what climate science has become today,” The science “community is relying on an inadequate model to blame CO2 and innocent citizens for global warming in order to generate funding and to gain attention. If this is what ‘science’ has become today, I, as a scientist, am ashamed…Science is too important for our society to be misused in the way it has been done within the Climate Science Community.” Swedish Climatologist Dr. Hans Jelbring,

“Those who call themselves ‘Green planet advocates’ should be arguing for a CO2- fertilized atmosphere, not a CO2-starved atmosphere…Diversity increases when the planet was warm AND had high CO2 atmospheric content…Al Gore’s personal behavior supports a green planet – his enormous energy use with his 4 homes and his bizjet, does indeed help make the planet greener. Kudos, Al for doing your part to save the planet.” — Renowned engineer and aviation/space pioneer Burt Rutan, who was named “100 most influential people in the world, 2004″ by Time Magazine and Newsweek called him “the man responsible for more innovations in modern aviation than any living engineer.”

“Global warming is the central tenet of this new belief system in much the same way that the Resurrection is the central tenet of Christianity. Al Gore has taken a role corresponding to that of St Paul in proselytizing the new faith…My skepticism about AGW arises from the fact that as a physicist who has worked in closely related areas, I know how poor the underlying science is. In effect the scientific method has been abandoned in this field.” — Atmospheric Physicist Dr. John Reid, who worked with Australia’s CSIRO’s (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization) Division of Oceanography and worked in surface gravity waves (ocean waves) research.

“We maintain there is no reason whatsoever to worry about man-made climate change, because there is no evidence whatsoever that such a thing is happening.” — Greek Earth scientists Antonis Christofides and Nikos Mamassis of the National Technical University of Athens’ Department of Water Resources and Environmental Engineering.

“There are clear cycles during which both temperature and salinity rise and fall. These cycles are related to solar activity…In my opinion and that of our institute, the problems connected to the current stage of warming are being exaggerated. What we are dealing with is not a global warming of the atmosphere or of the oceans.” — Biologist Pavel Makarevich of the Biological Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences

“Because the greenhouse effect is temporary rather than permanent, predictions of significant global warming in the 21st century by IPCC are not supported by the data.” — Hebrew University Professor Dr. Michael Beenstock an honorary fellow with Institute for Economic Affairs who published a study challenging man-made global warming claims titled “Polynomial Cointegration Tests of the Anthropogenic Theory of Global Warming.”

“The whole idea of anthropogenic global warming is completely unfounded. There appears to have been money gained by Michael Mann, Al Gore and UN IPCC’s Rajendra Pachauri as a consequence of this deception, so it’s fraud.” — South African astrophysicist Hilton Ratcliffe, a member of the Astronomical Society of Southern Africa (ASSA) and the Astronomical Society of the Pacific and a Fellow of the British Institute of Physics.

End Selected Excerpts

#

Background: Only 52 Scientists Participated in UN IPCC Summary

The notion of “hundreds” or “thousands” of UN scientists agreeing to a scientific statement does not hold up to scrutiny. (See report debunking “consensus” LINK) Recent research by Australian climate data analyst John McLean revealed that the IPCC’s peer-review process for the Summary for Policymakers leaves much to be desired. (LINK) (LINK) (LINK) & (LINK) (Note: The 52 scientists who participated in the 2007 IPCC Summary for Policymakers had to adhere to the wishes of the UN political leaders and delegates in a process described as more closely resembling a political party’s convention platform battle, not a scientific process – LINK)

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

The NAS has come under fire for its lobbying practices. See: NAS Pres. Ralph Cicerone Turns Science Org. into political advocacy group: $6 million NAS study is used to lobby for global warming bill & Cicerone’s Shame: NAS Urges Carbon Tax, Becomes Advocacy Group — ‘political appointees heading politicized scientific institutions that are virtually 100% dependent on gov’t funding’ MIT’s Richard Lindzen harshly rebuked NAS president Cicerone in his Congressional testimony in November 2010. Lindzen testified: “Cicerone [of NAS] is saying that regardless of evidence the answer is predetermined. If government wants carbon control, that is the answer that the Academies will provide.” [ Also See: MIT Climate Scientist Exposes 'Corrupted Science' in Devastating Critique – November 29, 2008 ]

While the scientists contained in this report hold a diverse range of views, they generally rally around several key points. 1) The Earth is currently well within natural climate variability. 2) Almost all climate fear is generated by unproven computer model predictions. 3) An abundance of peer-reviewed studies continue to debunk rising CO2 fears and, 4) “Consensus” has been manufactured for political, not scientific purposes.

Scientists caution that the key to remember is “climate change is governed by hundreds of factors, or variables,” not just CO2. UK Professor Emeritus of Biogeography Philip Stott of the University of London decried the notion that CO2 is the main climate driver. “As I have said, over and over again, the fundamental point has always been this: climate change is governed by hundreds of factors, or variables, and the very idea that we can manage climate change predictably by understanding and manipulating at the margins one politically-selected factor is as misguided as it gets,” Stott wrote in 2008. Even the climate activists at RealClimate.org let this fact slip out in a September 20, 2008 article. “The actual temperature rise is an emergent property resulting from interactions among hundreds of factors,” RealClimate.org admitted in a rare moment of candor.]

# #

Read Full Report: Link to Complete 321-Page PDF Special Report:


About these ads
This entry was posted in Al Gore, Climate News and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

126 Responses to Shredding the “climate consensus” myth: More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims – Challenge UN IPCC & Gore

  1. Henry chance says:

    Now the hand waving will burn energy and warm the planet. Joe Romm is in full panic.

  2. latitude says:

    can’t argue with that
    Thanks Anthony!

    I hope Marc sent copies to the new Congress

    Why is the sharks head on fire?

  3. Nonoy Oplas says:

    Rationality should prevail soon. The UN should be shrank, significantly. Abolish the IPCC, the FCCC, the WMO.

  4. John from New Zealand says:

    Holy moly!! Well that’s thrown a nasty spanner in the works for anyone still backing AGW, especially who try to say climategate was cleared by the whitewashes, oops I mean official inquiries.

    AGW theory limps towards it’s demise like a wounded animal towards certain death.

  5. pyromancer76 says:

    Thanks, Anthony. What a comforting post. Tis the season for glad tidings.

  6. Bulldust says:

    Like a refreshing breeze of truth after sitting through the Oreskes lecture last month… I don’t know how to describe that experience and remain polite, so I shall remain quiet :)

  7. Fitzy says:

    Promptly forwarded to my email address book.

    I dread to think of the carnage already done to young minds the world over, who are looking at the previous generations with contempt, convinced we killed the Earth.

    I hope this will rally the healthy skeptics amongst Gen Y, and at least get them thinking.

    There is still time to put this right.

  8. Rob Yallop says:

    Great, but will the MSM notice?

    Perhaps they will report it after garnering a suitable rebuttal from the usual suspects.

    In New Zealand we are getting an average of one news story per day about the impending doom of AGW. Most of them are reprints from overseas media. Whilst this is annoying, it is far less than we had during Copenhagen.

  9. Ben Hillicoss says:

    I can hear ‘em now:

    “Oh yeah, well…um…my Consensus Dad can beat up your Denier Dad”

    and other inteligent come backs

    Ben

  10. jonesey says:

    It is hard to feel merciful after the abuse that has come from the AGW proponents in response to any questioning of the hypothesis.

    Most interesting (and possibly funny) times……

  11. David A. Evans says:

    Bulldust says:
    December 8, 2010 at 6:36 pm

    Was that a live lecture? If so, I congratulate you on not getting up and hitting her! That takes restraint.

    DaveE.

  12. Dave in Canmore says:

    Every day I grow more optimistic that many shall soon come to their senses.

  13. Roger Knights says:

    Rob Yallop says:
    December 8, 2010 at 6:42 pm

    Great, but will the MSM notice?

    Only a few of these 1000 scientists are speaking out loudly, harshly, and repeatedly. Once the mass becomes more emboldened and turns up the volume, their coalition will coalesce and snowball, and the MSM will start printing some of their really contemptuous comments, which they never do now. Give it a year.

  14. sky says:

    With so many other scientists now publicly agreeing with us, being a hard-core sceptic will soon lose its cachet!

  15. pesadia says:

    The sword od Damocles is now hanging above the heads of the team and their disciples. I wonder how long it will be before they yearn for their former anonymity.

  16. pesadia says:

    oops, that should read “of Damacles”

    [Reply: right the first time.]

  17. David A. Evans says:

    sky says:
    December 8, 2010 at 7:21 pm

    With so many other scientists now publicly agreeing with us, being a hard-core sceptic will soon lose its cachet!

    Bugger! does that mean I’m gonna have to become a believer to be different? /sarc

    DaveE.

  18. Fitzy says:

    Rob Yallop says:
    December 8, 2010 at 6:42 pm

    Great, but will the MSM notice?

    Perhaps they will report it after garnering a suitable rebuttal from the usual suspects.

    In New Zealand we are getting an average of one news story per day about the impending doom of AGW. Most of them are reprints from overseas media. Whilst this is annoying, it is far less than we had during Copenhagen.

    ——-

    I remember it well.

    TV3 led each night with escalating bogeymen stories, then across they’d pop to NoHopenHagen, Samatha Hayes tried to look worried, all the while pouting, doing both a disservice to journalism, which I doubt she can spell, and science.

    This years been quieter on the AGW Telly front, though a Tory government helps put a bit of a lid on it, they ain’t reversed the Emissions-(how fast can I kill my economy)-Trading-Scam. So only Tory in name.

    Had Slave-Labour won a third term, Komissar Helen would still be banging the drum, instead shes at the UN finding novel ways to look busy reducing the worlds population.

    Maybe time to rally the locals who comment here – thanks Anthony – and help get the message through to what passes for an editorial team at TV3 and maybe TV1. I don’t think I can stand another Cat-Inna-Tree puff piece by either.

    Cheers!

  19. savethesharks says:

    Wow. Pretty stunning quotes.

    Of course…you will not hear….or see….them in the media.

    But the truth can not be suppressed forever.

    Time to light the torches….

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USa

  20. JER0ME says:

    So now we just have to wait for:

    1. RealClimate to acknowledge the lack of consensus
    2. The Hockey Team to admit they may have made a few mistakes, and open their workings and data for public scrutiny
    3. The Media to pick this up and report it widely.
    4. Gore and Pachuri to return their ‘peace’ Nobel awards
    5. The IPCC to self-disband as they are no longer required

    All pigs fed, and ready to fly!

  21. C_NDelta says:

    I suspect the usual suspects will look at this list and state that very few are qualified in climate studies. Just this week Andrew Weaver implied as much on a radio show… one comment was to the effect that 98% of scientists who publish in the field are behind (ie supportive) of the AGW theory. And listen to his comments on ClimateGate. About the 22 minute mark. I wish someone who was really up on their facts would call in to refute this guy when he is on air.

    http://www.corusradio.com/Shared/AudioVault/CKNWAMaudioVault.asp?VaultDate=20101206&VaultTime=11&mysubmit=Listen

    You have to be registered to listen to the vault Dec 6th at 11:00AM – chatter starts at about 11:10 and goes thru to 11:30.

    .

  22. Baa Humbug says:

    Wow, the reach of big oil is worse than we thought.

    /sarc off

  23. Fitzy says:

    Anyone like to predict when the Public tipping point will kick in.

    Will we see the Huffington Post with a headline:

    “AGW – We Got It Wrong” (Oh please, please, please)

    Or perhaps MSM with a stunning investigation into – “AGW The Fraud of the Millenia.”

    It must come, this is well past the dogged determination to hold out, despite all contradictory evidence stage – we’re all gathered around the AGW grave, lobbing Nobel prizes and funding/grant forms in, while an elderly gravedigger, leaning on his spade, looks on puzzled at all the fuss.

    Next calamity?

    Shortage of Post Grads not infected with the Funding first virus (Truth optional).

  24. John Wright says:

    And I think this is just the beginning. It will open the flood gates if only for the reason that there is safety in numbers. Even the most timid will come out – the end of the polarisation?

  25. JRR Canada says:

    2010 has been a wonderful year so far, more to come for sure.Times will get very interesting when the penny drops for the true believers, it might be time for the most prominent pushers of this fiasco to be on a 2 year cruise or left in space by Rutan and Co.Its funny how nasty former believers can be, especially if they aren’t pointed at you.

  26. banjo says:

    Some people will be hard to convince.

    ‘E’s not pinin’! ‘E’s passed on! This parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! ‘E’s expired and gone to meet ‘is maker! ‘E’s a stiff! Bereft of life, ‘e rests in peace! If you hadn’t nailed ‘im to the perch ‘e’d be pushing up the daisies! ‘Is metabolic processes are now ‘istory! ‘E’s off the twig! ‘E’s kicked the bucket, ‘e’s shuffled off ‘is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin’ choir invisibile!! THIS IS AN EX-PARROT!!

    sincere apologies to python(monty)

  27. GregO says:

    “I am ashamed of what climate science has become today,” The science “community is relying on an inadequate model to blame CO2 and innocent citizens for global warming in order to generate funding and to gain attention. If this is what ‘science’ has become today, I, as a scientist, am ashamed…Science is too important for our society to be misused in the way it has been done within the Climate Science Community.” Swedish Climatologist Dr. Hans Jelbring

    This quotation just blows me away – “relying on an inadequate model to blame CO2 and innocent citizens for global warming…”

    The hatred for humanity underlying the CAGW fad is under reported and unrecognized. Do the foolish media mouthpieces realize when they are reporting on the alleged fact of Mankind Destroying Mother Gaea by global warming that they are talking about you, me, and themselves? In other words, innocent citizens?

  28. davidc says:

    Some in the MSM are beginning to appreciate that the fraud, and the reach of it, is a big story. This will help.

  29. John Blake says:

    Aside from Briffa or the excrescent Michael Mann, post-1995 graduates in “climate studies” (sic) are conspicuous by their absence. PR types like la Papa may flaunt their doltish prejudices, but researchers under forty uniformly cower beneath Big Government’s grant-sponsored desks.

    Warmists have eaten their seed-corn, sacrificed an entire generation of contributors to AGW in bad faith under false pretenses. As time goes on, it will become ever more painfully obvious that –as ever in such overweening Statist exercises– a sad-sack Gresham’s Law fosters delusional incompetence in everything that peculating eco-fascists touch. As their bubble bursts, no-one remotely associated with Green Gang carbon offsets, mindless “energy alternatives” entailing willful sabotage of global coal, oil, nuclear energy economies, will ever muster credibility again.

    Caught in a 70-year “dead sun” Maunder Minimum similar to that of 1645 – 1715, today’s Iron Triangle of academic, bureaucratic, media elites will see Cancun’s rent-seeking dreams dispelled by grim reality. Ten years from now half of ‘em will be cabdrivers, the rest panhandlers or welfare parasites implanted like tapeworms on the dole.

  30. Martin C says:

    I wonder how much this might change the ‘backing down’ stance talked about a few months ago. Recall there were more articles here and there talking about things in nature that were casting some doubt on AGW.

    Wouldn’t surprise me for the GCM modelers to start saying “well, we have continued to learn about the variability issues and have plugged them into the models, and lo and behold! , projections (or forecasts) are showing lower temperatures down the road. Well what do you know, we’re learning something to . . .”

    . . . but will Hansen and the ‘team’ go that route . . ? Somehow, I doubt it . . .

  31. D. King says:

    jonesey says:
    December 8, 2010 at 6:59 pm
    “It is hard to feel merciful after the abuse…”

    Yes, but we don’t want to rub it in!
    Well, maybe a little.

  32. R. de Haan says:

    From Joe Bastardi:
    THURSDAY MORNING
    PREPARATION FOR RENEWAL OF EXTREME COLD FROM FRANCE TO SCANDINAVIA AND WEST THROUGH THE UK SHOULD BE MADE.
    I am hopeful ( prayerful) that the coming cold wave that will follow what thaw there is in the northwest will have the populace prepared. While it is true I have had a little fun with those that dont see eye to eye with me on the issue of AGW, the coming cold, in the wake of the stress that has already been put on the populace of the northwest part of Europe, is nothing to joke about.
    The current cold will shift southeast for a while, before the re-establishment of the cold pool back where it was the past 2 weeks. This will allow for people to have a few days of milder weather in the UK and Ireland. Germany is liable to take the brunt of the whole thing, for while there is a few days of warming in the northwest, the cold shifting southeast centers over them and when it reloads a bit further west it is over them.
    While I realize its open for debate, the patterns that are developing are part of what I described would start to happen a few years ago when the combination of oceanic, solar and even seismic cycles( the last one being the biggest wild card) began to take effect. The coming years will tell who is right and who is wrong. The true shame here though is that people were brainwashed into thinking such things could not happen anymore, and its almost dastardly that the ones that did the brainwashing are now claiming its because they were right ( we go from saying it wont occur because of something, to it is occurring because of what was suppose to prevent it from occurring). In any case, it is my sincere hope, that folks in the targeted area do not take this lightly. If I am overdone in some places, all the better. There will be a price to pay in hardship for this, and in studying the whole pattern that is in front of western and northern Europe the next 15 days ( the shot of cold into the south and east comes and goes, but when it comes anew after the new year, it may remain) the bitter pill to swallow for not being prepared for such things is as nasty as the cold itself.
    Be ready!
    ciao for now ***
    http://www.accuweather.com/ukie/bastardi-europe-blog.asp?partner=accuweather

  33. Mike Jowsey says:

    David A. Evans says:
    December 8, 2010 at 7:38 pm

    Couldnt agree more mate. I have been stirring the pot a bit with alarmist blogs, citing this article but I doubt the mods will let me through. Time to stir the pot in my own back yard – TV3, Auckland Herald, Nick Smith, etc etc.

    And this 1000+ is the tip of the iceberg (nay – ice flow!)

  34. Anton says:

    John Blake says:

    “Warmists have eaten their seed-corn, sacrificed an entire generation of contributors to AGW in bad faith under false pretenses. As time goes on, it will become ever more painfully obvious that –as ever in such overweening Statist exercises– a sad-sack Gresham’s Law fosters delusional incompetence in everything that peculating eco-fascists touch. As their bubble bursts, no-one remotely associated with Green Gang carbon offsets, mindless ‘energy alternatives’ entailing willful sabotage of global coal, oil, nuclear energy economies, will ever muster credibility again.

    “Caught in a 70-year ‘dead sun’ Maunder Minimum similar to that of 1645 – 1715, today’s Iron Triangle of academic, bureaucratic, media elites will see Cancun’s rent-seeking dreams dispelled by grim reality. Ten years from now half of ‘em will be cabdrivers, the rest panhandlers or welfare parasites implanted like tapeworms on the dole.”

    That’s pretty harsh, but I do believe thousands of “climate scientists” who’ve either jumped on the AGW bandwagon or refused to speak out against it have more or less sealed their fates down the road. Would you, as the president of a university or CEO of a major corporation after this hoax has been thoroughly discredited want to hire someone so arrogant, craven, egotistical, gullible, greedy, political, dishonest, stupid, or unoriginal? Imagine nearly an entire generation of “climate scientists” with no useful imagination, loyalty to the scientific method, or interest in empirical observations, stuck in front of computer screens using models and ludicrous arguments from authority as their guideposts, thinking only of what new scares they can contrive to get grants, published, and media attention. These are not scientists; they are computer gamers, financial speculators, groupies, and rock star wannabes who’ve done more harm in twenty years than all their predecessors combined.

    I feel sorry for them. Karmic won’t.

  35. Jeremy says:

    You Cancon some people some of the time but you Can’tcon all the people all the time!!

  36. vigilantfish says:

    John Blake says:
    December 8, 2010 at 8:15 pm

    Aside from Briffa or the excrescent Michael Mann, post-1995 graduates in “climate studies” (sic) are conspicuous by their absence…. As time goes on, it will become ever more painfully obvious that –as ever in such overweening Statist exercises– a sad-sack Gresham’s Law fosters delusional incompetence in everything that peculating eco-fascists touch.

    ———-

    Channeling Lord Monckton, are you? Nice….

    There is safety in numbers, but I agree that while older and more experienced scientists will feel relatively comfortable in emerging from the climate change skeptics’ closet, younger scientists — who have not yet witnessed the repeated cycles scientific alarmists catastrophic projections followed by the complete failure by Gaia to conform to these predictions — will have a harder time shaking off their chains of mental subjugation.

    No doubt a good number of scientists will also quietly shift to a new scare of the decade — it’s a new decade, after all! — thus holding on to their environmentally-correct credentials while never having to admit to the revelations showing their community’s complete abandonment of scientific principles.

  37. Jaye Bass says:

    Quote from Cancun:

    What prompted this conclusion was a candid admission from a U.N. official closely involved with the climate negotiations, German economist Ottmar Edenhoffer: “But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore.”

  38. Ken in Beaverton says:

    Abe Lincoln had it right. “You can fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time, but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.”

  39. Iren says:

    Lord Monckton has written another, much more sombre (indeed terrifying) report from Cancun -

    http://sppiblog.org/news/the-abdication-of-the-west

    Just a taste -

    After the spectacular bloody nose the Secretariat got in Copenhagen, it was most anxious not to endure a second failure in Cancun. To this end, it obtained the agreement of the German government to host a monthly series of conferences in Bonn in the early part of 2010, some of which were open to outside observers and some were behind closed doors in a comfortable suburban palace, where the new way of legislating for the world – in secret – first came into use.

    The Chinese regime, anxious to get a piece of the action, agreed to host an additional session in Tientsin a few weeks ago. The purpose of this near-perpetual international junketing – which the national delegates have greatly enjoyed at our expense – was to make sure that nearly all of the elements in the Cancun agreement were firmly in draft and agreed well before Cancun, so as to avoid what too many journalists have tediously and obviously described as a “Mexican stand-off”.

    It is precisely because of all this massive and expensive preparation that the note by the Chairman, whose main points are summarized above, may well reflect what is finally decided and announced here in a couple of days’ time. The Chairman is not simply guessing: this Note reflects what the Secretariat now confidently expects to get away with.

    Following the (successful) EU template of dictatorship by stealth.

  40. Cassandra King says:

    We the people demand a refund!

    The taxpayers have funded a gigantic fraud, where is the money? Yes we always knew the MMCC/AGW/CAGW/GCD theory would crash and burn in the end in the face of observed reality but hundreds of billions of taxpayers money is missing and we want it back.
    Who got rich, who milked the funding streams,who got paid? It was not enough for Bernie Maddof to be found out was it? No of course not, it wasnt a case of ‘well you have been found out but to hell with with getting the money back’. We now have to think forward beyond the demise of the CAGW theory and start to consider where and to whom our money went and how much can be recovered.
    Even if only a fraction can be found and recovered then at least that would be something.
    The danger is that those who engaged in raping the public purse could attempt to vanish quietly into the background with healthy bank accounts, the priests of the cult allowed to fade away to spend more time with their ill gotten gains. Yes the cult is finished, we knew this all along but there has to be a full investigation.

  41. Jenn Oates says:

    A few years ago I got an email from a furious parent because I told her daughter that AGW was a hoax and that it was all politics, not science. The parent lambasted me for my weather/climate unit, and told me that I ought to be ashamed of myself for trying to brainwash my students and start teaching science, and keep out of politics (I had mentioned our friend Al). I replied that she was wrong, AGW was not real, and that since I taught science I would not be perpetuating a scientific hoax in my classroom. It’d be like teaching that Piltdown Man was an actual human ancestor–not gonna do it.

    Now that the hoax is finally falling apart to the point where even the masses are hearing anout it, I’d sure like for her to apologize. :)

  42. Roger Knights says:

    Fitzy says:
    December 8, 2010 at 7:40 pm

    In New Zealand we are getting an average of one news story per day about the impending doom of AGW

    Crock of doom.

  43. Steve Koch says:

    The link at the bottom of the article to the 321 page report did not work.

  44. EJ says:

    I think this is definitely the best post of the year.

    Could you please give this a ‘primer’ link on your sidebar?

    Thanks for all your work!

    EJ

  45. Michele says:

    Thank you to all the scientists who are speaking up. I’ve always heard truth will ultimately prevail… there’s hope.

  46. Note the nature of the “dissent”. Zorita (the second one named) disagrees with Mann and Jones on technical grounds — how to do proxy-based reconstructions of past climates — but he does subscribe to the view that the planet is warming because of human activity.

    I (the third one named) think that the IPCC misrepresents the literature on the impacts of climate change and climate policy, and that this is a symptom of structural problems at the IPCC — but I also think at anthropogenic climate change is real and a problem that should be solved.

  47. Steve Koch says:

    Any Cancun agreement treaty certainly won’t be ratified by the USA Senate. Certainly China and India won’t agree to either limit their CO2 emissions or help finance the agreement. Japan has already announced they are not going to participate.

    The EU might ram it down the throats of the EU proletariat. Having said that, the current financial crisis (PIGS countries) might be a great opportunity to throw off some of the shackles of the EU.

  48. EJ says:

    When you break it down, they are saying we should eliminate all the fauna (CO2 Emissions), only then will we heal the atmosphere and save the planet from impending warming doom.

    This is why I find climate science so interesting. I thought the main stream team would have corrected itself by now. It’s been years since Wegman dismantled Mann. Yet he still gets to oped about the apocalypse above the fold?

    The white lining to this nonsense is that we can also spot the media idiots, and there are many.

  49. Andy says:

    Jenn Oates says:
    December 8 2010 at 10:27pm

    I’ve had a similar experience Jenn. I’m a maths teacher in a London secondary school (11-18 years). During one of my lessons a child mentioned AGW, so I decide to explain to the class why I thought the theory was complete rubbish and showed them some graphs (eg graphs that show MWP, logarithmic effect of CO2, etc) to explain why. I’m not exaggerating when I say the kids actually cheered!
    Anyway, the next day the Head of Science came to see me in the staff
    room and told me to stop telling the kids about my ‘conspiracy theories’.
    The graphs are now stuck on the wall of my classroom for all to see! ;)

  50. Richard Telford says:

    A blacklist?

  51. John Whitman says:

    Climate science is indeed in a reformation / renaissance mode.

    The more scientists that speak out about problems with the IPCC process and the problems involving the so-called consensus scientists, then that will energize others to speak out.

    There is a growing level of confidence that science will self correct from the problematic behavior of the past 20+ years of IPCC consensus bias.

    John

  52. Ceetee says:

    Pleeeeese can I volunteer for jury duty on this one?

  53. Hang on guys! Guys??? Come back ….. Aren’t you going to play any more? We (NZ) have got our ETS all up and running to save the planet and now no one is going to play nicely with us? That’s not fair, guys – not fair at all. C’mon back and play …. Please …. We will let you have the best toys …. Guys …. Guys ….??

    [don't forget Key's estimate of only $3 per week additional cost??? ~ac]

  54. Anton says:

    Anton says . . .

    “I feel sorry for them; Karmic won’t.”

    I, Anton, mistyped. I meant to say say: “I feel sorry for them; Karma won’t.”

  55. Peter Miller says:

    It is comforting to know there are some real climate scientists out there and not just “climate scientists” manipulating data, feeding from the trough of government grants and funding.

    One thing is for sure: the “climate scientists” will now step up their attempts at trying to discredit the real climate scientists. The proponents of Mannian maths and its equivalent will not go quietly, the Team will want to continue to survive and prosper at taxpayers’ expense.

    Any chance of this article being distributed to the AGW cult faithful at Cancun and Real Climate?

  56. Baa Humbug says:

    Richard S.J. Tol says:
    December 8, 2010 at 11:06 pm
    but I also think at anthropogenic climate change is real and a problem that should be solved.

    There you go Richard, the UN is solving the problem for you.
    Have a read of Moncktons missive at the link provided by
    Iren: December 8, 2010 at 9:58 pm
    http://sppiblog.org/news/the-abdication-of-the-west

    You can go celebrate now. Well done.

  57. John Whitman says:

    A litmus test for MSM? Yes. Any media companies that do not report these 1000 scientist’s positions are doing a media self-obsolescence dance before our skeptical eyes.

    John

  58. greg2213 says:

    There will be no apology or acknowledgment from the MSM or the scientists behind CAGW. There wasn’t when global cooling turned to warming a few years back. There was none when the warming scare of a few years prior to that turned to cooling. Nor was there any in the previous shift.

    We’ll know the shift has happened by the change in MSM stories which will loudly proclaim global cooling, not by any admission that there was error. A few years from now scientists will be denying that they were supportive or the warming ideas just like they now deny their support of cooling. Calls will be made for the UN to take over the world’s economies to save us from Deep Ice.

    After another 30 or so years the cycle will switch, again, and someone will have replaced Mr. Gore as Head of Hype.

    Scary headlines from the past, many remarked about on WUWT previously.

  59. Michael says:

    I can’t keep up with the happy news.

  60. Slabadang says:

    Great!!

    MSM is fraudulent and its extremely important that scientists steps forward in thousands and declare their insight.I can not enough admire them for their curage.
    This isnt only a fight that has to be won by science this is in the end the fight to maintain democracy.We have another thousand democratic heroes signing up on this petition. You goooo!!

  61. Jimbo says:

    I don’t think AGW will collapse because of consensus shifts but it will be down to the weather. If prolonged cooling or flat temps continue for much longer then it’s over for AGW. Then Anthony will have to blog less on climate and more on:

    “puzzling things in life, nature, science, weather, climate change, technology, and recent news by Anthony Watts”

    The rest of us can then get on with our lives.

    Heads must roll after the demise of this gigantic scam.

  62. Michael says:

    Cassandra King says: Wrote
    December 8, 2010 at 10:01 pm
    We the people demand a refund!

    “The taxpayers have funded a gigantic fraud, where is the money? Yes we always knew the MMCC/AGW/CAGW/GCD theory would crash and burn in the end in the face of observed reality but hundreds of billions of taxpayers money is missing and we want it back.
    Who got rich, who milked the funding streams,who got paid? It was not enough for Bernie Maddof to be found out was it? No of course not, it wasnt a case of ‘well you have been found out but to hell with with getting the money back’. We now have to think forward beyond the demise of the CAGW theory and start to consider where and to whom our money went and how much can be recovered.
    Even if only a fraction can be found and recovered then at least that would be something.
    The danger is that those who engaged in raping the public purse could attempt to vanish quietly into the background with healthy bank accounts, the priests of the cult allowed to fade away to spend more time with their ill gotten gains. Yes the cult is finished, we knew this all along but there has to be a full investigation.”

    I always have to scroll up to who is writing these sorts of things, and it always turns out to be you Casandra. I used to save and recirculate some of your posts. I wish I had all your posts ever in one book.

    People are supposed to learn from their mistakes, otherwise, what’s to stop them from doing it again. I agree with you, those guys need to be punished reasonably.

  63. J Felton says:

    C_NDelta said ” this week Andrew Weaver implied as much on a radio show… one comment was to the effect that 98% of scientists who publish in the field are behind (ie supportive) of the AGW theory. And listen to his comments on ClimateGate. About the 22 minute mark. I wish someone who was really up on their facts would call in to refute this guy when he is on air.”

    Tell me about it. This hack, who won the Nobel prize along with Gore, works out of my hometown. ( Victoria, British Columbia.)
    I have several colleagues who have unfortunatly worked alongside him, and they not only describe him as a sleazy, poorly-educated scientist, ( and I use the term ‘scientist’ loosely,) but he has actually shouted down, with much extreme language that I wont repeat here, anyone who tries to challenge his view. A despicable example of bias indeed.

  64. Cassandra King says:

    Dear Michael,

    Many thanks for your kind words of support, they mean a lot to me and I am glad that I can contribute in some small way to a larger understanding of the issues.

    The greater tragedy is not a failed theory, science is littered with such dismal failures and it is how science progresses, treading on the broken remains of disproven theories. This one is different, the theory was exploited by the greedy the power hungry the carpet baggers the crooks and they used the ignorance and gullibility of useful idiots to do it, this cannot and must not be allowed to stand for all our sakes.

    We need justice and we need to learn the lessons, not some meaningless platitudes spewed up by some politicians but real and hard lessons. BTW my humble posts belong to any who cares to read them as soon as I hit the send button, you may use and improve them as you see fit.

    Yours

    Cassie K

  65. Thomas says:

    I don’t know about all the rest of those names, but including Hans Jelbring and calling him a climatologist is a joke. As far as I know he has only published one paper, and that one in Energy&Environment where he claimed to prove that the greenhouse effect doesn’t exist, that the Earth would be just as warm with no greenhouse gases at all because the atmosphere gets heated by gravity alone. That is what he wants to replace those “inadequate models” with!

  66. Alexander K says:

    Anthony, the article is an excellent compilation of evidence which, no doubt, will quickly spread around the blogosphere and leak, ultimately, into the lazy reaches of the MSM where most journalists only interview their PCs. Thank you.
    I habitually have a quick daily perusal of the MSM on line that isn’t hidden behind a paywall and have observed over the last couple of weeks that not only is any news from the Cooncan conference hard to find, but the number of silly Chicken Little-themed articles appears to have considerably diminished. Even Louise Gray of the Telegraph has reversed her usual ‘ CO2 disaster’ theme and published a story in today’s Telegraph about the UN admitting some glaciers are growing. Wow!
    In the Guardian, which has been reliably the warmist flagship organ to date, the sceptics now tend to outnumber the warmistas considerably in CiF blog posts and a number of the usual ardently-ranting attack-warmistas on those threads are absent. I also observe that the Guardian moderators are tending to close strings off quickly when the sceptic comments wildly outnumber and outfact the warmist contributions.
    Perhaps they have gone on holiday, or are sitting in their freezing and snowbound electric cars or lying beside their bicycles (the Guardian is very big on bicycles and I understand most ardent warmists won’t drive anything that produces CO2 and wave eco-themed placards at the ones equipped with 4WD) somewhere near Edinborough, Glasgow or York, waiting for a medic in a nice warm Armed Forces Landrover to rescue them.
    Or maybe truth is dawning upon them and they are metaphorically creeping away red-faced, silent and embarrassed, thanking their lucky stars for the gift of anonymity allowed by blog editors. While a few of the faithful turn up every day to give witness, still chanting their mantras of ‘overwhelming numbers of scientists’ and ‘peer reviewed papers’ and spitting their customary vile language when reason and their woefully inadequate lexicons fail them, but the Guardian currently has the air of a church about to close it’s doors due to a shrinking congregation of faith.

  67. paulo says:

    Jesus wept!

  68. zorro says:

    Posted a critical comment here not expecting it to be accepted – to my surprise when I checked back later it was, along with a slew of far more acerbic remarks. The ABC has been a hot bed of alarmist fundimentalists. Looks like the tide is turning!!
    http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/42008.html

  69. Ken Hall says:

    In reference to the younger generation of scientists graduating universities, obviously I cannot speak for all of them, but I am heartened by personal experience of my own daughter’s University in Wales. When she started her science degree (it’s an ‘ology’ ref: Maureen Lipman 1980′s British Telecom commercial) in the first year they had a mandatory module on basic principles covering the essential nature of, and need for a strict adherence to, the scientific method.

    From what she has seen of the “hockey team’s” work, she has concluded that, whatever they produced, it is not science.

  70. MostlyHarmless says:

    Readers here responded well to the suggestion that the IPCC be renamed IPeCaC. I suggest AGW be interpreted as Anthropogenic Global Whining. Some readers may ponder my handle – it comes from “The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy”, wherein the brief description of Earth in the Guide is amended from “Harmless” to “Mostly Harmless”. That’s also my assessment of CO2, and I wonder what the author Douglas Adams would have made of all this unscientific bruehaha about mankind’s supposed effect on the climate, had he survived.

    I hope I survive long enough to see this scam exposed for what it is. I look forward to seeing a new book published, along the lines of “Anthropogenic Global Whining – how a handful of scientists conned world governments, an unquestioning press and half the population into believing in an unsupported theory based on unverified computer models”. Just a mo’ – several such have been published already, but of course, they’re reviewed (if at all) by that same unquestioning press and media.

    Here, gentle reader (note to plagiarism detectors: I borrow directly from “Monckton’s Missives” which reach the parts other missives can’t reach) I get to the point. There is a term “investigative reporter”. In my ignorance, I assumed that all reporters should be such; if they are not, then they are merely writers of copy. Reporters should report ON what they’re told, not merely cobble together what they’re told into an article. So-called “balance” in a news article or TV programme, merely sticking in a quote or two from the “other side” is just paying lip service to balanced and investigative reporting.

    Scepticism should be deeply ingrained, not merely invoked when what they’ve been blithely reporting begins to fall apart under the weight of contrary evidence.

  71. Neal Asher says:

    I’ve just taken the time to email this stuff to national newspapers (where I can find a contact) and asking why they are not reporting it. Perhaps if more people did this? We can but hope for a tipping point, or rather that one extra straw on the camel’s back.

  72. RR Kampen says:

    “I find the Doomsday picture Al Gore is painting – a six-meter sea level rise, fifteen times the IPCC number – entirely without merit,” Tennekes wrote.

    Never the picture Gore painted, but many people cannot parse the word ‘if’. Gore said: ‘If the Greenland ice sheet melted, a sea level rise of six metres would ensue’. Normal people people read: ‘The Greenland ice sheet is melting! Tomorrow sea level stands six metres higher!’.

    Let’s follow the money if we want to know where the ‘dissent’ [SNIP] comes from:

    Lobbying activities ramped up in 2009 as the House of Representatives began debate on the American Clean Energy and Security Act. Senate deliberations began last fall and continued throughout 2010. The entire electric utility industry spent more than $264 million on lobbying alone in 2009 and the first half of 2010. Oil and gas interests spent a record $175 million lobbying in 2009—a 30 percent increase from 2008—and have spent $75 million already in 2010.
    From http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/2010/09/dirty_money.html .

    Going to a billion per year and you know what? You’re all paying for it, every time you airco or heat your house, every time when you fill her up (the car). IPCC’s budget is a lousy five million, it’s a miracle the organisation survives.

  73. Brent Hargreaves says:

    Bulldust (8 Dec, 6:36PM): You say you’d have difficulty being polite in describing the Oreskes lecture. Actually, your account might be interesting. If you disagreed with her stance you’re at liberty to say so or just report what you heard and leave it to others to draw conclusions. Go on, man, give it a go!

  74. BillD says:

    Back a century and a half ago, President Lincoln formed the National Academy of Sciences as an independent group, in part to advise the government in a scientific, nonpartisian way. The NAS and essentially all of the equivalent groups around the world agree with the scientific consensus on AGW. This begs the issue of who and what the signers of the petition are thinking.

  75. Garry says:

    Yes, the widespread mainstream media predictions that Cancun would be “a disaster” have seemed suspiciously facile, too convenient, too widespread, and hence diversionary. In retrospect it is obvious that UNFCCC and others would very much like to NOT to have too much media or public attention focused on their plans and activities.

    So in this light the perceived lack of attention on Cancun is actually a huge PR success for the CAGW statists and totalitarians and redistributionists.

    Iren says December 8, 2010 at 9:58 pm: “Lord Monckton has written another, much more sombre (indeed terrifying) report from Cancun”

    http://sppiblog.org/news/the-abdication-of-the-west

  76. val majkus says:

    O/T BUT
    Another big story to emerge today:

    It increasingly appears that the science is just a pretext and the stakes are much larger:
    http://sppiblog.org/news/the-abdication-of-the-west
    reported by Lord Monckton:
    The abdication of the West

    December 9th, 2010

    The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley

    From the SPPI Blog

    Cancun, Mexico

    I usually add some gentle humor to these reports. Not today. Read this and weep. Notwithstanding the carefully-orchestrated propaganda to the effect that nothing much will be decided at the UN climate conference here in Cancun, the decisions to be made here this week signal nothing less than the abdication of the West. The governing class in what was once proudly known as the Free World is silently, casually letting go of liberty, prosperity, and even democracy itself. No one in the mainstream media will tell you this, not so much because they do not see as because they do not bl**dy care.
    The 33-page Note (FCCC/AWGLCA/2010/CRP.2) by the Chairman of the “Ad-Hoc Working Group on Long-Term Co-operative Action under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change”, entitled Possible elements of the outcome, reveals all. Or, rather, it reveals nothing, unless one understands what the complex, obscure jargon means. All UNFCCC documents at the Cancun conference, specifically including Possible elements of the outcome, are drafted with what is called “transparent impenetrability”. The intention is that the documents should not be understood, but that later we shall be told they were in the public domain all the time, so what are we complaining about?

    The UN wants nothing less than 1.5% of our GDP.

    That’s $212 billion from the USA every year ($2700 per family of 4).

    That’s $32 billion from the UK every year ($2000 per family of 4).

    That’s $13 billion from Australia every year ($2400 per family of 4).

    Read in full the outcome being sought by the UN at the link above or at Jo Nova’s blog http://joannenova.com.au/

    World Government!!!!!Communist style

  77. kcrucible says:

    “Aside from Briffa or the excrescent Michael Mann, post-1995 graduates in “climate studies” (sic) are conspicuous by their absence…”

    Not really so surprising, and for several reasons.

    1) These graduates came out of an indoctrination program. The older scientists didn’t.

    2) The young are full of hubris and by-and-large believe themselves to be better and smarter than the old phogies that preceeded them. Of course they see things how they really are, and are going to save the world, etc, etc, etc.

    3) Of the younger scientists that weren’t successfully brainwashed and have an objective open mind, there’s social pressure to keep their yaps closed if they intend to progress in their careers. That sort of threat is much more dramatic to a 30 year old than it is to a 55 year old who’s built his own reputation and has a place marked out for himself already.

  78. Rod says:

    It’s very hard to get optimistic about that here in Brazil, the media shows absolutelly nothing about skepticism over AGW, the most popular news website shows pictures of the sea level close to the Christ the Redeemer in Rio, only a few people that understands english can see what’s really happening.

    PS: Sorry for my bad english. =P

  79. Alex the skeptic says:

    In my country we have an old saying: A lier’s life is short.

  80. steveta_uk says:

    I suspect the quote attributed to Dr. Hans Jelbring is wrong.

    It comes from this paper:

    http://www.tech-know.eu/NISubmission/pdf/Politics_and_the_Greenhouse_Effect.pdf

    in a section apparently written by “William C. Gilbert”, who is not a climatologist. Doesn’t make him wrong, of course, but he’s not an “expert”.

  81. ShaneCMuir says:

    A Letter to the Editor I sent to my local newspaper:

    There has been a lot of discussion in the media about Wikileaks recently but I have noticed that some news outlets, most notably the Telegraph in England, have incorrectly credited Wikileaks with the Climategate emails from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that were leaked last year. The two leaks really should be separated as much as possible. While Wikileaks recent release of information could be considered interesting – much like a gossip magazine is mildly amusing – the Climategate emails were vast enough in their implications to effectively change a persons ‘world view’.

    The leaked emails showed that the science of Climate Change was anything but ‘settled’. The emails revealed a bunch of agenda driven people who were prepared to go to nearly any length to “hide the decline” of temperatures in the last decade even though Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere had most certainly increased. These so called ‘scientists’ were willing to illegally delete emails, delete raw data, get sceptics fired, manipulate the peer review process and simply make data up out of thin air in a desperate attempt to fool the people of the world into believing that catastrophic man-made global warming was inevitable unless we taxed and traded the air plants breath and the water people drink. One would think that this information release would have brought that whole process to a screaming halt, but no, government representatives are meeting in Cancun Mexico at this very moment trying to pretend that the science is, indeed, settled. At the same time a recently released report has over 1000 international scientists and climate researchers, including many current and former UN IPCC scientists, disagreeing with the IPCC findings. That is 20 times the number of scientists on the UN panel itself. So much for settled science! Meanwhile the world has its eyes and ears fixated on a relatively unimportant.. Mini-leak.

  82. johnnythelowery says:

    It ain’t over and even if there is a lull, the battle has only just begun. The present generation will always believe Cadillacs & Hummers are warming the planet (But, oddly: not BizJets) and they will always feel the atmosphere is finite and pumping pollution into it the way China is going indefinately can only be bad; all those coal fired power plants, etc.

    King ‘AGW BY CO2′ is Dead. Long Live the King.

  83. vigilantfish says:

    Jenn Oates says:
    December 8, 2010 at 10:27 pm

    A few years ago I got an email from a furious parent because I told her daughter that AGW was a hoax and that it was all politics, not science. The parent lambasted me for my weather/climate unit, and told me that I ought to be ashamed of myself for trying to brainwash my students and start teaching science, and keep out of politics (I had mentioned our friend Al).

    ———–

    Congratulations, Jenn. It encourages me when I hear about teachers that refuse to toe the politically correct line. My husband is another such – but I fear you are few and far between. Keep up the good work!

  84. Jay says:

    val majkus wrote:

    “The UN wants nothing less than 1.5% of our GDP.
    That’s $212 billion from the USA every year ($2700 per family of 4).
    That’s $32 billion from the UK every year ($2000 per family of 4).
    That’s $13 billion from Australia every year ($2400 per family of 4).
    World Government!!!!!Communist style”

    The problem with this is the USA does not have 212 billion a year to spend…we are broke, in debt, and getting worse.

  85. Jeremy says:

    RR Kampen says:
    December 9, 2010 at 3:05 am

    Never the picture Gore painted, but many people cannot parse the word ‘if’. Gore said: ‘If the Greenland ice sheet melted, a sea level rise of six metres would ensue’. Normal people people read: ‘The Greenland ice sheet is melting! Tomorrow sea level stands six metres higher!’.

    I see, so the shrill predictions of doom were all correctly caveated and we’ve all just misinterpreted? Is that what you’re saying? This is a joke and a very poor attempt at trolling.

    Let’s follow the money if we want to know where the ‘dissent’ (essentially the denial of CO2 as a GHG) comes from:

    Lobbying activities ramped up in 2009 as the House of Representatives began debate… The entire electric utility industry spent more than $264 million on lobbying alone in 2009 and the first half of 2010. Oil and gas interests spent a record $175 million lobbying in 2009—a 30 percent increase from 2008—and have spent $75 million already in 2010.

    Going to a billion per year and you know what? You’re all paying for it, every time you airco or heat your house, every time when you fill her up (the car). IPCC’s budget is a lousy five million, it’s a miracle the organisation survives.

    And whenever you pay taxes, you are (as we now know) paying for publicly funded scientists turned into advocates to lie to you about whether or not they’ve accounted for the urban heat island effects, the effects of solar cycles on climate, the statistical significance of any warming found, the absence of the signature hot-spot over the tropics, the negative feedback effects climate has, etc..etc.. all down the list.

    At least with energy companies, I have choice. You have no choice when it comes to taxes taken out of your paycheck. You people like to speak of “dirty money”, but the reality is that money freely given to a corporation for a service is far far cleaner than money that government forcefully takes from you on threat of incarceration. If you don’t agree, go spend some time in a nation where a taxed peasant class still exists. I’m sure it will be difficult to get into North Korea, but you seem enthusiastic so I give you even odds of making it past the mindwashed soldiers with guns.

  86. PaulM says:

    The list is still incomplete – I can think of at least one skeptical scientist who is not in there. It is also poorly arranged – there seems to be no structure to it. For example it is hard see where the number 1000 comes from.
    A useful project might be to set up a web-based list and keep it up-to-date.
    Perhaps this could be done wiki-style as a collaborative effort.
    Ironically, one of the best list of skeptics is at the website of arch-warmist Jim Prall. He has 496 names on his list.

  87. Marcelo Santos says:

    How can I add my name to the list of skeptical scholars?

  88. ShaneCMuir says:

    Jay says:
    December 9, 2010 at 7:31 am

    “The problem with this is the USA does not have 212 billion a year to spend…we are broke, in debt, and getting worse.”

    I am sick to death of hearing this catch phrase.. every country is supposedly in debt right now.

    Now, I am not saying give money to the UN, certainly NOT!!

    But every sovereign country can be out of debt over night by following a very simple philosophy.

    Its called “Social Credit”.

    Don’t believe me?

    Then go to this website: http://alor.org/

    Scroll down to near the bottom and watch the videos under “Social Dynamics MOV Files”

    It is all explained very clearly.. but remember that JFK was murdered for doing this.

    .. or was it because he was creating peace with the Russians?

    .. or was it because he didn’t want to go to war in Vietnam?

    Damn.. JFK did a lot of things right.. hard to work out what he got killed for.

    But anyway.. research “Social Credit”.. it is the way out of debt for all sovereign countries.

  89. Ga'Tor says:

    For all of those with an open mind on the issue of Anthropogenic Global Warming, you should know that there are a significant number of scientists who do NOT support the concept. There are over 31,000 scientists who have signed the Petition Against Global Warming, who are opposed to the theory of AGW. Unlike most of the so called scientists who support AGW, most of who have no background or training in the earth sciences, the opposing PAGW scientists all have degrees which are related to Climatology, geology etc. Over 9000 of them are Ph.D.’s and the minimum qualifier to be on the petition is a BA in a field related to climate change. Do a search and find the truth for yourselves. The PAGW site lists all the scientists by name and shows how many scientists are in each field related to the earth sciences.

  90. Marc Morano says:

    steveta_uk says:
    December 9, 2010 at 5:01 am
    I suspect the quote attributed to Dr. Hans Jelbring is wrong.

    It comes from this paper:

    http://www.tech-know.eu/NISubmission/pdf/Politics_and_the_Greenhouse_Effect.pdf

    in a section apparently written by “William C. Gilbert”, who is not a climatologist. Doesn’t make him wrong, of course, but he’s not an “expert”.
    ##

    Thanks for alerting me. I have corrected the introduction and the body of the report with the following:

    I am ashamed of what climate science has become today.” The science “community is relying on an inadequate model to blame CO2 and innocent citizens for global warming in order to generate funding and to gain attention. If this is what ‘science’ has become today, I, as a scientist, am ashamed.” — Research Chemist William C. Gilbert published a study in August 2010 in the journal Energy & Environment titled “The thermodynamic relationship between surface temperature and water vapor concentration in the troposphere” and he published a paper in August 2009 titled “Atmospheric Temperature Distribution in a Gravitational Field.” [Update December 9, 2010]

    “The dysfunctional nature of the climate sciences is nothing short of a scandal. Science is too important for our society to be misused in the way it has been done within the Climate Science Community.” The global warming establishment “has actively suppressed research results presented by researchers that do not comply with the dogma of the IPCC.” — Swedish Climatologist Dr. Hans Jelbring, of the Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics Unit at Stockholm University. [Updated December 9, 2010. Corrects Jelbring's quote.]

  91. greg2213 says:

    Ga’Tor says:
    December 9, 2010 at 8:49 am

    For all of those with an open mind on the issue of Anthropogenic Global Warming, you should know that there are a significant number of scientists who do NOT support the concept.

    —-

    http://petitionproject.com/

    They are also very clear as to exactly which “global warming” they are referring to.

  92. Marc Morano says:

    Richard S.J. Tol says:
    December 8, 2010 at 11:06 pm
    Note the nature of the “dissent”. Zorita (the second one named) disagrees with Mann and Jones on technical grounds — how to do proxy-based reconstructions of past climates — but he does subscribe to the view that the planet is warming because of human activity.

    I (the third one named) think that the IPCC misrepresents the literature on the impacts of climate change and climate policy, and that this is a symptom of structural problems at the IPCC — but I also think at anthropogenic climate change is real and a problem that should be solved.

    # #

    Richard, you, Zorita, Curry, Lovelock, and Hulme are written about in the Introduction to the report, but none of you are included in the count of well over 1000 scientists. The Introduction just makes note of your views on the IPCC. I have added a note to clarify this in the introduction.
    Thanks
    Marc

  93. Marc Morano says:

    with guns.

    PaulM says:
    December 9, 2010 at 7:49 am
    The list is still incomplete – I can think of at least one skeptical scientist who is not in there. It is also poorly arranged – there seems to be no structure to it. For example it is hard see where the number 1000 comes from.
    A useful project might be to set up a web-based list and keep it up-to-date.
    Perhaps this could be done wiki-style as a collaborative effort.
    Ironically, one of the best list of skeptics is at the website of arch-warmist Jim Prall. He has 496 names on his list.

    # # #

    Paul,
    Thanks for the feedback. I do have spreadsheet with all of the names and may format and publish soon. The numbers will easily exceed 1100 when all of the German scientist open letter names are included.

    Marc

  94. Dr. Dave says:

    Many thanks and curses to Marc Morano. For 5 years I have been a hip, fashionable avant garde denier. Now everybody’s doing it! Time to start wearing turtlenecks and take up smoking! Hell…the next thing you know people will start demanding LIBERTY!

  95. C_NDelta says:

    Ga’Tor says:
    December 9, 2010 at 8:49 am

    “There are over 31,000 scientists who have signed the Petition Against Global Warming, who are opposed to the theory of AGW. Unlike most of the so called scientists who support AGW, most of who have no background or training in the earth sciences, the opposing PAGW scientists all have degrees which are related to Climatology, geology etc. Over 9000 of them are Ph.D.’s and the minimum qualifier to be on the petition is a BA in a field related to climate change. Do a search and find the truth for yourselves. The PAGW site lists all the scientists by name and shows how many scientists are in each field related to the earth sciences.”

    This is precisely the list of scientists that Andrew Weaver poo-poo’d in his radio comments as being nothing more than an “internet” online survey that anyone could sign on to or something to that effect. Per the radio show link I posted earlier.

    .

  96. Ken Harvey says:

    There is a looming problem. If governments, just a few, start acknowledging that we have all been had, what are they going to do about the subsidy contracts that they have given to wind farmers? Once the majority of tax payers understand the truth they will not only want the subsidies stopped, they will want those ugly wind farms torn down. Lawyers should do well.

  97. David, UK says:

    As far as I am concerned, the “more than 1000″ is a good start. We need even more learned sceptics to speak out. I am sure they will come, but many will only speak out after the political and economic damage has long been done and they find that they are no longer useful.

  98. RR Kampen says:

    Jeremy says:
    December 9, 2010 at 7:34 am
    [..]
    I see, so the shrill predictions of doom were all correctly caveated and we’ve all just misinterpreted? Is that what you’re saying?

    You can check my statements exactly by e.g. reviewing ‘An Inconvenient Truth’. Listen to the word ‘if’.

    I know there are ‘greenies’ out there whose culture is alarmism and I distance myself from them. But indeed much ‘alarmism’ is coined by AGW-skeptics then shoved into the mouth of climate scientists or IPPC reporting.

    As for taxes: vote political parties who would like to do away with them. You might succeed, you might not. However, that is democracy. Taxes I feel are forced away from me are invested in weaponry or overseas occupations of countries we have nothing to seek. On the other hand, there are taxes I’m willing to pay that other people are just as vehemently opposed to. Democracy is compromise, compromise, compromise.

    The reality is then, that you are free to pay no taxes. Consequentially you should either break the law or create a situation with no income in terms of money.
    The situation with energy companies is comparable: you are free to use no energy, or to steal it – both actions have consequences (‘you pays your money and you takes your choice’). If you decide to buy energy then you are willing to pay the price both for cited lobbies and the guys and countries (often ruled by nasty regimes) that hold up prices as high as possible by, e.g., creating artificial scarcities (I think Enron became famous for that kind of expertise).

    It is all your choice. My post simply explained in part what you are paying for.

    Aside, I think you should pull back the ‘troll’ remark. It can have only one reason: this is the fact that my post was effectively placed twice. The first version contained an error (the word ‘people’ one time too many). I should have drawn a mods attention to that and would be happier if the first version were deleted.

  99. Smokey says:

    Since the OISM Petition has been mentioned several times here, it might be worth reading what the 30,000+ co-signers were actually stating:

    The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

    There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases 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.

    That is an unambiguous statement that places the belief in CAGW where it belongs: in the realm of science fiction and fantasy.

  100. RR Kampen says:

    Smokey, if you leave out ‘catastrophic’ in that quote, we would be less tempted to envisage Venus’s hell and are left with a quote that might be a little easier to do away with. The fact that climate change will not range into the hundreds of Kelvin per year does not mean that there will be zilch change. -> Ritter: Gray! The world is gray, Jack! (the bad guy speaks a truth in ‘Clear and Present Danger’).

  101. Jeremy says:

    RR Kampen says:
    December 9, 2010 at 11:00 am

    You can check my statements exactly by e.g. reviewing ‘An Inconvenient Truth’. Listen to the word ‘if’.

    Oh I have no doubt that what you say is technically correct as I’ve seen the film. I also have no doubt that you’re being entirely dishonest by blaming those who were being fed a reason to fear for feeling the fear they were fed. It’s kind of like saying, “Oh wait, no I said there *MAY” be a fire when I yelled fire! You shouldn’t have run like you did, it’s all your fault.” It’s absurd to blame them entirely.

    As for taxes: vote political parties who would like to do away with them. You might succeed, you might not. However, that is democracy. Taxes I feel are forced away from me are invested in weaponry or overseas occupations of countries we have nothing to seek. On the other hand, there are taxes I’m willing to pay that other people are just as vehemently opposed to. Democracy is compromise, compromise, compromise…

    It’s nice that you discussed what I said tangentially. Now how about addressing the dirty-money reference directly? Do you consider money freely given to companies/corporations more or less “tainted” than money taken from you by force? As you said, democracy is compromise, so some people regardless of how they feel about taxes will be compelled to pay taxes or face jail because enough people vote for those who make taxes. So what is you answer? Do you feel that freedom to choose what I spend my funds on is greater than forcefully removing money, or vice versa? Is the money that is willingly handed to someone for a specific product or service a more or less positive use of earned representative national production (currency) than that same money locked into a budget that is 60% non-discretionary spending created by people I and many others were not alive to vote for? I await you direct response, and in this light I sincerely doubt you can call oil company money more “dirty” than the social security tax, which is taken from me by force by a law made by people who are now dead and which I will NEVER see a dime back from.

    I wont pull back the troll response, you have not directly answered my points, which indicates you’re only on this thread to generate response and not to address the points made. That is what trolls do.

  102. Smokey says:

    RR Kampen,

    You don’t understand. The climate alarmist crowd MUST try to scare people with tall tales of climate catastrophe – and all of them fabricated.

    If they were honest and admitted that there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of CO2 is causing or will cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate, then all we are left with is the prospect of a *slightly* warmer, milder and more beneficial climate, which translates into more land available for growing crops to feed a hungry world.

    So climate alarmists have no choice: they must continue their runaway global warming canard, or the other physical sciences that are being starved of funding will begin to question why an upstart young science like climatology gets so many $Billions every year, based on exactly zero testable, empirical evidence.

    So the term “catastrophic” is owned by the alarmist contingent, which continues to lie through their teeth about a completely imaginary threat. The whole thing is so completely bogus that only someone with a devious ulterior motive would perpetuate the CAGW lie.

    The UN/IPCC comes to mind, eh? Without any testable, physical evidence, it all amounts to red faced, spittle-flecked arm-waving by dishonest opportunists who are out to rob us blind.

    /rant

  103. Sergey says:

    All debates about climate completely ignore the most basic physical fact: heat can be accumulated in this planet in a form in which it can not be measured, and released into atmosphere by natural processes to affect measuring devices. Ocean heat capacity is more 1000 times higher that of atmosphere. It means that 1 degree of atmospheric warming corresponds to less than 0.001 degree of ocean cooling – an immeasurable quantity. Ocean is 13 C degree cooler than atmosphere (global averages both), so heat must be permanently pumped out of it into atmosphere. This heat pump is thermohaline circulation – oceanic flows conveyer belt. When it becomes stronger, more heat is pumped out; temperature rises. When it became slower, temperature falls. So no greenhouse effect is needed to explain climate change: this natural variability is enough to account for all observable cooling and warming.

  104. Phil Clarke says:

    In case anyone is interested here is the home page of one of Morano’s ‘international scientists’.

    http://www.alantitchmarsh.com/

    It is Alan Titchmarsh (Morano gets his name wrong), popular TV Gardening Presenter. A charming man, his scientific credentials extend to a diploma in Horticuture. Ask anyone from the UK if he qualifies as a prominent international scientist. Here’s part of the quote that Morano likes:

    “I wish we could grow up about it,” he explained, “I’m sure we are contributing to global warming, and we must do all we can to reduce that ….

    Not the most sceptical of sceptics then …..

  105. Rob says:

    Wait a minute. Marc Morano ?
    Isn’t that Inhofe’s (“global warming is a hoax”) PR man ?
    And isn’t he the biggest “hoax” creator as a source for Limbaugh’s conspiracy theories and misinformation that created the swift boat hoax and the climategate hoax ?
    Skeptics should be on the alert for any story that this guy pens out. You need to double and tripple-check anything that he writes.

  106. Rob says:

    It probably makes little difference here, but for the record, the paper mentioned above by Marc Morano by William C. Gilbert and Hans Jelbring (entitled “Politics and Greenhous Effect”) is scientifically laughable.

    http://www.tech-know.eu/NISubmission/pdf/Politics_and_the_Greenhouse_Effect.pdf

    This paper dismisses GHGs as a source of global warming, which by itself should have triggered at least some skeptic thoughts.

    The paper discusses the lapse rate in the atmosphere, but completely ignores the fact that the upper troposphere is cold because it looses heat by radiation from GHGs.

    Without GHGs in the atmosphere, radiative cooling would only be from the surface, which would then be the 33 C colder than it currently is.

    To display such a lack of basic scientific competence is not speaking in favor of these two scientists on Morano’s list.

  107. RR Kampen says:


    Smokey says:
    December 9, 2010 at 1:41 pm

    RR Kampen,

    You don’t understand. The climate alarmist crowd MUST try to scare people with tall tales of climate catastrophe – and all of them fabricated.

    Smokey, I distance myself from that and I said so before on this forum. You will not find announcements of future catastrophe from my hand here – or anywhere on the blogosphere (where I actually sometimes moderate screaming alarmist comment). I’ve announced sea ice-free Arctic summer soon but I have never associated this with catastrophe. I did remark it opens up the possibility of exploiting new oil fields and trade routes.

    You said:
    If they were honest and admitted that there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of CO2 is causing or will cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate, then all we are left with is the prospect of a *slightly* warmer, milder and more beneficial climate, which translates into more land available for growing crops to feed a hungry world.
    I disagree on the nature of a GHG whose concentration is rising. As for your prospect, I suggested as much in a post on this forum. If I knew how to retrieve my posts from say a couple of months ago, I could show you easily. The argument I made ran as follows: AGW-skeptics shouldn’t deny established knowledge, because it will sooner or later lose them all credibility; but they should indeed point to the prospect of a *slightly* warmer, milder and more beneficial climate, which translates into more land available for growing crops to feed a hungry world.. I might agree, although rapid climate change, including rapid warming, is never beneficial during the change simply because ecosystems and agriculture need to adapt which is a very ‘costly’ process. Example: those tending reindeer now will lose this way of living while a new way, e.g. woodmanship in those new forests that have grown over the tundra, takes time and investment to establish (this is the actual situation of Arctic Europe).

    Jeremy, forget the ‘dirty money’ (I don’t like the phrase either); instead look coolly at the numbers cited and see for yourself what you are paying for. Whether it’s worth it or not for you is not for me to say. The dirty thing is maybe just the fact that energy companies et cetera don’t tell you what you are paying for. So I gave a reference for that, with a hint to the ‘follow the money’-argument. If you ‘follow the money’, IPCC and climate science will really be the last place you’ll arrive on a trip that will have taken you to, e.g., Saudi Arabia.

    … taken from me by force by a law made by people who are now dead and which I will NEVER see a dime back from.
    How can I not agree? Man, I have even far worse grudges. Dutch State took away more than a year of MY life by obligatory military service! Things like that. Now what – viva la revolución?
    You know what really costs all of us big money for which we get nothing back at all? The priest caste of the modern age – I mean the bankers, Greenspan et cetera. Any drop in your or my income will be caused by that. Climate taxing is half a peanut in comparison.

    Trolls aim to destroy a forum. I am no troll. You cannot call anyone a ‘troll’ merely by picking out one of my rare posts here and feeling misunderstood by that response. I am entirely willing to try to clear such misunderstanding as I am trying now. I may not succeed this time again but it would still make me no troll. So say sorry, please.

  108. Sergey says:

    Rob, that is you who demonstrate scientific ignorance by this common fallacy about 33 C colder surface in absence of GHG. All atmospheric gases radiate into space, not only GHG, with the same efficiency. And they radiate at the tropopause at temperature -18C, which is maintained by adiabatic convection, the main mechanism of heat transfer in atmosphere. This temperature would be just the same, with or without GHG, according barometric formula, defined by universal gas constant R. Atmosphere of arbitrary composition will work as insulation due necessity to maintain linear vertical gradient, supporting convection and maintained by it. So these 33C, difference between surface temperature and tropopause temperature, is the result of adiabatic convection, and GHG do not enter in this process in any way.

  109. Mark T says:

    Ah yes, discredit early, discredit often. Without ad-hominem, you believers would not have a case. As I recall, it didn’t take a team of international scientists to embarass Steig, just a few amateurs without PhDs as I recall.
    Mark

  110. Rob says:

    Sergey,
    I am not sure where you obtained the information you stated but it seems that you also have fallen pray to an old ‘skeptics’ myth.

    First of all, the tropopause has a temperature of -50 C or so, not your -18 C.
    It can only be so cold there because something there radiates to space.
    Second, the major constituents of the atmosphere (O2 and N2) do NOT radiate in the IR spectrum. Radiation from top of atmosphere is thus reserved for GHGs. Since water-vapor is almost absent at that altitude (10-15 km) , the main radiating gas there is CO2, followed by methane and ozone.
    Change CO2, and you will tweek the knob by which the upper troposphere is cooled, which changes the amount of heat that escapes to space.

    Roy Spencer has a pretty decent article on this basic GHG effect, where he also addresses some of the common misconception that you and many other skeptics seem to hold.

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/04/in-defense-of-the-greenhouse-effect

    As skeptics, let’s at least agree on which parts of the GHG effect we dispute. If you believe in the myth that it is nonexistent then you look like an idiot.

  111. Sergey says:

    Every gas radiate in infrared (every body, solid, liquid or gaseous): this is the basic law of thermodynamics. According your own statement, the more CO2 is in upper atmosphere, the more effective is radiation cooling. As far as I know, GH effect hypothesis postulates just the opposite: CO2 hinders radiation cooling! So, “tweeking the knob” by increasing CO2 concentration would cool the Earth! Hail CO2!
    As for source of information about relative importance of convection and radiation in cooling the surface, there was a famous direct experiment by physicist Robert Williams Wood, in which he tested Arrenius hypothesis of greenhouse effect of CO2. He made 2 identical calorimeters, that is, wooden boxes with thermally insulated sides and bottoms, one covered by glass (which is opaque in infrared), the other with a slate of halite (NaCl), transparent in both wisible light and infrared. In each he placed a thermometer to measure the trapped heat. After exposure to direct sunlight for a while, the readings of both thermometers were identical. So the only possible conclusion is that in normal conditions (athmosperic pressure and near 20c temperature) all cooling is due to convection, and greenhouses are warmer not because of suppressed radiation, but because of supressed convection. Thin films of plastic used in modern greenhouses (completely transparent in infrared) work just as well as glass. If there is some radiation contribution to cooling, it is so weak that can not be measured, so the the name “greenhouse effects” attributed to trapping of infrared radiation by so-called greenhouse gases is a phoney term: it does not work at concentrations 1000 times lower than in Arrenius experiments (compared to convection).
    You are right, though, that my using of the term “tropopause” was a mistake: I meant the altitude at which ambient themperature is equal to radiative themperature of the Earth measured from the space, that is, to -18C. This altitude is 4000 m, which is lower, of course, than a tropopause (9-12 km).

  112. Sergey says:

    I could not find in Internet a description of Wood’s experiment, only a source of original work: “Wood, R. W. (1909). “Note on the Theory of the Greenhouse”. The London, Edinburgh and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science, Vol. 17, pp. 319-320.”

  113. Sergey says:

    Here is a rather detailed description of Wood experiment:
    http://greenhouse.geologist-1011.net/
    There is also theoretical discussion of conclusions from this experiment. But, do you accept these conclusions or not, you should at least understand that radiation cooling becomes important only above the midpoint altitude 4000 m, where almost nobody lives. For us, mortals, all these above-the-clouds physics is irrelevant, since themperature lapse between surface and this midpoint, 33 C, is already explained by adiabatic convection. GH effect need not to apply.

  114. Sergey says:

    The essence of Roy Spenser’s post is its last paragraph:
    “So, until someone comes along with another quantitative model that uses different physics to get as good a simulation of the vertical temperature profile of the atmosphere, I consider objections to the existence of the ‘greenhouse effect’ to be little more than hand waving.”
    That is exactly what I did: indicated alternative quantitative physical model for simulation of observable temperature profile of atmosphere, namely adiabatic convection. This is not my invention, this explanation of barometric formula is known for decades in physics of atmosphere. See
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lapse_rate

  115. DougInSanDiego says:

    I copied/pasted this article (with references) in an AGW article posted in San Diego’s “Union-Tribune” ~~~~ and was promptly banned from making any further comments on their site. Pravda comes to America!
    For anyone who dislikes this “AmericanPravda” motiff, the General Manager, Opinion Editor, and Alleged Science Editor are:

    GM: Mike Hodges mike.hodges@signonsandiego.com
    Op. Ed: William Osborne bill.osborne@uniontrib.com
    Alleged Science Editor (an AGW Priest): Gary Robbins gary.robbins@uniontrib.com

  116. Rob says:

    @Sergey,
    Seldom have I read more misinformation than in your (4) consecutive posts.
    I seriously suggest that you take a university course on radiative theory of gases.

    According to your theory, wrapping oneself in aluminum foil would not be better than wrapping yourself in plastic foil. I can assure you from experience that you are mistaken.

    Then, the Wood experiment.
    First of, in your link it is explained by the article by an Australian Petroleum Geologist. That should have triggered some skeptic thinking.
    In case you did not catch this, then consider this :
    What was the material on the inside of the boxes that Wood used ?
    If it was anything short of a mirror, then both boxes radiate as a black-box and thus no difference in box temperature would have been noticable.
    And you know why right ?

    Finally, regarding Spencer’s post ; I’m not sure why you think that Spencer (and pretty much every other scientist on this planet) would have somehow overlooked thermodynamics and radiative theory of gases and Wood’s experiment.
    I’m really not sure why you cling to an experiment done more than a hundred years ago that does not even say anyhing about GHGs. In short, I’m not sure why you seem to think that a theory that appears in you mind has not appeared in the minds of all the scientific institutions on this planet. I wish you luck with your beliefs, but meanwhile, I prefer to follow science and the scientific method to assess the relevance of GHGs in our atmosphere.

  117. Sergey says:

    @ Rob
    I need not university course of radiative theory of gases, since I had one, and I have master degree from Moscow University, Department of Mathematics and Mechanics, Chair of Fluid Dynamics and Thermodynamics. I was educated as a rocket scientist, my field is numerical simulation of supersonic and hypersonic flows with chemical reactions and heat transfer – radiative and convective. Applications include numerical simulations of nuclear blasts, aerodynamics and thermal shielding of re-entry bodies, internal dynamics of rocket engines, physics of combustion and explosion.
    Your comparison of aluminum foil (which absopbs nothing and reflects everything) with semi-transparent medium like glass or GHG, that absorb some and re-radiate some of the absorbed heat, is absolutely irrelevant. The question is not what is better for insulation from radiation (of course, for this purpouse foil is better than plastic), but what are relative contributions of convection and radiation in cooling of gases under normal conditions. Wood’s experiment was crucial to correct error of Arrenius, but mass perception lags behind real science by decades. Millions of school textbooks slavishly repeated Arrenius explanation of greenhouse effect for almost a century, and only recently this error was corrected in Wikipaedia!
    Materials used in calorimeters in Wood experiment was, of course, black paper, like in all calorimeters, and radiation from them was black body radiation in equilibrium with themperature (Stefan-Boltzman radiation). The Earth radiative temperature -18C is also blackbody, Stefan-Boltzman radiation, and was calculated according this formula. No need even consider any resonance spectral lines, their contribution in this temperature range is negligable. Radiation from stars is also almost exclusively black body radiation (helium and hydrogen), and as all blackbody radiation does not depend on chemistry of radiating bodies, only from their temperature.
    Robert Wood was not an ordinary scientist, he was a founder of spectroscopy and theory of radiation measurments in all bands of electromagnetic spectrum, inventor of infra-red and ultra-violet photography and the most authoritative expert of his time in optics of gases and thermodynamics of radiative heat transfer. That is why his experiment was so important.
    I do not think that theory that appeared in my mind was never considered by scientific institutions. Of course it was, but not by those who call themselves “climate scientists”. They are mostly meteorologists with some amateurish attempts in statistics and computer modelling. They do not understand physics. Russian astrophysicists and astronomers do understand it, that is why they are very sceptical about AGW. And I gave links to popular sources supporting my “theories”. Again, they are not mine: this is quite traditional and mainstream views of physicists, they are just unknown to meteorologists.

  118. Rob says:

    Apologies to Anthony for getting into a more in-depth discussion of the basic GHG effect here. I’ll try to be as brief as possible, and return to the subject of this post (Marc Morano’s list of ‘dissenting scientists’) when I have a chance.

    @Sergey,
    The core of the mistake you make is in the sentence “The Earth radiative temperature -18C is also blackbody. No need even consider any resonance spectral lines, their contribution in this temperature range is negligable”.

    This statement is verifiably false. The Earth does NOT radiate as a black-body. When you look at Earth from a distance, every wavelength has it’s own radiation level, reflecting the temperature (altitude) from which it emerged. Here is a graph of the full IR spectrum as radiated by planet Earth for clarification :

    http://acmg.seas.harvard.edu/people/faculty/djj/book/bookchap7-15.gif

    It’s NOT a simple black-body radiation spectrum. There are areas of the spectrum (water window) that rediate from the surface (@280 K), and there are areas (CO2 absorbtion spectrum) that radiate from 10 km altitude (@220 K) . Your 4000 meter altitude is only the average.

    Notice the huge dip (to a 220 K envelope) which is marked “CO2″ ? That is CO2 radiating from around 10 km altitude (where CO2 becomes opague as seen from space). Since the temperature is so low there, radiation is low as well. If CO2 were completely absent from the atmosphere, that part of the spectrum would be transparent until much lower altitude, and radiation would increase dramatically. Thus the Earth would cool rapidly, evaporation (and thus water-vapor) would reduce, until surface temperature drops to -18 C, where SB radiation equilibrium is achieved again. By that time Earth is a flozen ball of ice. That’s simple physics, and that (33 C difference with current +15 C average) is the essence of GHG effect caused by that trace gas CO2.

    Really no climate scientist disputes this effect, so I’m not sure why you put your own and Wood’s creadibility on the line, as well as poo-poo the knowledge of climate scientists. And may I remind you that for example Dr. Spencer is not just a good climate scientist, but also a skeptic. If anyone would dispute this effect, it would be him. But he does not, and I recommend you re-read his post (link above).

    Finally, while you are running your MODTRAN simulations that will confirm exactly the effect I describe above, I’d like to move on to the next ‘scientist’ mentioned in Marc Morano’s list :

    “The energy mankind generates is so small compared to that overall energy budget that it simply cannot affect the climate…” — Russian Scientist Dr. Anatoly Levitin

    Now I’m not sure if deliberate misinterpretation of the GHG effect is a Russian thing, but this guy really has no clue what he is talking about. This issue is NOT the amount of energy (heat) that we create, the issue is CO2 (and other GHGs) that warm our planet according to the GHG effect very compactly described above.

    Now, I’ll probably get everyone to bark at me this time, but I’m sorry guys. GHG theory is basic physics, and anyone disputing this is not focusing on the right issue.
    As Roy Spencer said : As skeptics, let’s at least agree on which parts of the GHG effect we dispute.

    If you believe in the myth that the GHG effect is nonexistent then you look like an idiot.

  119. Sergey says:

    I never asserted that Earth radiate as black body, I asserted that -18 C is the temperature of equivalent blackbody with the same integral (through all wavelength) intensity of radiation as the Earth radiate. This is the DEFINITION of radiative temperature: this concept applies only to Stephan-Boltzman spectral distribution. To resonance wavebands the concept of radiation temperature does not apply, since there is no universal relationship between their intensity and ambient temperature, while for black body such relationship holds.
    So you assert that if there were no GHG gases in atmosphere there would be zero lapse rate and no convection? But convection itself gives -18 C at 4000 m, according barometric formula, for atmosphere without water vapor and other GHG gases. Again, see the link I provided: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lapse_rate. (dry adiabatic lapse rate, equal to 9,8 C/km). Notice that no greenhouse effect is involved in derivation of this formula. See also the definition of radiation themperature:
    http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/R/radiation_temperature.html

  120. Sergey says:

    More detailed derivation of adiabatic lapse rate and its real-world application see in
    http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/sm1/lectures/node56.html.

  121. Sergey says:

    See also the opinion of the leading Russian physisict of atmosphere and ocean from Moscow Oceanology Institute, Dr. Oleg Sorokhtin:
    http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20080103/94768732.html

  122. Richard Sharpe says:

    Rob says on December 13, 2010 at 12:41 am

    If CO2 were completely absent from the atmosphere, that part of the spectrum would be transparent until much lower altitude, and radiation would increase dramatically. Thus the Earth would cool rapidly, evaporation (and thus water-vapor) would reduce, until surface temperature drops to -18 C, where SB radiation equilibrium is achieved again. By that time Earth is a flozen ball of ice. That’s simple physics, and that (33 C difference with current +15 C average) is the essence of GHG effect caused by that trace gas CO2.

    Is this really accurate? The reason I ask is that the surface air temperature seems to be a different thing from the surface temperature. That is, my understanding is that some of the incoming solar radiation is absorbed by the surface and the oceans, and since the oceans have something like a 1000 fold greater heat/energy capacity than the atmosphere, how much of the atmosphere’s energy is coming from radiative transfer of energy from the vs conduction and convection?

  123. Rob says:

    @Richard
    Indeed most of solar radiation (in visible spectrum) gets absorbed by the surface. It needs to get rid of that energy, or else the planet would heat up.

    Without any GHGs in the atmosphere, the atmosphere would not be able to radiate at all, so radiative cooling of the planet would have to come ONLY from the surface. Simple SB physics shows that the average surface temperature of the planet loose as much heat to space by radiation as it receives by direct solar irradiance if the surface is on average -18 C.

    With GHGs in the atmosphere, the surface can’t radiate that heat directly (since GHGs like water vapor and CO2 are opague in the IR spectrum), so the surface heats the atmosphere mostly by convection. As the air rises, it cools, by adiabatic expansion, just like Sergey mentions, until it reaches the upper troposphere. From there until space, GHGs are transparent, so the heat radiates away from high altitude. Unfortunately, since the air cooled so much, radiation is much reduced, which cause the surface to heat up (about 33 C) before an equilibrium (between incoming solar radiation and outgoing IR radiation) is achieved again.

    That’s the GHG effect is just two paragraphs. The heat capacity of the oceans does not change much about this picture, since it would only slow down the process (of heating/cooling) but not affect the equilibrium temperature of the surface.

    For Sergey, the lapse rate is important to determine the difference between the surface temperature and the upper troposphere, but it does not by itself change the radiative properties of the planet as a whole. That depends on the GHGs in the atmosphere and from which altitude they radiate to space. Change CO2 levels, and you change that altitude, which in turn moves the whole system (difference between surface and upper troposphere temperature) to a changed reference point.

    You have a scientific education, so please re-think this process. Please do not hide behind the opinions of people that do not understand such basic physical concepts. Think for yourself. For example, if the lapse rate is fixed (and enforced by convection) why would the surface of this planet be +15 C (and the tropopause at -50C) and why are these numbers not 0 C and -65 C respectively ? Same difference, same lapse rate, same convection, different surface temp. Why ? Because GHGs determine the altitude from which this planet cools to space. Change the concentration, and you change the reference point, and thus the surface temperatures.

  124. Sergey says:

    “Without any GHGs in the atmosphere, the atmosphere would not be able to radiate at all”
    Why, for God’s sake? Any body radiates accordingly its own temperature, as Stefan-Boltzman formula shows. That is why stars (and Sun) are visable to us. Atmospheres of most stars completely lack GHG, but radiate nevertheless, and we judge their temperature from spectral distribution of this radiation. Radiation of GHG in their respective wavebands has fixed frequencies and does not depend on temperature. There is no such thing as altitude at which atmosphere radiates: it does this from all altitudes, from the surface to tropopause and beyond. To calculate integral radiative flux into space, we must integrate fluxes from all these layers. It is impossible to calculate complete heat tranfer balance of real atmosphere with convection, wet lapse rate depending on geographic and altitude distribution of moisture, clouds, heat transfer due evaporation, condensation, freezing and sublimation: this problem is mathematically untractable, even if we had all needed information (which we do not have). So actual contibution of GHG is everybody’s guess, it can be everywhere from zero to several percents. No real theory of greenhouse effect actually exists, and these oversimplistic explanations containing absurd assertion that atmosphere can not radiate without GHG makes every literate physicist deeply sceptical about very existence of greenhouse effect.

  125. Rob says:

    Sergey,
    I’ve re-read your posts multiple times now, to see which part of radiation theory you misinterpreted, and I think it is in this key sentence :

    “To resonance wavebands the concept of radiation temperature does not apply, since there is no universal relationship between their intensity and ambient temperature”

    That statement is not correct for gasses where the molecules interact often (within their normal decay time after excitement by a photon).

    For such gasses (such as the Earth’s atmosphere and the Sun’s outer layers), the intensity inside the absorbtion lines follows the envelope of the black-body radiation spectrum for that gas’ temperature.

    Another way of looking at this is this : At the wavelengths (frequencies) where a gas has absorption lines, it is opague. And when a body is opague, then it radiates with the intensity set by the Planck equation (thus radiates as a black-body).

    Also, because it is opague, it obviously blocks (absorbs any radiation from the background. So it does not matter if the background is hot or cold, inside the absorption lines the gas always radiates with the intensity that you would expect a blackbody (with the same temperature as the gas) to radiate.

    So when we look at the Sun, we see spectral lines (from the outer layers of the Sun’s atmosphere) as ‘dark’ lines because the background is much hotter than the gas.

    And similarly, when we look at Earth, we see spectral lines (CO2, methane, ozone etc) from the outer layers of the Earth’s atmosphere as ‘dark’ lines, because the background (the Earth’s surface and lower troposphere) is warmer than the upper troposphere. The resulting spectrum is the one I showed you, or here as a Modtran plot :

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ModtranRadiativeForcingDoubleCO2.png

    Overall, the envelope of this plot indicates background radiation from a 320 K body (which is the surface). The absorption bands of CO2 (around 700 /cm) radiates at an envelope of about 220K. That means it radiates from about 10-12 km altitude.
    Notice that it blocks the radiation from below. It does not let the more intense radiation from the surface through, since CO2 is opague in that band. Also notice that the amount of energy that is trapped inside is quite substantial. So Earth cannot cool as effective as it could when CO2 were not present in the atmosphere.

    So spectral lines (absorbtion lines/bands) of cool gasses around warm bodies cause a reduction of space-bound radiation of the wam body because of this. And when seen from the warm body, the cold gas radiates ‘back’ at the warm body.

    And that, my friend, is the greenhouse gas effect in much more detail than you ever would read on popular blogs.

    Interestingly, I looked around the various ‘climate’ blogs, but could not find any explanation with this much detail and context. Maybe we should do a good blog on this here on WattsUpWithThat. Consider that there seem to be many people misunderstanding (or not understanding) basic greenhouse effect. Even to the point where (papers like) William C. Gilbert and Hans Jelbring, and probably many other people on Marc Morano’s list, completely ignore the very clear physical origin of greenhouse gas theory (and AGW).

    Anthony, is this something you would like to entertain ? I’d be happy to help out with a post.

Comments are closed.