WUWT readers may recall this story: Pielke Sr. on the gang of 18 letter to congress
Now, other scientists have seen that 18, and raised the stakes. Their letter is below:
February 8, 2011
To the Members of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate:
In reply to “The Importance of Science in Addressing Climate Change”
On 28 January 2011, eighteen scientists sent a letter to members of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate urging them to “take a fresh look at climate change.” Their intent, apparently, was to disparage the views of scientists who disagree with their contention that continued business-as-usual increases in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions produced from the burning of coal, gas, and oil will lead to a host of cataclysmic climate-related problems.
We, the undersigned, totally disagree with them and would like to take this opportunity to briefly state our side of the story.
The eighteen climate alarmists (as we refer to them, not derogatorily, but simply because they view themselves as “sounding the alarm” about so many things climatic) state that the people of the world “need to prepare for massive flooding from the extreme storms of the sort being experienced with increasing frequency,” as well as the “direct health impacts from heat waves” and “climate-sensitive infectious diseases,” among a number of other devastating phenomena. And they say that “no research results have produced any evidence that challenges the overall scientific understanding of what is happening to our planet’s climate,” which is understood to mean their view of what is happening to Earth’s climate.
To these statements, however, we take great exception. It is the eighteen climate alarmists who appear to be unaware of “what is happening to our planet’s climate,” as well as the vast amount of research that has produced that knowledge.
For example, a lengthy review of their claims and others that climate alarmists frequently make can be found on the Web site of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change (see http://www.co2science.org/education/reports/prudentpath/prudentpath.php). That report offers a point-by-point rebuttal of all of the claims of the “group of eighteen,” citing in every case peer-reviewed scientific research on the actual effects of climate change during the past several decades.
If the “group of eighteen” pleads ignorance of this information due to its very recent posting, then we call their attention to an even larger and more comprehensive report published in 2009, Climate Change Reconsidered: The 2009 Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC). That document has been posted for more than a year in its entirety at www.nipccreport.org.
These are just two recent compilations of scientific research among many we could cite. Do the 678 scientific studies referenced in the CO2 Science document, or the thousands of studies cited in the NIPCC report, provide real-world evidence (as opposed to theoretical climate model predictions) for global warming-induced increases in the worldwide number and severity of floods? No. In the global number and severity of droughts? No. In the number and severity of hurricanes and other storms? No.
Do they provide any real-world evidence of Earth’s seas inundating coastal lowlands around the globe? No. Increased human mortality? No. Plant and animal extinctions? No. Declining vegetative productivity? No. More frequent and deadly coral bleaching? No. Marine life dissolving away in acidified oceans? No.
Quite to the contrary, in fact, these reports provide extensive empirical evidence that these things are not happening. And in many of these areas, the referenced papers report finding just the opposite response to global warming, i.e., biosphere-friendly effects of rising temperatures and rising CO2 levels.
In light of the profusion of actual observations of the workings of the real world showing little or no negative effects of the modest warming of the second half of the twentieth century, and indeed growing evidence of positive effects, we find it incomprehensible that the eighteen climate alarmists could suggest something so far removed from the truth as their claim that no research results have produced any evidence that challenges their view of what is happening to Earth’s climate and weather.
But don’t take our word for it. Read the two reports yourselves. And then make up your own minds about the matter. Don’t be intimidated by false claims of “scientific consensus” or “overwhelming proof.” These are not scientific arguments and they are simply not true.
Like the eighteen climate alarmists, we urge you to take a fresh look at climate change. We believe you will find that it is not the horrendous environmental threat they and others have made it out to be, and that they have consistently exaggerated the negative effects of global warming on the U.S. economy, national security, and public health, when such effects may well be small to negligible.
Signed by:
Syun-Ichi Akasofu, University of Alaska1
Scott Armstrong, University of Pennsylvania
James Barrante, Southern Connecticut State University1
Richard Becherer, University of Rochester
John Boring, University of Virginia
Roger Cohen, American Physical Society Fellow
David Douglass, University of Rochester
Don Easterbrook, Western Washington University1
Robert Essenhigh, The Ohio State University1
Martin Fricke, Senior Fellow, American Physical Society
Lee Gerhard, University of Kansas1
Ulrich Gerlach, The Ohio State University
Laurence Gould, University of Hartford
Bill Gray, Colorado State University1
Will Happer, Princeton University2
Howard Hayden, University of Connecticut1
Craig Idso, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change
Sherwood Idso, USDA, U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory1
Richard Keen, University of Colorado
Doral Kemper, USDA, Agricultural Research Service1
Hugh Kendrick, Office of Nuclear Reactor Programs, DOE1
Richard Lindzen, Massachusetts Institute of Technology2
Anthony Lupo, University of Missouri
Patrick Michaels, Cato Institute
Donald Nielsen, University of California, Davis1
Al Pekarek, St. Cloud State University
John Rhoads, Midwestern State University1
Nicola Scafetta, Duke University
Gary Sharp, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study
S. Fred Singer, University of Virginia1
Roy Spencer, University of Alabama
George Taylor, Past President, American Association of State Climatologists
Frank Tipler, Tulane University
Leonard Weinstein, National Institute of Aerospace Senior Research Fellow
Samuel Werner, University of Missouri1
Thomas Wolfram, University of Missouri1
1 – Emeritus or Retired
2 – Member of the National Academy of Sciences
Endorsed by:
Rodney Armstrong, Geophysicist
Edwin Berry, Certified Consulting Meteorologist
Joseph Bevelacqua, Bevelacqua Resources
Carmen Catanese, American Physical Society Member
Roy Clark, Ventura Photonics
John Coleman, Meteorologist KUSI TV
Darrell Connelly, Geophysicist
Joseph D’Aleo, Certified Consulting Meteorologist
Terry Donze, Geophysicist1
Mike Dubrasich, Western Institute for Study of the Environment
John Dunn, American Council on Science and Health of NYC
Dick Flygare, QEP Resources
Michael Fox, Nuclear industry/scientist
Gordon Fulks, Gordon Fulks and Associates
Ken Haapala, Science & Environmental Policy Project
Martin Hertzberg, Bureau of Mines1
Art Horn, Meteorologist
Keith Idso, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change
Jay Lehr, The Heartland Institute
Robert Lerine, Industrial and Defense Research and Engineering1
Peter Link, Geologist
James Macdonald, Chief Meteorologist for the Travelers Weather Service1
Roger Matson, Society of Independent Professional Earth Scientists
Tony Pann, Meteorologist WBAL TV
Ned Rasor, Consulting Physicist
James Rogers, Geologist1
Norman Rogers, National Association of Scholars
Thomas Sheahen, Western Technology Incorporated
Andrew Spurlock, Starfire Engineering and Technologies, Inc.
Leighton Steward, PlantsNeedCO2.org
Soames Summerhays, Summerhays Films, Inc.
Charles Touhill, Consulting Environmental Engineer
David Wojick, Climatechangedebate.org
1 – Emeritus or Retired
Letter in PDF form: TruthAboutClimateChangeOpenLetter
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
My math is not very good,
but it looks like that is more than 18 in that rebuttal
to the Climate Rapid Response Team.
Well done and bravo!
Wonderful — hopefully this will find its way to Governor Brown’s desk.
I would add my name to the list of endorsers.
Matthew R. Epp, PE
State of Wyoming, Civil and Mechanical,
Could this be copied to all Members of Parliament at the UK House of Commons please?
Or” the team” could look out the window!
Bravo! I think the point by point rebuttal should have been included in the letter rather than offered as a web link. But, then again, adding it would have made the letter longer and we know congress persons won’t read anything more than a few pages anyway (like multi-thousand page bills they pass).
wonderful! quite made my day:-)
Get in there you little beauties! A rapid, co-ordinated and cogent response from some distinguished protectors of the good name of science. From the UK, we salute and thank you.
Can’t wait to read Joe Romm’s coverage of all this. Oh, wait….
GolfCharley – just make sure that Chris Booker and/or James Delingpole of The Telegraph are aware of it – they’ll hopefully add their twopennyworth and plaster it over that auguste journal…
Excellent.
What a breath of fresh air, simply intoxicating common sense and a perfect riposte to the alarmist letter. Anyone with an open mind reading the two side by side would see the difference in tone straight away.
The alarmist letter actually told quite a big lie, I suppose they believed they had to deny any contrary research because their own is so thin but to the actual recipients of the letter it surely looks like a personal insult in that the recipient is not judged competent enough or intelligent enough to weigh both arguments on their merits.
One letter seeks to deny the reader access to the fuller picture and the other strives to highlight that indeed there is such a fuller more rounded picture. If I were the recipient of the first letter I would be quite offended and not a little pissed at the arrogant and condescending tone. In fact judging the letter solely on its ability to persuade in a respectful manner I saw a pretty disastrous attempt to lecture a child, oooops not a great idea with politicians who have a well defined ego.
Epic fail for alarmism when the two are read together and I think it is going to rank with the snuff movie killing of deniers and their kids ‘no pressure’ in terms of failure to properly judge their target audience, it does seem that the alarmists are terrible at message presentation expertise.
In times past, loyalty to the cause of AGW was to be found everywhere. The will of the Group of Eighteen was the will of everyone.
… a lengthy review of their claims and others that climate alarmists frequently make can be found on the Web site of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change:
http://www.co2science.org/education/reports/prudentpath/prudentpath.php
“Lengthy” doesn’t begin to describe that report! When will people, especially scientists, learn to write????
That’s great! Ok, it’s for the ‘US-side’ of the Atlantic, but methink it could be enhanced + more useful if there were some well known scientists [and others] from i.e. Europe, Australia, Africa. Maybe that’s workable for a version 2? 😉
Brgds/TJ
These 18 climsci people are clueless–they have no more understanding of “concensus science” than they do “climate science”. Someday they’ll wake up and realize how foolish they really are–they would do well to investigate the abundant eye rolling, tongue wagging, and head shaking they cause in the educated masses.
Well done!
I can’t convey how happy this makes me. How relieved. I can’t pick up a newspaper these days or turn on the radio without getting my guts all twisted up. We need to stand up and fight. And when I say “we,” I mean of course the good folks with the credentials and scientific background sufficient to cause any fair minded person to understand that there is nothing settled about this so-called science.
Thanks to all you brave folks for scoring one for the “deniers,” a term I wear more proudly all the time….
To remind:
a Letter by 18 different scientific organizations to Senators concerning climate change legislation dated 21.Oct.2009,
Posted by Jeff Id on November 13, 2009, together with a reply, at: http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/11/13/open-letter/
Don’t be intimidated by false claims of “scientific consensus” or “overwhelming proof.” These are not scientific arguments and they are simply not true.
Sounds like classic Richard Lindzen to me!
Very good , but will it open closed minds?
Excellent!
Now, can we organise a similar letter by European scientists for presentation to the European Commission? Surely, there must be sufficient European scientists willing to put our heads above the parapet, or am I being naive?
Richard
Thanks for posting this, Anthony. I hope someone on the “skeptic” side can keep a running commentary on what happens with the AGW defenestration in this Congress (and also Parliaments in Australia and Britain). I think things will move like an avalanche, once they get going.
This document and its references provides the one-stop summary of the true state of climate knowledge that I have wanted. Many thanks.
DCC says:
February 8, 2011 at 8:55 am
“Lengthy” doesn’t begin to describe that report! When will people, especially scientists, learn to write????
Not many scientists like to write. What they do like is data and analysis, a feeling that they have at last understood something. Among other things that is really why the AGW crowd are so defensive, the sceptical view argues they are wrong and do not understand the climate. Scientific writing is the way it is for a purpose. It violates every rule of “effective” writing because the purpose is to communicate accurately, including all areas of uncertainty, grey areas, information lack, etc. The assumption is that the reader is there for “the facts,” not an entertaining rant, or to be sold, or have an ego buff and polish. A “scientific document” that is not dense and thick with qualifications is probably not offering science, but “sales.”
There never was a real consensus that CO2 was a problem. The consensus is only among media outlets.
This might be a good place to recall the 31,000+ scientists who co-signed the OISM Petition, including over 9,000 PhD’s. The Petition reads in part:
Thirty one thousand, versus eighteen. Where’s the real consensus?☺