Rebuttal to the Climate Rapid Response Team


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 http://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

About these ads

87 thoughts on “Rebuttal to the Climate Rapid Response Team

  1. 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!

  2. I would add my name to the list of endorsers.

    Matthew R. Epp, PE
    State of Wyoming, Civil and Mechanical,

  3. 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).

  4. 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….

  5. 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…

  6. 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.

  7. 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.

  8. 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

  9. 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.

  10. 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….

  11. 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!

  12. 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

  13. 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.

  14. 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.”

  15. 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:

    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.
    [my emphasis]

    Thirty one thousand, versus eighteen. Where’s the real consensus?☺

  16. Man, what a p***ing match we are in! Testosterone and masculinity must be involved. If this were 1870 we’d be enacting the story for High Noon, except that both sides would claim to be Gary Cooper.

  17. it looked to me like the wrong graph was put into section 10 of that co2 report. it looks like the land-air co2 transfer anomoly graph from section 8.

  18. The NIPCC report, which is approvingly cited in this letter, offers a very weak and tendentious argument.

    Evidence that points to a human contribution to the warming is waved away as being too uncertain, whereas even the flimsiest piece of circumstantial evidence is taken as rock solid proof that humans are not to blame.

    The report is based on an unfounded faith in negative feedbacks from nature (due to strong aerosol cooling), which are hypothetical with sometimes sketchy, often contradictory, and sometimes no evidence of actually operating at a globally significant scale.

    Lindzen is a signer of this letter, even though he puts forward the hypothesis that aerosol cooling is negligible, in direct contradiction to the NIPCC report, which sais that aerosol cooling is underestimated! I guess the contradiction doesn’t matter, as long as it can be argued that humans are not to blame.

    Perhaps time to develop a critical look into more than just one direction.

  19. Just a thought – is this being posted somewhere where others could add their endorsement?
    Maybe, a petition type site could host it? Several tens of thousands would certainly outweigh the list of 18 – though it may make them look a little unsupported!

  20. If I was a Congressional member, this obvious conflict would lead me to doing a very thorough review of this.
    Clearly things are not as the group of 18 claim.

  21. I would like to associate myself with the response to the group of 18. For DCC, the detailed response is necessary to do a detailed dissection of the scientific issues. It isn’t intended to be a readable precis; rather, it allows the expert to consider each of the AGW claims using robust responses from peer reviewed sources. The group of 18 are representative of governmental, NGO and UN groups that have adopted a view that AGW is “settled science.”

    The question remains open for the most skeptics. Assertions such at the group of 18 letter and the AMS lecture by Trenberth are aimed at squelching skepticism and asserting cataclysmic danger if governments don’t act. In the US, we are facing a de facto ban on exploitation of available carbon-based fuels, the diversion of grains to make ethanol which is universally recognized a boondoggle, and the coming draconian restrictions by the EPA which will impact not only heavy industry but transportation, light industry, and individuals will continue to strangle economic recovery. Political instability in the third world (Tunisia, Egypt, etc.) includes a major element of panic over food prices which are greatly exacerbated by the CO2 hysteria and developed world policies that limit economic and agricultural growth in Africa and Asia.

    The policy prescriptions and economic impacts on the west have a much greater danger of being cataclysmic in the short and medium term than any prospective impact of AGW.

  22. >> Bart Verheggen says:
    February 8, 2011 at 10:41 am
    For a critical look at the NIPCC report, see e.g. here: <<

    Starting off with an Ad Hom and putting skeptics in scare quotes makes it easy to ignore the rest as a typical religious screed from the church of CAGW.

  23. On my computer, there was ad adfor SimUText just below your report. It is worth noting that it had a picture of a polar bear on a small iceberg. Last Summer, I took an undergraduate level course in animal Ecology, and SimUText was used as part of that course. It was a simulation of moose and wolves on a Canadian island. It was conceded that warmer temperatures meant more plants, and that this would mean more moose if there were no wolves. But the program was set to oscillate more wildly in wolves reducing-moose-until-their-population-crashed-resulting-in wolf-crash, in higher temperatures, which meant that higher temperatures caused extinction of the moose and then the wolves. That is how dishonest biologists can be. More food, more moose results in extinction. Sure.
    —-
    I like the statement above except that it was still too apologetic and polite–maybe there is not such a problem. The actual evidence was that belief in global warming poses a serious threat to the biosphere. That is why I spend time on this site (well, ok, and my fellow posters are terribly funny). I want more life on Earth, and these lies threaten even the life we already have. It is NOT merely expensive. It is a threat to human well-being. And if humans starve to death as a result of 180 degrees wrong actions, the wild world will NOT be better off, but much worse. Not only will starving humans pressure wild areas more, but wildlife will also feel the damaging effects directly. Extinctions could come from all this false alarmism.

  24. Golf Charley says:
    February 8, 2011 at 8:15 am
    Could this be copied to all Members of Parliament at the UK House of Commons please?

    I wouldn’t worry too much about that. If the US government decided to take a long, hard look at this issue and came down on the heretics’ side (I really do think that’s a better term), it would be extremely difficult for the government of our tiny little island to persuade the people that draconian measures were needed. Of course, it all depends on what happens now. Here’s hoping…….

  25. The main problem I see is that in the “letter of 18″ every name had “Dr” in front of it, whereas In this letter the names have none. A congress-person will simply say “18 Doctors versus 45 nobodies – the 18 wins!” because congress-people aren’t the smartest people around.

  26. I am not a specialist in climate Mr. Verheggen but even I can tell that the standard of accuracy you are critical of is very far highter than the accuracy of your own supposed refutation. Your immediate citation of RealClimate as if it was a legitimate and honest source of anything makes the entire screed surreal.

    One thing is certain the information and conclusions in the NIPCC report have not been widely disproven by actual experiment. The same can not be said for the IPCC report.

    After careful review of the materials you discuss I can’t find any “Evidence that points to a human contribution to the warming”. I can find straw men and wild assertions mixed with large doses of wild speculation and a blindness to the lack of accuracy in the instrument record. I can find uninterrupted data fudging coupled with ex post facto “corrections” that are unexplained and wildly illogical. I can find raw data by the ream that suggests that there not only is no proven human caused warming but where the best maintained data sets can’t find any warming of any kind without fudging them beyond recognition.

    Are these the observations you wanted us to make? Perhaps you would like to give us an example of a positive feedback system that could remain relatively stable over millions of years? Perhaps you would like to lead us to evidence (not gigo computer models) that cloud feedbacks are actually positive since that fact is absolutely essential if the IPCC report is not completely wastepaper?

    Heck, I would be happy if you could just explain the natural variation of the glacial-interglacial cycle without contradicting the entire premise of AGW.

  27. An excellent, succinct review and repudiation of all the main hysterical headlines that the media love so much. Thank you all.

  28. GlenB says:
    February 8, 2011 at 1:13 pm
    “The main problem I see is that in the “letter of 18″ every name had “Dr” in front of it, whereas In this letter the names have none. A congress-person will simply say “18 Doctors versus 45 nobodies – the 18 wins!” because congress-people aren’t the smartest people around.”

    I think most, if not all, are “Doctors”:

    Akasofu: earned a B.S. and a M.S. in geophysics at Tohoku University, Sendai, Japan, in 1953 and 1957. respectively. He earned a Ph.D in geophysics at UAF in 1961

    Armstrong received his B.A. in applied science (1959) and his B.S. in industrial engineering (1960) from Lehigh University. In 1965, he received his M.S. in industrial administration from Carnegie-Mellon University. He received his Ph.D. in management from the MIT Sloan School of Management in 1968.

    James R. Barrante, Professor of Chemistry – M.A and Ph.D. in Chemistry — Harvard University B.A. in Chemistry — University of Connecticut

    Richard Becherer, BS (Physics, Boston College), MS (Physics, University of Illinois), PhD (Optics, University of Rochester),

    Just a quick look at the first four…

  29. Correct me if I’m wrong, but arent those “ohh so terrible” consequences simply projections of what “might” happen … To say that they are not happening today as evidence that GW is “not a problem” completely misses the point. GW, if it is a problem has only just begun… You should be sending this letter in a hundred years and coming up with a better set of reasons for today… I mean, I know its a bunch of republicans, but come on.. Surely they won’t fall for that excuse… Ohh wait. They probably will…

  30. to DCC; The CO2 report has 54 pages of references, which brings “lengthy” down to a meer 114 pages of rebuttle. Impressive is what it is, I hope to get through all of it.

  31. I’m not sure how many times we have to correct the heretics among you but it’s 18 organizations not Phd’s. Jeses, if you can’t even get that logic what hope is there for science to over come belief.

  32. Story dropped to AP, Fox, MSNBC, The Hill, and others — an hour well spent. Let’s see if they pick-up a solid news piece for a change.

  33. Trevor Pugh says: February 8, 2011 at 2:22 pm
    “I’m not sure how many times we have to correct the heretics among you but it’s 18 organizations not Phd’s. Jeses, if you can’t even get that logic what hope is there for science to over come belief.”

    From Dr Pelke’s post:
    “The letter of January 28, 2011 to the Members of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate is from

    John Abraham, University of St. Thomas
    Barry Bickmore, Brigham Young University
    Gretchen Daily,* Stanford University
    G. Brent Dalrymple,* Oregon State University
    Andrew Dessler, Texas A&M University
    Peter Gleick,* Pacific Institute
    John Kutzbach,* University of Wisconsin-Madison
    Syukuro Manabe,* Princeton University
    Michael Mann, Penn State University
    Pamela Matson,* Stanford University
    Harold Mooney,* Stanford University
    Michael Oppenheimer, Princeton University
    Ben Santer, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
    Richard Somerville, Scripps Institution of Oceanography
    Kevin Trenberth, National Center for Atmospheric Research
    Warren Washington, National Center for Atmospheric Research
    Gary Yohe, Wesleyan University
    George Woodwell,* The Woods Hole Research Center”

    Looks like 18 people not 18 organizations to me, especially since Stanford U is on there 3 times.

  34. I almost flunked a geology course from Don Easterbrook of Western Washington University back in the 70’s.

  35. To the 36 signers of the letter dated February 8 2011 to the US Congress,

    Thank you for your service in support of scientific openness.

    The open scientific debate is making its way past the smoke screen of the liberal MSM, ideological environmentalist NGOs & IPCC groupies!

    Viva the climate science renaissance over IPCC biased ideology!

    John

  36. Bart Verheggen says:
    February 8, 2011 at 10:39 am

    Perhaps time to develop a critical look into more than just one direction.

    ——-

    Bart Verheggen,

    Yes indeed it is time! I agree with you. Opening up the scientific debate into broader context is happening at an accelerating rate as shown by the letter signed by the 36 scientists. Viva la renaissance!

    John

  37. Lady Life Grows says:
    February 8, 2011 at 12:32 pm (Edit)

    On my computer, there was ad adfor SimUText just below your report. It is worth noting that it had a picture of a polar bear on a small iceberg. Last Summer, I took an undergraduate level course in animal Ecology, and SimUText was used as part of that course. It was a simulation of moose and wolves on a Canadian island. It was conceded that warmer temperatures meant more plants, and that this would mean more moose if there were no wolves. But the program was set to oscillate more wildly in wolves reducing-moose-until-their-population-crashed-resulting-in wolf-crash, in higher temperatures, which meant that higher temperatures caused extinction of the moose and then the wolves. That is how dishonest biologists can be. More food, more moose results in extinction. Sure.
    —-
    I like the statement above except that it was still too apologetic and polite–maybe there is not such a problem. The actual evidence was that belief in global warming poses a serious threat to the biosphere. That is why I spend time on this site (well, ok, and my fellow posters are terribly funny). I want more life on Earth, and these lies threaten even the life we already have. It is NOT merely expensive. It is a threat to human well-being. And if humans starve to death as a result of 180 degrees wrong actions, the wild world will NOT be better off, but much worse. Not only will starving humans pressure wild areas more, but wildlife will also feel the damaging effects directly. Extinctions could come from all this false alarmism.

    People, countries, economies and lives are already harmed by this CAGW propagandist alarmism. Today’s three-year-long recession traces its roots to the sudden rise in gasoline and oil prices driven by Nancy Pelosi’s House of Representatives policies in spring and summer 2007 – right after she took over the US House of Representatives from the (more energy rational) republicans. Sure, Bush was still President, but he did NOT prevent these catastrophic laws and budgets fro coming through enabling the EPA and deliberately restraining oil production and exploration. When oil prices rose right afterwords, that tipped the economy and manufacturing and shipping and production and aircraft and travel and retail business -> and the losses blew up the false bubbles in inflated housing and securities markets – also being propped up by bad democrat interest and loan policies that were NOT opposed by Bush.

    So we entered the 2008 recession just in time to drop the securities and stock market to turn the presidency over to the democrats. And continue the disastrous energy policies that threaten billions with shorter, harder lives and kill millions through poverty, disease and illness and starvation and bad water ….

  38. Moderators,

    Sorry I messed up my blockquotes in my February 8, 2011 at 3:56 pm comment directed at Bart Verheggen.

    John

  39. Trevor Pugh says:
    February 8, 2011 at 2:22 pm

    I’m not sure how many times we have to correct the heretics among you but it’s 18 organizations not Phd’s. Jes[u]s, if you can’t even get that logic what hope is there for science to over come belief.

    Clarify your comment: The letter these 18 “scientists” sent to the new Congress claiming that THEY – and ONLY THEY as hard-core highly-paid and professionally-taxpayer-funded CAGW propagandists- could be trusted to speak for the “truth” about CAGW issues was not sent on behalf of organizations but by these 18 self-chosen guru’s as individuals.

  40. According to http://ipccinfo.com/

    “The IPCC was established by the World Meteorological Organization and United Nations Environment Programme and represents the consensus science position on climate change, directly engaging more than 2,500 scientists from more than 130 nations.”

    And now there are 18? What happened to the other 2482? Are the present temperatures causing extinctions?

  41. Greg Cavanagh says:
    February 8, 2011 at 2:11 pm

    to DCC; The CO2 report has 54 pages of references, which brings “lengthy” down to a meer 114 pages of rebuttle. Impressive is what it is, I hope to get through all of it.

    Just so you don’t get confused, if you see “rebuttal”, it’s how most people spell “rebuttle”, and if you see “mere”, its how the rest of us spell “meer”.
    ;)

  42. Yes, 36:18 = 2:1, such a nice round number! :)

    Plus 45 endorsers; 45:18 = 5:2, or 2.5:1.

    Total 81:18! or 9:2, 4.5:1 .

    Nice, nice, very nice. So many different people in the same device!

    Bravo all.

  43. The thing that leapt out at me from this letter is that the signatories are not asking for money, or expecting to benefit personally from policies and legislation.

    Bit of a contrast to the other lot.

  44. Think about the damage the “environmental” movement has done to the world in the name of AGW. The recent uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt are food related. These countries eat a lot of bread. There have been weather related crop failures that have reduced world wheat production. In the past, other sources of grain or similar foodstuffs were available to replace wheat. But, with corn, sugar cane and barley being diverted into ethanol for fuel production instead of food, the world is becoming short on alternative FOOD products.

    Bottom Line: efforts to reduce dependence on “carbon based” fuels by “renewables” is creating the potential for disaster. (Course these products are also carbon based and would be better utilized as food for carbon based life forms rather than fuel) So add destabilization of a large portion of the world to the list of achievements of the Global Warming Crowd. The House and Senators might grasp these implications.

  45. Never underestimate the stupidity of some politicians, While Germany is rapidly back-pedalling on renewable energy, the UK government is hurtling towards it with the tenacity and speed of a rampaging elephant with an acid coated burr up its bottom.

  46. Who exactly is http://www.co2science.org? The original letter sent in January makes reference to the National Academy of Sciences which includes many scientists from across the nation (not to mention similar organizations that have the same message regarding climate change from around the world). The only three people with a science background at co2science appear to be related (since the chairman, president, and vice-president all share the same last name). First impression: biased opinion.

    The rebuttal letter claims the studies referenced in the co2 document provide no real-world evidence. Well, how about including studies that do include real-world evidence? Just because they were not included does not mean they do not exist.

    And the NIPCC? Come on. Everyone knows the IPCC as a group established by two organizations from the United Nations. They are just trying to hi-jack the name and credibility. And their website even indicates they are just an off-shoot from co2science. Second impression: very biased.

    Here is my problem: Yes, many millions of years ago the CO2 levels were much larger and there was a greater amount of vegetation. Two issues:
    1) There were no humans there at the time. You can’t compare what is happening now to what happened then.
    2) Over those many millions of years, CO2 levels came down as vegetation floruished, died and through numerous processes ended up buried and eventually turned to fossil fuels.

    It seems ignorant to think that there would be no environmental effect in releasing the CO2 stored in the Earth over millions of years suddenly being released rapidly in 1 or 2 centuries.

    One last thought: In the 1970’s, we experienced the impact of a manufactured energy crunch and realized we needed to change our relationship with energy. So far, very little has changed. Anyone check on the price of a gallon of gasoline recently? Don’t we need a real energy policy… like 3 decades ago!

  47. Polititians in America and Europe will always support scare stories, any excuse
    to belabour the poor citizens with ever increasing taxes especially when they
    say we are doing this for your benefit, hypocrisy writ large!!

  48. Sensor Operator

    Dig a little deeper, the Idso’s have published literally hundreds of papers in the scientific literature. They may be the worlds leading source of real experimental data on the effects of varying carbon dioxide levels. They also refer you to hundreds of sources authored by others.

  49. sensorop;
    The NAS “official” position is a textbook case of association executives and ‘crats sucking up to the Powers-That-Be-At-The-Moment on behalf of the entire membership, who were not and will not be consulted on the matter.

  50. Wondering Aloud:

    Okay, Dr. Idso (senior in this case, not the two sons having now confirmed they ARE related) has a number of papers. Some of these papers are just science. Not a bad thing, but hardly proves his competance in the field. For example: “A set of equations for full spectrum and 8-14 um and 10.5-12.5 um thermal radiation from cloudless skies.” I bet there is nothing wrong with this paper. Except it is just a paper. If one has a PhD, you are somewhat expected to have a number of papers.

    The problem is that the conclusions reached in the paper are not peer reviewed and are just re-hashes of arguements made by others and in some cases are just wrong. They continue to use a simple example that more CO2 is better for plants… based on a very controlled scenario. That is not how the real world works. Having studied oceanography we have to accept the first major problem that the world is very dirty beaker and we may never have a perfect answer since we don’t have results from a pristine environment, and I am not talking about pollution. Ocean water may taste like salt but there is alot more than just NaCl in there, i.e. what does pure ocean water mean? How do we create standards for a system that is in constant flux? (FYI, one does exist and is used by scientists around the world so everyone is comparing apples to apples.)

    And I did dig a little deeper into the paper and of the hunderds of paper they site, most of them are from people talking about increases in CO2 and the negative effects on the environment from climate change. Even Dr. Mann’s papers are included in his references. If we considered the positions taken by the papers you would find the vast majority support AGW.

    Also, the Idsos’ have a pedigree that shows they are closely connected to the coal and fossil fuel industry (Exxon/Mobil, Peabody Energy) which also forces people to question their sincerity. Do they believe in the science, or do they believe in the science that pays their bills? Folks want to criticize scientists as supporting AGW to get funding. Well, it happens on the other side as well.

    Remember, their simple example is that more CO2 helps plants grow better (done inside an aquarium). Well, we know for a fact that CO2 has been rising in the atmosphere (look at but it does not appear the vegatative biomass, on land or in the oceans, is doing better.

    Also, I believe it was the senior Idso who wrote a paper warning of global cooling due to increased CO2 levels. So as folks complain about all of the papers warning of global cooling, apparently we need to consider who was writing those papers.

    So, to be polite, the CO2 center is not exactly the National Academy of Sciences.

    I wish I could find it but back in the late 90’s or early 00’s, there was a great story about a power plant in the southeast US. The company saw that the government (under Clinton) was pushing stricter regulations on pollution from plants. Rather than play catch up (and have to make many changes at once), they created a schedule to upgrade their facility to meet the expected requirements. In the end, they have one of the cleanest plants in the country. Of course, the Clinton administration did not implement the regulations and when Bush came into office, the regulations were thrown out and not implemented. During an interview with the power company’s CEO or president (can’t remember which) they asked about two areas. First, did they have to raise rates to implement the upgrades. The answer: no. They had plenty of money and had a gradual implementation that did not require them to raise rates.

    The more important question: Would you have made these upgrades/changes if you knew the regulations would not be implemented, let alone enforced? His anwser: No. Even though they plant is one of the best/cleanest in the nation, they would not have made these changes. Why? Money. They implemented the changes in a way that would not negatively affect their cash flow and would be cheaper than having the implement changes all at once. However, not having to make any changes is even cheaper.

  51. Sensor operator says:

    “Remember, their simple example is that more CO2 helps plants grow better (done inside an aquarium). Well, we know for a fact that CO2 has been rising in the atmosphere (look at but it does not appear the vegatative biomass, on land or in the oceans, is doing better.”

    There is a lot in error with your post, but the comment above is flat wrong. Increased CO2 does in fact promote plant growth. A few of many examples:

    click1
    click2
    click3 [see "key findings" section]
    click4
    click5

    I have more if you’re interested, just ask. More CO2 is a net benefit to the biosphere. Further, no global harm can be shown as a result of the rise in this trace gas. The real world facts show that CO2 is harmless and beneficial. More is better.

    I picked your comment because for many years I raised tropical fish, and with a CO2 injection system, plant growth exploded. There is no doubt in my mind that increased CO2 is beneficial for agricultural production, as click5 above shows.

  52. Smokey:

    Okay, most of the pictures you have are from similar types of controlled experiments hyped by the Idsos. Yes, if I increase one of the many (not the only) components used by vegatation to grow, it will grow faster. However, there are many other knobs involved in the real world when we consider whole fields and environments, not one or two plants in controlled instances.

    Actual studies suggest that at best, in real world situations, vegatation yields may increase by 13% due to changes in the atmosphere (i.e. do not consider plant industries that grow things like tulips in higher CO2 controlled environments). But for real numbers (20-30% increased production with CO2 rates ~double the environment) take a look at http://www.hortnet.co.nz/publications/science/n/neder/co2_nr1.htm#top. And note that they indicate much higher (around 1000 ppm) is not useful.

    Also, remember CO2 is only one ingredient. Experiments have shown that even with an incease in yield from increased CO2 levels, other limiting factors, such as the amount of water or nitrogen available, will prevent the plants from grower any faster. Not to be a broken record, but there is more than one knob/dial involved. The concern from scientists is that the negative impacts from AGW will likely outweigh the benefit.

    Remember what we were taught by our parents as well: all things in moderation. Plants need water to grow too. But if you overwater a plant, it will die.

    But there is another problem that is being ignored in this topic. Plants can only remove CO2 from the atmosphere if they are alive. Once they die (and decompose) the CO2 is released back into the atmosphere. Essentially, the only way the environment can thrive and help with CO2 is if we allow forests and fields to grow and not be cut down. This is not to say we need to stop farming, but we need to recognize the vital importance of forests and trees in our neighborhoods.

    As for the plot in click 5. Sorry, this is just junk science. I could plot the number of galaxies found by the Hubble space telescope over time and get a similar plot. Just because two items can be plotted on top of each other does not indicate cause and affect. Especially in this case since the more likely cause for an increase in agricultural production is increased amount of farming required to support a larger population requiring more raw materials like grains and cotton, i.e. population versus time will give the same, and proper result.

  53. Smokey:

    It is not to say that CO2 is note required by vegatation, but to claim increased CO2 is good requires a number of other boundary/initial conditions:
    1) You must let plants, trees, and shrubs grow and cannot rely on agriculture to reduce CO2. Once the plant is cut down, it begins one of a number of processes, either through decomposition or even by becoming part of our food cabin, in which the CO2 goes BACK into the atmosphere. Matter doesn’t just disappear, it has to go somewhere.
    2) All of these studies and examples are under controlled scenarios. What about the real world when many other variables come into affect. We know that there is already higher levels of CO2 but that did not help the Russian wheat harvest when fires struck. And what about water? Droughts and floods (just ask Australia) have devastating impacts on vegatation as well. CO2 is not the only knob. The concern is that the negative impacts from AGW will overwhelm the possible positive impacts.
    3) Increased CO2 into the oceans is not a good thing. While some plants may be able to survive, the most important species, i.e. phytoplankton, will be harmed. For example, coccolithophores are currently have some significant problems since their calcium carbonate shells are being damaged by the increased ph of the water from added CO2. And, since oceans are warming, other species, like diatoms, are also struggling… even though CO2 levels are higher.

    As for the plot show in click 5: in is just science to be polite. I could plot the number of galaxies detected by the Hubble space telescope over the same time period and get a similar result. Just because two lines can be shown to overlap does not prove cause and affect. The more likely anwser is that greater agricultural production was required to meet the needs of a larger population that has increased the amount of goods, including food and clothing, that are consumed.

    The complaint from folks regarding CO2 versus global temperature change is they think something else is causing the changes. But to the best of our abilities, no one has presentated an alternate hypothesis, that has stood up to the scientific process, to show it is not AGW. Some folks have complained that is not the anti-AGW’s responsibility. But right now, all of the science says it is from AGW. So please, show me that the CO2 (which has been show to be from anthropogenic sources) and global T hockey sticks are not directly related.

  54. Oops, missed a word in the previous post (not just trying to be nasty here).

    I meant that the figure shown in click 5 is junk science.
    Just correcting my mistake.

  55. Sensor operator,

    Thank you for that link verifying that at current an projected CO2 concentrations, plants will benefit. And of course, no global harm has ever been demonstrated due to the rise in CO2. Therefore, more CO2 is harmless and beneficial. QED

    I agree that correllation is not necessarily causation. But the 34% increase in agricultural production since 1990 far exceeds the growth in population. Since added CO2 does in fact promote plant growth, you will have to do more than believe that chart is wrong. Why don’t you produce a chart backing up your [so far] baseless opinions?

    And if you must believe that CO2 is a problem [which you probably do despite the lack of any evidence], then by your reasoning we should immediately reduce U.S. postal rates.☺

  56. Smokey,

    I do not agree that at projected CO2 concentrations that plants will benefit. Only that in controlled situations, if the only variable is CO2, an increase in CO2 can result in an increase in plant production. You cannot avoid the other impacts on climate change, i.e. changes in temperature and flooding/drought, will be much worse than the minor gains in plant production. So no, more CO2 is not harmless and beneficial.

    That is the problem with the presentation from Soyface. They only changed the CO2. You also need to change water and temperature. For example, corn does not reproduce above 95 degrees Fahrenheit. Since I do not like to make up numbers here you go. They also point out that weeds also benefit from higher CO2 levels, increasing stress on crop plants. Even better, the picture they include on page 75 indicates that herbcide effectiveness decreases with increasing CO2.

    So going back to click 5 being bad science. A quick check online can find a nice article about land use change in Georgia from 1935-1982 here. While the article is not free, the abstract points out that:
    In all regions, NPP (net primary production) rose most between 1960 and 1982, coinciding with increases in inputs such as fertilizer and irrigation.

    So, with a minor search the most likely culprit is a change in the agricultural process and not an increase in CO2. Having talked with some folks I know over at the USDA, this is consistent across the US as a whole. No big surprises.
    Cause: more nutrients given to plants
    Effect: more production

    As to the US postal rate, while it is amusing, it shows that if someone tries, you can plot two completely independent variables and visually imply a connection. The same problem I pointed out in click 5.

  57. Credibility indicia.
    .
    Of the 18 singers of the first letter, 7 are members of the NAS. I wonder how many of them are actually actively engaged in climate research? I would guess most to all, but I have not checked this out.

    Of the 34 (?) we have 2 members of the NAS and perhaps 14 who are retired. One of those including the 86 year old Fred Singer, the right wing red baiting hawk, who has for his own anti government political views denied the harmful effects things like tobacco smoke, the hole in the ozone layer and DDT, despite being an expert in none of these areas. He has even taken money from the Moonies. (In the early 1990s, while officially “on leave” from the University of Virginia, Singer set up the Washington Institute for Values in Public Policy with the help of the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution and with funding support from the Unification Church (also known as “Moonies,” followers of the Rev. Sun Myung Moon, founder of the Unification Church).)

    Singer is obviously politically motived and neither a credible nor an expert on climate.

    Wonder how many other deniers share some of these traits: (1) retired, (2) right wing anti-government commie paranoia types, (3) do not engage in climate science research or peer reviewed publication, (4) are associated with anti-government think tanks and (5) take money from fringe groups like the Moonies?

Comments are closed.