U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007
from this link:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport
The variety and reach of this is quite large. This is a report gathered from many independent publications, it is not one of those “Internet Petitions” which can be easily loaded up with fake names by those that seek to minimize it.
I think the gist of this is that the pronouncements of “the science is settled”, the “debate is over” and “scientific consensus” may be a bit premature.
Of course I’m sure we’ll have those that will denounce this for a variety of the usual reasons, such as the favorite “they are all employed or supported by the fossil fuel industry”. But given the diversity on this list that will be pretty hard to prove.
For those interested in my work on the www.surfacestations.org project, this set of preliminary data posted here on 460 out of 1221 USHCN climate stations in the continental USA pretty well sums it up:
Its the same old gang, with the word “scientist” being used incredibly loosely for people like R. Courtney, E. Beck (who I think teaches highschool) and a bunch of retired old farts like Ball and Bryson.
Reply: Good ole’ BCL, predictable and crude. But, Merry Christmas anyway!
Anthony – did you notice?
Weldon is using quotes extracted from my little abortive attempt at a debate.
I’m a popularizer of AGW humbugs!
It’s interesting to me that BCL alludes to certain dissenters as being “old farts.” In fact, the core group embracing the most alarmist visions regarding climate change (and ecological issue impacts in general) tend to be in the 50 – 65 age group. Hmmm … that’s a rather interesting demographic there. 1968 anyone? I digress.
The largest growth in dissent is among scientists under 45 years of age. Ponder that.
I have a friend that I correspond with about a number of topics, foremost of which is climate change. He’s not quite convinced that there isn’t something there, but, neveretheless, views the entire issue as an opportunity to cash in on the new technology that is developing in response to the global hysteria of catastrophic warming/climate change. He recently emailed me a lengthy article entitled
“Fast, Clean, & Cheap:
Cutting Global Warming’s Gordian Knot
by © Ted Nordhaus, Michael Shellenberger, Jeff Navin,
Teryn Norris, and Aden Van Noppen, 2007.
It’s in MicroSoft Word format, so I can’t provide a link to the whole article, but I found one paragraph in it that I think reflects my view as well as most who post here.
I suspect that’s just got to drive people like BCL nuts.
It is the fear of dissent that is most telling to me.
It is the fear of dissent that is most telling to me.
That is somewhat of a red flag, isn’t it Bob?
“Its the same old gang, with the word “scientist” being used incredibly loosely”
Let’s all follow that famed scientist and inventor of the Internet Al Gore instead. How much has he profiteered from his fear-mongering slideshow this week? Is that ‘Old Fart’ style buying carbon credits from himself?
A lot of people in this debate( which is over, of course) are motivated by money and power. Imagine the power of MAKING people lower their lifestyles, to save the planet.
I’m not surprised at all to learn AGW is a low priority for most people. Poorly place subsidies are artificially tampering with the market resulting in the poor and middle class being squeezed by rising food prices, rising energy prices, and the subsequent ripple through the economy. The “luxury” of carbon credits and compact fluorescent bulbs will loose to $3/ gallon gas and $5/gallon milk. For all people, a smaller footprint is a want, not a need.
Yeah, BCL, what business do physicists, climatologists, geologists, botanists, paleobotanists have commenting on science!? Sheesh!
I love the adhoms by “scientists” like BCL. the attack on emerati is
old hat.
1. discredit a scientist because he is young.
2. discredit a scientist because he is mid career and establishing a name
3. discredit a scientist because he is old and needs to protect his legacy
4. discredit a scientist because he is old and losing his mind.
5. discredit a scientist because he receives industry funding
6. discredit a scientist because he receives government funding
You dont really have to KNOW anything to fling these mud pies. So that means BCL is qualified to throw any one of them.
Oh my I am so confused. I must get rid of my small 4 wd pickup and get something else because it is 20 years old and burns gasoline. (according to the warmers but it gets better than 24mpg on the road and 18 in town.) NOT
whe are in a drought here this year(global warming) it is raining now (global warmin) it will start ot warm up in March(global warming)
I agree with Bob L. to the adverage person this global warming (crisis) is far down the food chain.
I believe that once a few more true studies are done by responsible scientists there will be a major shift in public thinking and many politians are going to be crying in their carbon free milk.
Bill
B in V,
This had been my concern all along. At what point will the main stream media and advertisers be convinced of the hoax? I think the average citizen is thinking that they will do what they can but if all they hear is that it is beyond question, then it must be true.
Of course, there were never retractions for the Population Bomb, there is no story out there(that I have seen) denouncing News Weeks global cooling issue.
It was when Madison Ave. started that I knew we were in trouble. The push to make all clients green will further erode logic in the mind of the public.
Bob L.
I live in a drought stricken area. this past year most crops in our area failed or were so poor as to make it more economicaly feasable to turn it under and collect the insurance than to harvest it. You can imagine what that is going to do to the cost of staples in the spring when this crop cycle for canned goods goes into effect. I live on 24 acres and can if the rain returns grow most of my food. Being a Christian it is for me Lord willing. None the less if we go green as some are arguing there will be great problems in our country and the rest of the world. If we must curtail crop production to meet carbon usage standards who is going to feed the rest of the world. Some one needs to inform the UN about what they are leading up to. Yes the media is being very irresponsible with their reporting. and it will be a problem to over come.
IMHO the disaster will be if we go as recomended by xveep Gore there will be millions of deaths and we will be blamed for it. Politically the U.S. is durned if they do and durned if they don’t. I think a large part is anti U.S. policy and we will have to move on independently of the rest.
just my thoughts
Bill
PS Bob,
It might take until the Weather Chanel folks are standing hip deep in snow in down town Atlanta………….
could take a while. but it will happen.
Bill
“It might take until the Weather Chanel folks are standing hip deep in snow in down town Atlanta…………. ”
Forget it. That will be brought forward as proof of global warming.
The report’s title seems misleading since not all persons listed are researchers in the physical sciences. However, I think the message is valid and important.