Dr. Roger Pielke Senior: support for CATO letter and advertisement

Click for full PDF

Click for full PDF

From Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. Climate Science Weblog

There is a letter to the President published by the Cato Institute that headlines [thanks to ICECAPand Dr. Patrick J. Michaels to alerting us to it];

“Few challenges facing America and the world are more urgent than combating climate change.The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear.” — PRESIDENT-ELECT BARACK OBAMA, NOVEMBER 19 , 2008

With all due respect Mr. President, that is not true.

The letter is signed by over 100 scientists.

Climate Science wants to comment on the specific statements of science in the letter which is reproduced below:

“We, the undersigned scientists, maintain that the case for alarm regarding climate change is grossly overstated. Surface temperature changes over the past century have been episodic and modest and there has been no net global warming for over a decade now.1,2 After controlling for population growth and property values, there has been no increase in damages from severe weather-related events.3 The computer models forecasting rapid temperature change abjectly fail to explain recent climate behavior.4 Mr. President, your characterization of the scientific facts regarding climate change and the degree of certainty informing the scientific debate is simply incorrect.”

Comments by Climate Science

  • “Surface temperature changes over the past century have been episodic and modest and there has been no net global warming for over a decade now.”

This is correct using the global average surface temperature. An effective analysis of this issue has been presented at the weblog http://rankexploits.com/musings/category/climate-sensitivity/. However, using the global average upper ocean heat content changes, the warming in the 1990s and early 2000s ended in 2003, so the more rigourous metric for global warming indicated “no net global warming” for 6 years.

  • After controlling for population growth and property values, there has been no increase in damages from severe weather-related events.

This is a correct statement which has been extensively discussed and summarized at http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/category/climate-change; see also Chapter 2 in  Pielke, R.A., Jr. and R.A. Pielke, Sr., 1997: Hurricanes: Their nature and impacts on society.

  • The computer models forecasting rapid temperature change abjectly fail to explain recent climate behavior.

This is a robust conclusion both on the global scale (e.g. see) and on the regional scale (e.g see and see).

The dismissive response on Real Climate and on Grist to this letter do not provide the objective scientific rebuttal to these science claims. This is unfortunate and is misleading policymakers, but, as we have learned and reported many times on at Climate Science and elsewhere (e.g. see and see), this is the way the IPCC and CCSP community deals with solid science that disagrees with their perspective.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Mike86

I wrote both of my Senators and my Congressman. If there was ever a time for a grass-roots movement, now is it.

TerryBixler

But the science is settled and I have my new taxes ready for all to enjoy. I need them to offset the pork and foolish bailouts that I have engineered and signed.

JimB

This is a perfectly legitimate approach to the problem, which like many other logical, reasonable discussions on the subject of AGW, will fail.
Look no further than the latest budget to understand why.
Of an estimated $2.7-3.2trillion, roughly $900billion in revenue comes from carbon credits/carbon taxes. In order to admit the truth regarding this discussion, the president would have no choice but to find an addition source of revenue to make up for the $900billion shortfall. Image the president going to the democratic party and explaining that they would have to cut $1trillion in spending from the budget that HE proposed.
As I’ve said before…AGW is a revenue mechanism for politicians. The fact that it’s been a funding mechanism for scientists goes hand in hand with this.
If someone could go to the president with an alternative for funding 1/3 of his budget, I’m sure he’d be much more likely to listen. Until then?…talking to a brick wall.
JimB

hareynolds

Hard to believe, but I think the posts are actually getting better with each day.
Even the tide seems to be turning a little.
When our children and our grandchildren look back at this era, I believe that this simple blog will be recognized as VOX CLAMANTIS IN DESERTO (roughly, the Voice Crying In The Wilderness) that saved us from ourselves. Provided, of course, that the ominous threat of government censure doesn’t get any worse.
Write your Senators and Congressman! But as important, let’s start making a conscious effort to spread the word of WattsUp. Tell your friends, tell your frenemies, text and email and tweet. Write the address on the back of your business card.
Keep it up, Anthony. I think we are witnessing a phenomenon.
Oh, and the sun remains devoid of sunspots. http://solarcycle24.com/
Solar activity will remain at very low levels. Buy coal.

Imran

Not being from the US, can you tell me which newspapers this was published in ?? Would be good to forward this on but would be better if I can state which newspapers its in.

Evan Jones

Even the tide seems to be turning a little.
Well, as the sea witches know, the tide is a lagging indicator . . .

Robinson

Superb. I nearly chocked on my cornflakes. This really should be paid for advertising in national newspapers. Perhaps the oil lobby would step in to pay the fees? 😉

Do not think they are going to let you easily “kill goose that lays golden eggs” fed by taxpayers money.
Towards a Global Green Recovery
Recommendations for Immediate G20 Action,
produced on behalf of the German Foreign Office,
http://www.pik-potsdam.de/globalgreenrecovery
Stern message for G20 summit
http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090330/full/news.2009.206.html

Do you want to know the future?…all decent countries have taxed oil, added value tax, etc. “smile though your heart is aching”!

OT: Is it the sun turning into a “green” mode, energy saving cycle, or is it just in the “stand by” mode?

Henry Galt

I see myself as a positive person but this will not be (allowed to be) heard.
There will be little in the way of reportage, although the MSM will take the advertising fees thank you very much. Do not expect editorial or journalistic comment. There is a new world order to uphold.
Socialism (Marxism, Environmentalism, Envy) must prevail. Lies are merely a tool to liberate us all. The dream of taxing the very air that we, the great unwashed and irrelevant, breath has come true. The UN is the last best hope for humanity.
Oh yeah, I knew I forgot something.
Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia

novoburgo

The CATO list of diversified and impressive scientific signatories is commendable. I truly hope that JimB (07:03:43)’s conclusion is incorrect although it is very realistic. We should have a better feel after the current European Conference concludes. Perhaps this latest effort will have some effect on restoring a modicum of sanity.

Ron Horvath

OT: Anthony, there was a guest posting relating to the psychiatric community on the left promoting the idea of climate skeptics as pathologically afflicted. I believe it was on your site but have not been able to locate it and would very much appreciate a link to it.

It seems that the evidence against accepted IPCC stance is being undermined more regularly now. Any thinking person will have now to question the status quo.

Ron Horvath

Disregard that request, Anthony. I found it.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/?s=pathology
What WILL they think of next? Conference labels skeptics as having mental disorder

Let us all get real here. “Real Climate” are you watching?

Paul S

Lets see how long it takes for the eco-terrorists to post the following;
1) The CATO institute is not reputable and funded by big oil
2) The scientists are (a) not scientists (b) not climate scientists (c) are tainted by research in oil/tobacco etc etc
I’m guessing it’ll be in the first 25 posts (barring this one!)

Cathy

@Jim B
Your wrote:
“The fact that it’s been a funding mechanism for scientists goes hand in hand with this.”
A longtime acquaintance is the head of the local University’s physics department. He’s retiring this spring and taking control of a solar panel start-up company.
At a recent gathering he opined that his certitude about AGW is – on a scale of 1to10 . . an 11.
He’s just received several million in grants for his company. I smiled and congratulated him. He lowered his voice and conspiratorially whispered that it probably would never be a commercial success.
I’ve known this man for years. I sat beside him at a concert after 9/11 when he complained, before our fannies hit our chair seats – that they shouldn’t have politicized the public concert by playing the Star Spangled Banner before the performance.
The recent election has in his words: liberated him from his wandering in the desert for 40 years.
Now your tax money and mine must support his leftist, Utopian,
politically-correct endeavors.
BTW. His wife has placed her icy hands on mine we we meet for coffee. She laughs about it. Their thermostat is kept turned down so that they can brag about their low to non-existent energy bills. (solar panels)
Give me a break.
If they read this, I’d lose an old friendship.
What hangs in the balance today, is more important.

The threat of AGW, however unscientific, must remain a primary weapon in BO’s Marxist agenda. He will not lightly abandon his stance. In fact, he’ll probably become increasingly rigid, caught between the facts and his doomed plan to spend our way to prosperity. He is removing money from the private sector and dissipating it with great fanfare where it will do less good. This has been tried before and failed. BO’s ignorance and inexperience are a million times more dangerous than all the CO² China and India will emit this century.

BTW

These lists you skeptics come up with get funnier each time. Take Edward F. Blick – this guy is a young earth creationist:
“There are over eighty scientific indicators of a young earth. Yet, there is no mention of these in most high school biology books. Instead they state that the earth is billions of years old.”
http://www.valleyhighlands.com/Blogger/page/Bible-Frequently-Asked-Questions.aspx
This is the best you guys can come up with? What a joke!

Jack Green

What’s Obama’s carbon footprint on his G20 victory tour?

Allen63

As others have pointed out, Obama’s lavish budget depends on “carbon tax income” to succeed — even I was shocked by that. Anyhow, Obama needs the money; hence, mere facts are not enough to stop government “carbon taxes” and other questionable “green” government activities.

Flanagan

According to a recent article in by Doran and Zimmermann, ‘Examining the Scientific consensus on Climate Change’, Eos Volume 90, Number 3, 2009; p. 22-23, about 58% of the general public in the US thinks that human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing the mean global temperature, as opposed to 97% of specialists surveyed.

Henry Galt

novoburgo (07:38:03) :
“The CATO list of diversified and impressive scientific signatories is commendable. I truly hope that JimB (07:03:43)’s conclusion is incorrect although it is very realistic. ”
Of course all the assignees are entitled to their opinions but as they are all retired, out of field or oil industry employees they can safely be ignored and ridiculed especially as they think CO2 is a harmless trace gas.
Sarcasm off.
I tire. I tire of railing against the stubborn idiocy that owns great suspicion of everything government does except this errant rubbish. The environmental movement is shooting itself in both feet with this and they are too blinded by the control it offers to see that the damage they are accumulating will last at least a generation. It won’t be a generation limited to less than 20 years by lack of clean water, medicine and electricity either. That is the truly devastating legacy of the green’s push for sustainable whatever. Too much, too soon. When the public’s disillusionment really sets in science and the eco terrorists will lose more than the rest of us put together. The money will be of little consequence.

Dell Hunt, Michigan

New Obama Slogan:
CLIMATE CHANGE YOU CAN’T BELIEVE IN.

joe

it was in the chicago tribune, and I assume many other major papers in each major market.

D. King

They are on the Senate floor debating Cap and Trade right now.
C-SPAN2

Mark

And now this!
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/04/team-of-climate-sceptics-invited-to-un-copenhagen-conference/
It will be interesting to see what if this will have any impact or is it just a token gesture?

Mike Pickett

People are just too damned timid about this:
“With all due respect Mr.President,that is not true.”
Should read:
“With all due respect Mr. President, that is a LIE.”
He knows it is a lie. Lies are deliberate. Untrue…error, mistake…..LIe……deliberate.
REPLY: For it to be a lie, Obama would have to know it to be not true. Unfortunately, he apparently believes it. – Anthony

Pieter F

JimB (07:03:43) :”Of an estimated $2.7-3.2trillion, roughly $900billion in revenue comes from carbon credits/carbon taxes. In order to admit the truth regarding this discussion, the president would have no choice but to find an addition source of revenue to make up for the $900billion shortfall.”
I’m afraid that Jim is correct; I mean right. A few weeks back, President Obama stated that his administration will insist on only the best science in making policy decisions. What we need to do is set up well the contrast between the good climate science and the nefarious; between what the President says and what he does.
Perhaps it is axiomatic — that a politician will say anything that sounds good, only to do the opposite. Already he said he would end ear mark spending. What are we up to now, 9000 ear marks in the last spending bill? But on some level it is a reasonable argument and criticism to point out when a politician ascribes to a high ideal, only to abandon it at the earliest convenience out of political expediency.

JimB

AGW is a funding mechanism. Always has been, always will be.
That so many millions are duped into believing in it speaks nothing to the scientific evidence.
Readers here have pretty much always known that, at least on some level.
It’s also a pretty major indictment of our political parties and leadership, that they won’t look beyond a funding mechanism and their own pet projects to the “greater good”.
Be that as it may, it won’t be changing any time soon. Politicians, successful ones at least, are masters of framing things so that they support their own devices…this is just being done on a global scale.
Welcome to the new economy.
JimB

G. May

BTW – We’re talking about skepticism of AGW and you stumble in here with young Earth theory as a retort?
Are you joking or brain dead? I hope the former.

realitycheck

Meanwhile the bandwagon continues – Waxman introduces new Carbon bill…
http://energycommerce.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1560&Itemid=1

B Kerr

Aron (07:40:12) :
“Monbiot is already on the attack
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/mar/30/cato-institute-advert-climate-change-scepticism?commentpage=1
Scurrilous article and Ageist.
GM: “Half of them were old friends: David Bellamy, Pat Michaels, Martin Hertzberg, Craig and Sherwood Idso and the rest. The others are almost all either retired, not scientists, or in a completely different discipline. ”
His reference and disgust at “all either retired” is ageist and an offence in English law. The implication that by be retired the person has no value; this is now an offence.
GM does not mention two very brave signatories
STEVE JAPAR, PH.D
and
GERD-RAINERWEBER, PH.D
REVIEWER(s), INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE
Nor does GM mention:
CRAIG D. IDSO, PH.D
CENTER FOR THE STUDY OF CARBON DIOXIDE AND GLOBAL CHANGE
nor
JOSEPH S. D’ALEO
FELLOW,AMERICAN METEOROLOGICAL SOCIETY
nor
HARRY F. LINS, PH.D.
CO-CHAIR, IPCC HYDROLOGY AND WATER RESOURCES WORKING GROUP
But he does say “or in a completely different discipline. ”
Guess GM did not read their qualifications or just did not understand them.
Well done to all signatories.

Mark T

BTW (07:58:46) :
This is the best you guys can come up with? What a joke!

Soooo… ad hominem is the best YOU can come up with? Look in the mirror for the joke.
Why not make an attempt at refuting skeptics’ arguments, rather than their positions on unrelated topics.
Mark

Mark T

That would be arguments about AGW.
Mark

Tamara

There are sufficient “scientific” voices who have been bought in one way or another for our president to ignore any reasonable arguments for many months to come. Unfortunately, he and the Congress can accomplish many evils in that period of time.

Paul S

BTW (07:58:46) :
These lists you skeptics come up with get funnier each time. Take Edward F. Blick – this guy is a young earth creationist:
This is the best you guys can come up with? What a joke!

Is this the best you can come up with? His views on a different subject matter, no matter how incorrect, must therefore effect his views on this subject? What a joke!!

papertiger

Tamara
What in recent history makes you believe that the president or congress are honest brokers?

Mark

Mark (08:33:26) :
And now this!
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/04/team-of-climate-sceptics-invited-to-un-copenhagen-conference/
It will be interesting to see what if this will have any impact or is it just a token gesture?
=================================================
Oops! Tripped up by the International Date Line?! Is this a cruel April Fool’s joke by Jennifer?

Jeff B.

The alarmists are losing ground. They can only ignore, and pretend that the ever increasing number of scientists and evidence against them will just go away. But it won’t. And as more and more consumers face hard choices, they will ditch Global Warming in a second for their own best interest, lower heating bills, etc.
It’s good that the Alarmists have overreached by so much, because it makes it much sooner that the whole charade will come to an end.

Jon H

It does not matter. Our government works best when each party has control of part of the government. When one party has control of the House, Senate, and Presidency, any agenda will pass.

You are forgetting a fact: Worst than any Maunder minimum, worst than any cap and trade tax, is the worst tax ever invented: Inflation…and it is the best way to flatten social disparities

This is the “fifth sun” the Mayans were thinking in! 🙂

coalsoffire

Mark (08:33:26) :
And now this!
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/04/team-of-climate-sceptics-invited-to-un-copenhagen-conference/
It will be interesting to see what if this will have any impact or is it just a token gesture?

Mark,
This is clearly an April Fools joke. Copenhagen will not allow another voice. The science is settled (in the cement of certain minds).

BTW

G. May –
“BTW – We’re talking about skepticism of AGW and you stumble in here with young Earth theory as a retort?
Are you joking or brain dead? I hope the former.”
Mark T –
“Soooo ad hominem is the best YOU can come up with? Look in the mirror for the joke.”
Paul S –
“Is this the best you can come up with? His views on a different subject matter, no matter how incorrect, must therefore effect his views on this subject? What a joke!!”
No, it’s not the best I can come up with.
The title of this thread IS: “support for CATO letter and advertisement” and touts that “The letter is signed by over 100 scientists”. So, like it or not, it is very much on topic to take a look at the “scientists” supporting this letter.
That Blick holds that the earth is only a few thousand years old speaks volumes to his credibility on matters of science (and BTW Paul – thats especially matters with science concerning the earth – you know, like AGW)
One would think that if you are going to trot out a list of 100 “scientists” supporting your position, you would pick the best of the best. That your list includes “scientists” such as Blick clearly shows that you are scraping the bottom of the barrel. That speaks volumes to the qulity of this list.
So Mark – it is not an ad hominem to look at the credibility of the signatories of this list when the very title of this thread touts the credibility of the signatories.

PaulH

While I certainly agree with the thrust of the CATO add, I have some nits to pick. For the most part I agree with the points made by William Briggs in his blog entry “Why I didn’t sign the CATO Institute ad”:
http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=482

BTW (07:58:46):
These lists you skeptics come up with get funnier each time. Take Edward F. Blick – this guy is a young earth creationist:
It’s not a matter of “skepticism”, but of the correct use of the scientific methodology. We’re not just “skeptics”, but scientists who know well that AGW is full of imprecision and biased flaws. Instead examining our work AGWers make use of ad hominem logical fallacies.

Paul S

BTW (09:58:29) :
I fail to see your point. I’m sorry if the facts they point to undermines your religion.