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];
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.
New Obama Slogan:
CLIMATE CHANGE YOU CAN’T BELIEVE IN.
it was in the chicago tribune, and I assume many other major papers in each major market.
They are on the Senate floor debating Cap and Trade right now.
C-SPAN2
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?
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
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.
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
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.
Meanwhile the bandwagon continues – Waxman introduces new Carbon bill…
http://energycommerce.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1560&Itemid=1
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.
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
That would be arguments about AGW.
Mark
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.
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!!
Tamara
What in recent history makes you believe that the president or congress are honest brokers?
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?
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.
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! 🙂
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).
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.
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.
BTW (09:58:29) :
I fail to see your point. I’m sorry if the facts they point to undermines your religion.