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.
Yeah, I have read this too. My question is, how many “specialists surveyed” were there? 1, 2, perhaps 3? I could not find an answer myself. Additionally, who were these “specialists”? and what makes them “specialists”? ..”specialists” of what?
Its bunk…
[snip – leave out the insults when taking about people – Anthony]
BTW (09:58:29) :
No, it’s not the best I can come up with.
Yet, that is what you offered.
So, like it or not, it is very much on topic to take a look at the “scientists” supporting this letter.
Again, take a look at their relevant work, not unrelated work.
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)
No, it speaks volumes to his religious faith, nothing more. I don’t agree with him either on that point, but I don’t care.
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.
Just because YOU don’t think they are good does not make it so.
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.
It is not my list, and they are only “bottom of the barrel” in your OPINION. My opinion is that Mann, Hansen, et al. are bottom of the barrel.
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.
Yes, it is an ad hominem. Their credibility, in the article, is w.r.t. their knowledge of climate science, which is indisputable (to all but the likes of you).
Mark
Every time, for sake of discovery, I venture on reading either Monbiot’s column or a Desmogblog type website, every single time, I feel the chill of the “green star” -it was a yellow one back then- that soon will come upon citizens who search the scientific truth. The amount of hate mongering is simply unbelievable. If the same words were written on any ethnic group, these people would have to answer to a court of law and Human Rights violation. Obviously governments are not even concerned one bit with this kind of hate literature. This is a very disturbing and totalitarian ideology at heart and indeed, the violence will increase since Nature itself is the biggest denier of all…
Briggs is probably right in some aspects, btw. I agree the tactic is similar to what the “other consensus” typically uses, i.e., “we’re right because we all agree,” which doesn’t help the case of merit. Argument by authority does not really work for them, nor should it work for skeptics.
However, given that the “consensus” is what politicians are listening to, it can’t hurt to point out that it is actually weaker than they pretend. Ultimately, they (politicians) don’t care, and won’t care till people stop voting for them. They see an opportunity for money: $900 B is what Obama is expecting. Only the threat of losing an election will change these minds, not scientific merit nor a list of even 1000 skeptics.
Obama does not care about the challenge in the ad, IMO. He’s already got his justification for fleecing the US taxpayers. All he does is marginalize his critics, no different than any other elected official, and ultimately, ignore them.
Oh, and BTW, there are plenty of PhD atheists that disagree with all this nonsense, too. Many of them have even better credentials in relevant fields than “the best you can offer.”
Mark
For what it is worth, and in futility, I also have done the same —and including to the Speaker of the House for all the good it will do.
What ever happened to “… government of the people, by the people, and for the people …”?
BTW:
Is it, without arguing the facts of the matter, logical to say that what one believes in one field is invalidated because of what one believes in another field of study? Are you really prepared to say that that is a valid way to reason? Dr. Blick co-authored “Introduction to Fluid Mechanics and Heat Transfer” so whatever it says in that book must be wrong because, after all, he believes in God. Dr. Blick authored “The 1-2-3 Engineering Math Handbook: Engineering and Scientific Numerical Calculations Using Microcomputers and Lotus 1-2-3 Spreadsheets/Book and Di”, but whatever he said in that book must be wrong because, after all, he believes in a young earth! Dr. Blick was a U.S. AirForce Weatherman, but he simply must have caused great havock and failed at the job because, after all, he doesn’t believe in abiogenesis! Dr. Blick was many years at the University of Oklahoma, but he couldn’t have been a competent professor since he doesn’t like pie! Do you really want to defend the logic of this approach?
On the other hand, if you have some substantive flaw to state about his critique of AGW in “The Religion of Global Warming” or some other work, then fire away.
BTW (09:58:29) :
What does this mean?…..the planet will be saved!
Barack Hussein Obama II (Wikipedia)
Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.
Do you actually think China, the world’s biggest contributor of GHGs, or
India, will follow the pied piper of progressivism? This will only hurt us!
But hey, it will be fun to watch the poor suffer….right! [snip]
Agreed with Tim McHenry.
Why should one’s religious faith disqualify them as a scientist?? That is utter nonsense and a true ad hominem if there ever was one.
The real religious zealots are those deacons and presbyters and acolytes in this new odd and peculiar, but powerful, new world religion: “The New International Holy Church of the Apostles of the Anthropogenic Global Warming.”
No book-burnings or inquisition-style executions have occurred yet that we know of….
But some of the world’s leading scientists, engineers, and intelligentsia who DARE to disagree with this new Orthodoxy, are being ostracized, marginalized, and slandered on a quite regular basis….
Chris
Norfolk, VA
For what it is worth:
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/04/team-of-climate-sceptics-invited-to-un-copenhagen-conference/
Is this a “showboat”?
BTW
You found one guy that you dissagree with on the list; Wow you are amazing. Can we do the same for your lists? I think that we can come up with more than one.
“For it to be a lie, Obama would have to know it to be not true. Unfortunately, he apparently believes it. – Anthony”
As a politician I know said to me. “There are 2 types of politicians. Those who know AGW is a revenue generating scam and those who are stupid”
Hmmm. Which one is Pres. Obama?
While I acknowledge no groundswell just yet, the G-20 conferences, with the Prez and 500 of his most trusted staff in attendance, is an excellent opportunity for change–a messy, inconvenient change–but an opportunity one can hope will be met by patriots of vision before approbation is guaranteed.
I think the poster who states a persons religion as a pre curser to wipe thier opinion from the world, had better check out the head of the IPCC before making themselves look so silly in future…?
This could be a big-time winning issue for the Republicans, if they play their cards right. For instance, if they were to call for a debate (ideally a set of multiple debates on each facet of the issue) moderated and judged by the officials of all the prestigious scientific societies that have endorsed the alarmist consensus, they’d be in a win/win position. I.e., the Republicans could make hay about the matter in the next election cycle, if the climate turns distinctly cooler, as it promises to do.
Some realistic Democratic politicians will realize the peril they are in once they understand that there are holes in the alarmists’ case. They will see that they could lose big-time if they identify too closely with them and oppose a call for a debate within the scientific community. So some may endorse the Republicans’ call.
Once that happens, the journalists who report on the debates will, on the whole, state that they were impressed by the skeptics’ case and personnel. This alone will be a significant achievement.
Of course the alarmists realize this and will resist the idea of a debate. But making them dodge it would have a significant effect in the court of public opinion. So a call for a debate is a good tactic, even if it never occurs. That being the case, it’s unfortunate and politically inept that the Cato ad didn’t call for one.
Finally, such a debate would force the scientific establishment to weigh the possible downside of their giving their blessing to a catastrophically wrong and deceptive position. It would concentrate their minds, IOW. I suspect they would no longer allow themselves to be hustled along by the evasions, bluster, ad homs, and superficially plausible rebuttals the alarmists have offered so far.
If OTOH the scientific bodies cravenly or pig-headedly take the short-term easy course and restate their endorsement of the CAGW consensus, that too will provide a a minor bit of satisfaction for the skeptics, because they will have discredited themselves so badly that they will be voted out of office by their memberships in a couple of years.
Climate AGW Alarmist blinded by self interest and self belief.
Climate AGW Skeptic blinded by Cynicism and mistrust.
Does it matter?
Many on that list have no qualification or expertise in climate and many have never published a science paper relevant to human induced climate change.
Perhaps someone here might cull the list to those who have actually taken the time to contribute to the science in recent years. A handy place to start is http://www.eecg.utoronto.ca/~prall/climate/climate_authors_table.html .
here has been no net global warming for over a decade now.”
this is simply false.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:1999/plot/wti/from:1999/trend
the TREND over a decade shows pretty strong warming.
——————-
and i agree with BTW.
a person who has written such a book
http://www.amazon.com/Scientific-Analysis-Genesis-Edward-Blick/dp/1879366126
shouldn t be on a list of scientists handling climate change.
a person who does believe that the earth is 10000 years old can NOT understand climate change.
sorry.
gary gulrud (11:29:48) :
“While I acknowledge no groundswell just yet, the G-20 conferences, with the Prez and 500 of his most trusted staff in attendance”
Non non non non G19 conference! G19!!!
Want to guess who has already taken the huff!?
Who wants their own way or they are not playing?
If they do not get what they want, they are walking out.
Want a “oui” wee clue?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7974190.stm
“If France were to leave the summit, it would be a blow to both UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown and US President Barack Obama.”
Well that mucks the G conference up.
Ron de Haan (11:28:50) :
For what it is worth:
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/04/team-of-climate-sceptics-invited-to-un-copenhagen-conference/
Is this a “showboat”?
S.S. April Fool
I see that list is about 601 names short- 700 have signed this:http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/9505
and then there is freeman dyson: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/magazine/29Dyson-t.html?_r=1
Not news to anyone here, I’m sure.
Never ceases to amaze, me the intellectual bankruptcy from AGW supporters. It doesn’t matter the credentials of a skeptic: those who believe AGW will never deal with the issues. This petition, as others in the past, will be treated with the same disdain from those not qualified to judge.
I can hear the shrieks already “Oil.. oil.. OIL.. OIL!”
The rhetoric is mind numbing.
When will these children grow up and realize, if you really want to discredit an argument you can not resort to ad hominem attacks.
OT.
And yet another 20 day period with no sunspot activity. That makes what 6,7 such periods this minimum? Far more than any period since 1900.
…the problem is that the Administration has been swayed by an entire host of “main stream” prognosticators, just like Hansen and Gore. I wrote a skeptic comment (and a nice one at that), about global sea ice, refuting some of the RealClimate.org and ClimateProgress.org blog claims and I got a rather snippy reply in my personal email box from Joe Romm (see below, addresses deleted as a courtesty).
Joe Romm, was an assistant secretary in the DOE in the 1990s. Romm is a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress. And these type of people influence policy and testify in front of congressional committees because they are part of the good ol’ boy Washington clique. The question is: how do you fight back when they say “the debate is over” or “the skeptic view has been debunked”?
When I was debating Joe Romm, this is the type of response I got:
—–Original Message—–
From: Joe Romm [mailto:—–@americanprogress.org]
Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 03:20 PM
To: mikestrong@——.com
Subject: RE: More on: Global Warming and Global Ice
You are in tin foil hat land now. Yes, the NSIDC folks and Hadley and NASA and JPL are all lying, part of a conspiracy with the top science journals and leading scientific organizations to lie to the public. Your NASA claims are laughable. What you’re claiming that the entire organization is propagating a lie in its publications and on its website? You’d have more credibility if you were pushing solar forcing crap than the claim that the Arctic ice cap isn’t melting — decades ahead of the models — or that sea levels aren’t rising, and double what they were two decades ago. You need to move beyond the conspiracy and actually cite some peer-reviewed studies — I follow the literature closely and none of them support you. Joseph Romm Senior Fellow Center for American Progress Editor, ClimateProgress.org
And More:
—–Original Message—–
From: Joe Romm [mailto:—–@americanprogress.org]
Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 12:17 PM
To: mikestrong@—-.com
Subject: RE: Global Warming and Global Ice
You are simply parroting long debunked global warming denier talking points. you also need to understand the distinction between a few days of local weather and decades of global climate change. Joseph Romm Senior Fellow Center for American Progress Editor, ClimateProgress.org
How can you carry on a discussion with people who refuse to use logic?