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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
BTW (07:58:46) : Take Edward F. Blick – this guy is a young earth creationist: […] This is the best you guys can come up with? What a joke!
And Einstein believed in an invisible man in the sky with a penchant for counting hairs on heads but not dice playing while Newton believed in the power of astrology.
Look, folks have nutty religious beliefs. Attacking them based on their religion is a fool errand. Or are you asserting that all Jews, Muslims, and Christians can not be scientists? Get over it, it just makes you look like a person espousing bigoted beliefs.
(Or maybe, on second thought, keep it up, please! given that the majority of the U.S. hold very strong religious beliefs. I don’t, but I’m married to one, and this kind of talk causes her to just go ballistic at the AGW folks. Maybe that’s the best approach. Dress up as AGW advocates and toss rocks at the religions of the world… )
SOD – Really now, if the Cato institude has to cast it’s net that wide, it’s lost it already.
Given that William Schlesinger now acknowledges that 80 % of the IPCC membership had absolutely no dealing with climate as part of their academic studies, I’m not sure this would be a fruitful path for you.
May I suggest more focus on the message rather than the messenger as we can play that game all day which may be your goal. Distract from having to consider the message as long as possible.
DJ (11:55:14) :
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.
– And how many people on the IPCC panel fit into this category…….?
Wasn’t it only ~20% !
Flanagan (08:11:54) :
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.
All 73 of them earth scientists.
sod (12:01:20)
…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.
Apparently sod, you and “BTW” either don’t understand the logical fallacy of the ad hominem argument, or are merely pretending to. In any case, here, for your edification is the wicki definition:
“An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: “argument to the man”, “argument against the man”) consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the source making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.
The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.”
DJ (11:55:14) :
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.
There is no significant human induced climate change to publish a paper about.
Many in top positions on the IPCC have no qualification or expertise in climate either.
“DJ (11:55:14) :
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 …”
Amazing. You can pretty much tell when an article is considered “dangerous” by your side, because the troll activity increases significantly.
I don’t think that either you or BTW want to try and trade Kooks, because frankly, your side isn’t looking so hot either.
Have either of you explained why Hansen won’t release his algorithms for temp adjustments?
Mann? Steig?
Doesn’t that bother you in the least bit?…and if the answer is no, then we know that you really have no interest in the science itself.
So instead of playing “lets pick out the nutjob on your side” games, lets talk about true transparency in science.
JimB
“D. King (12:31:23) :
UK John (11:54:18) :
Climate AGW Alarmist blinded by self interest and self belief.
Climate AGW Skeptic blinded by Cynicism and mistrust.
Does it matter?
Blinded! Oh no!
I thought it was just dark in here!”
Yes, it matters greatly.
JimB
I don’t see where Mr. Blick’s religious views matter. Now if BTW would care to offer a reasonable critique of Blick’s work on heat transfer and fluid mechanics, I would be willing to take the time to read it and see if there is anything to it. (I won’t hold my breath.)
The games played by DJ and BTW really boil down to who can toss an inflamatory post on WUWT and get the most responses. Neither has made a point since they appeared, and are not likely to, as it’s not their intent or purpose.
School yard challenges, and “mine’s bigger than yours”. Fun for a time, but requires more and more tequila to find any enjoyment as time goes on.
JimB
Mike86 (First commenter): “If there was ever a time for a grass-roots movement, now is it.”
I agree. A surprising number of people are uninformed and uncommitted to either side of this issue. I don’t know what the reason for this is, but I strongly hope that friendly persuasion and non-didactic education will ultimately move them.
To see how easily this can be accomplished, I’d recommend the two Intelligence Squared (IQ2) debates on climate change. These, as far as I know, have offered the only two honest, head-to-head debates on this issue.
Last year’s audience-polled debate, on the resolution “Global Warming is Not a Crisis”, can be viewed here at Michael Crichton’s website.
http://crichton-official.com/video-iq2debate-part8.html
Pitted against each other were (for the affirmative) Philip Stott, Michael Crichton and Larry Lindzen against Gavin Schmidt, Richard Somerville, and Brenda Ekwurzel (for the negative). Pre- and post-debate polling of the studio audience showed an interesting and significant shift of positions.
For Against Undecided
Before: 30% 57% 13%
After: 46% 42% 12%
This year’s debate (I believe it was held in February) , on the topic, “Major Reductions in Carbon Emissions are Not Worth the Money”, yielded the following pre- and post-debate figures:
For Against Undecided
Before: 16% 49% 35%
After: 42% 48% 10%
The outcomes of these public debates suggest to me that a little information can go a long way in helping people see the light. Even now, people are still being guided by the sentiments (primarily fear and self-righteousness) generated by the mainstream media and politicians. Merely hearing some opposing views is sufficient to disabuse many of their AGW opinions.
Sorry if the IQ2 debates were already mentioned. I haven’t been able to keep pace with all the threads here lately.
JimB (14:16:46) :
So instead of playing “lets pick out the nutjob on your side” games, lets talk about true transparency in science.
JimB
Boxer, on the Senate floor, just had her Cap and Trade
amendment voted into law.
They have no interest in transparency Jim!
There is a good reason people would lob an ad hominem argument rather than a legitimate argument.
Mark
JimB (07:03:43)
Can you give me a source for your 900 billion? I just looked at the federal budget and could not seem to find it.
As for the young earth creationism, I’d have to agree that it speaks volumes on a person’s scientific judgment. It is not a religious belief to try and argue that the earth is young, and there are plenty of “scientists” who try and make “scientific arguments” for a young earth. The evidence is so over-whelming that the earth is quite old, its hard to believe that a SCIENTIST could believe otherwise.
I can understand the lay person, but not a scientist. Also, for the comparison to newton, we know A LOT more about geology today then we did in Newton’s time.
Call it ad hom if you want, but I don’t think merely having a PhD in some sort of science field qualifies you to be an expert on climate science. I know, that having degrees in geology certainly does not make me a climate expert, but I can recognize good science when I see it.
Ben
Thanks, Sod, for your reference. Now I understand how there is still “global warming” even though the temperature is going down. It makes perfect sense, true?
Mark (08:33:26) :
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/04/team-of-climate-sceptics-invited-to-un-copenhagen-conference/
“Mr Ki-moon said, “They will provide an important counterpoint. We will be making important decision at Copenhagen, decisions that will impact on all the world’s citizens, it is important we discuss and debate the underlying scientific theories, otherwise we could be working from a weak foundation.””
They must see the potential for money on the ‘skeptics’ side. That’s the only reason I can see for this change of heart.
But maybe I’m jaded.
Some, of those who follow this, and similar, blogs, have contacted their elected representatives to tell them that they have serious doubts about the soundness of the empirical and theoretical evidence that underpins the case for AAGW (Apocalyptic, Anthropogenic Global Warming).
Some appear less than delighted with the reply that they may, or may not, receive.
To aid future historians with their study of our current, and highly interesting, times may I make a suggestion that a web-site be created, if not already done so, that concentrates, categorizes and, consequently, archives, party by party, politician by politician, word by word, unequivocal time-stamped correspondences!
Perhaps, the political recognition of the dangers posed by AAGW and the environmental, cultural and fiscal measures needed to combat such dangers, may turn out to be the most far-sighted contribution to the well-being of our planet and its denizens since the Earl of Sandwich made the teleconnection with sliced bread and invented the Wellington boot!
Maybe or maybe not.
I suspect that if AAGW turns into a giant finger-pointing, blame-diverting exercise that legions of defecting politicians will resort to a Nuremburg defense along the lines of “But the IPCC told us- as did NASA- and all those scientists said…Even the POTUS himself! We only were obeying orders”
Don’t let them weasel out of it. Tell them that an alternative viewpoint not only exists but is gaining momentum; they can’t hide behind the umbrella of misled ignorance. Let them answer or not- but document their reactions when you expose their disinterest in that the Science is far from settled! They are politicians- they are part of History- and, like all of us- they crave to be well-remembered.
Maybe strap-lines for such a site could be:
“Didn’t the alarm bells go off in your head when Global Warming changed into Climate Chaos?”
“When the US government came up with a near-trillion Dollar invention and they didn’t patent it- why didn’t you ask a question, or two?”
Or, and maybe a wee bit below the belt.
“What did you do in the Climate Wars, Daddy?”
Any one out there, philanthropically disposed, concerned sufficiently and able enough, to take this on?
Just a wee thought!
Must watch video with accompanying essay on the symbolic dimming of civilization during Earth Hour:
http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/6970.html#
Nasif Nahle (13:33:48),
The trend in planetary temps depends on the starting point: click
Wow! is this the first sign of an a**e covering exercise by Gavin.
[Response: The only scientist I can find that has ever said the ’science is settled’ is…… Patrick Michaels (last paragraph). You will not find such a statement made in any post on RC. – gavin]
Alan
Was this letter only intended for the President? Or, could it be placed on the front page at Yahoo in one of the advertising spaces, preferably the large one on the right side near the top?
I would contribute to that.
Benjamin P. (15:15:23):
Call it ad hom if you want, but I don’t think merely having a PhD in some sort of science field qualifies you to be an expert on climate science. I know, that having degrees in geology certainly does not make me a climate expert, but I can recognize good science when I see it.
I find invalid your argument. Gregor Mendel was an Augustinian priest (a creationist) and had not a PhD in Genetics. However, the laws he discovered are valid up to date. Besides, he’s called the “father of Genetics”. 🙂
Benjamin P. (15:15:23) :
but I can recognize good science when I see it.
Then consider the man’s relevant science, rather than his irrelevant nonsense. I would consider that a solid understanding of fluid dynamics would certainly be relevant to climate science, as would a solid understanding of the concepts of software modeling, or statistical signal processing, or physics… understand? Most “climate scientists” are not actually “climate scientists” in the first place.
Mark
Smokey (15:30:08) :
Nasif Nahle (13:33:48),
The trend in planetary temps depends on the starting point: click
Agree… 🙂
Just Want Truth… (15:23:53) :
Check the comments at the end of her post.