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.
Robert Bateman (17:56:27)
Well ******* said, Rob.
Chris
deadwood (16:27:18) :
you fall for BTW and sod’s line of reasoning. If not Bilk, then some other name on the list would be brought up. They would never be satisfied because they don’t admit the fallacy in their reasoning. The point is not that any scientists beliefs on anything are off limits to discussion, or that they are right or wrong in those beliefs. The point is that it is not germain to this present discussion and adds nothing substantive to it. The only substantive argument made was by sod in the graph that only looked at THIS decade, not this decade compared to LAST decade. Many have pointed out the issue of starting dates on the cooling/heating trend.
Bart Nielsen (16:40:42)
Thanks.
Roger Knights (18:04:08) :
Napoleon enters Moscow.
(They’ll win and win until they lose.)
Yes……Yes slow and painfully!
Too funny Roger!
I think the CATO institute is a political agenda driven organization and I believe that it causes more harm then good in the explaining of real true science about the farce that is AGW. Most who are politically driven in the opposite leaning will use this as ammunition to discredit skeptics scientists and non believers even if they have nothing to do with CATO.
CATO have alterer motives to discredit Obama and will over shadow any rational thinking of the reader and truth.
I did get on a talk radio show today. Talking to two chemists who were on about CO2 emissions and the food we eat. Like which foods cause more CO2 and about changing our life style with alternative foods…. turns out Kangaroo is the best for low CO2 impact.
I guess I’ll have to move to Australia to make that happen, but I digress into absurdity.
I asked how they thought that CO2 had such a big impact as a green house gas when water vapor makes up over 95% of greenhouse gases on our planet, and how did the CO2 that is almost three times heavier than air get up in the atmosphere? They laughed at me and said “why yes water vapor is the biggest GHG, but that the CO2 blows up there and holds the heat. I then asked, how it is possible that levels of CO2 can be going up when the temperatures observed are going down? They had no reply and I was cut off with a commercial.
We all have to take it on ourselves to speak up about this anytime we hear the AWG propaganda. I know it doesn’t make you popular, but I’ve had a few converts and it only takes a few to start real debate about this subject. I’ve spent almost 5 years on the Internet every day goggling and battling global warming scare mongering and misinformation on blogs. Worked it out and have come to my own beliefs and conclusions based on the knowledge we know from old school physics, paleontology and natural uncomplicated scientific reasoning.
Unfortunately ALL sciences are in abysmal shape and the status quo have discovered computer models and no science is practiced anymore. Just modeled conclusions that can’t be proven and most of the time wrong.
You soon realize that knowledge and understanding ( CO2 as a pollutant..W(wtf)UWT?!) of old school science is being lost or manipulated going against everything I’ve ever heard/been taught in science. About the laws of thermodynamics and earths evolvement(hehe, a new word!) with our birth from the sun and species from the beginning.
Anywho, I thought I was the only one venturing into the rabbit hole so deep,
… beyond the matrix to find http://www.climateaudit.org/ , then http://www.surfacestations.org/ and final here!
This is the only play you can come and read about real science, real data, real scientists and ALL the people are involved and can get a laymans understanding of science. Were you can read a contrary opinion on climate subjects right next to a believers, and away from MSM rhetoric , political hyperbola or pseudo religious warmers blaspheming/deleting your opinion/thought with no scientific proof or reason at all.
Sadly, this letter is not a victory.
The full page ad appeared in Monday, March 30th Los Angeles Times in the front section. Anthony, your good friend Jim Goodridge’s name is there.
REPLY: Yes I noted that. I had an opportunity to put my name there also, but given that there was limited space, and I knew Jim would sign, I wanted to make certain that he got the opportunity. As former State Climatologist, his presence was far more important than mine. I reach more people through WUWT anyway. – Anthony
“E.M.Smith (13:33:54) : And Einstein believed in an invisible man in the sky with a penchant for counting hairs on heads but not dice playing ”
This is off beam E.M.
Talk like this doesn’t make Einstein look bad. But it might you.
“Lance (19:42:13) : Sadly, this letter is not a victory.”
Gee Lance, put on a happy face, would ya!
“Gee Lance, put on a happy face, would ya!”
LOL! Victory doth rock with a happy face! ; )
Paul S: “BTW (09:58:29): I fail to see your point.”
The CATO advertisement seeks to persuade the reader to a particular point of view on the basis of a list of named scientists. It doesn’t take a climate scientist to understand that the credibility of the persuasion depends on the credibility of the names listed.
An ad hominen argument attempts to undermine a claim by introducing an unrelated claim. In the present case, the issue is the credibility of the names. Therefore, any claims about the names on the list are not ad hominen.
On the matter of young-earth creationism, since the earth is around 4.5 billion years old, and YEC believes in a 10,000 year-old earth, a young-earth creationist is heavily compromised when making statements on earth science.
Further, YEC is not just a religious belief. It is a claim to scientific knowledge. Therefore, anyone who espouses young-earth creationism is making a scientific claim, and can be judged on scientific criteria.
Benjamin P & JimB:
On the question of the economic impact of climate policies in the budget.
The primary source document reference is:
Page 123, Table S-6 of the proposed budget lists “Total Climate Revenues” (2010-2019) as $645.7 billion. The description of those revenues is described in the footnotes on page 129 (Cap and Trade).
But this is only the direct revenue specifically associated with Cap and Trade. Scattered throughout the budget are other climate specific “fees” which, when added to the $645.7 Cap and Trade figure come to roughly a $900 billion economic impact.
That’s how commentators are coming up with the $900 billion figure.
To answer the question on how many scientists state they support AGW, the number is 82% of the 3000+ earth scientists.
http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
CEI comments on the new Waxman-Markey Energy Bill
http://cei.org/news-release/2009/03/31/cei-comment-waxman-markey-energy-bill
“Aron (12:59:51) :
I like this response to this little mess…
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/mar/30/cato-institute-advert-climate-change-scepticism
Read the comments. Monbiot gets shown up.”
Just did. Great stuff – looks like a worm turning to me. Especially impressed by INGSOC1984 comments there.
sod (12:01:20) You only showed nine years, here is your plot for ten years:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:1998/plot/wti/from:1998/trend
Brendan H (22:35:16)
It IS ad hominem if it is not on the same topic as piece they are signing. You attempted to show that the criticism was on target by saying that what someone believes about a past, non-repeatable, non-observable event is germain to a discussion of present temp. readings and testable near-future models! It’s once again like saying that Einstein could not be qualified to speak on General Relativity because he believed in the God of Spinoza! If you want to discredit Blick or any other signer then you must discredit their work and comments on AGW!!
Lets back your graph up one year and try it again.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:1998/plot/wti/from:1998/trend
See I can cherry pick start dates as well :).
you can NOT cherry pick, what a decade is. 10 years. period.
“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.
this is NOT ad hominem. this “beliefs” have an effect on the subject that we are discussing.
sod-a person who doesn’t understand what a smooth does has no business snarking around acting smarter than other people:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2641
The fact that you were being so thick and refusing to see where you were wrong shows how deep your thought processes go.
this is way of topic, but i was right with my critisism of the Loehle paper. he had to completely change his paper, and it does now contain ZERO information about a comparison to modern temperature.
Regarding your claims about the trend it says OVER a decade-since 99 trend isn’t what they mean, so strawman lies dead, the claim still stands. You can do better than that, right?</i
please educate me. what did they mean?
you fall for BTW and sod’s line of reasoning. If not Bilk, then some other name on the list would be brought up.
it is an onvious problems with all those lists. there are simply only very few scientists who support your side, so you are always forced to include pretty weird people into any list, to make the support seem stronger.
. The only substantive argument made was by sod in the graph that only looked at THIS decade, not this decade compared to LAST decade. Many have pointed out the issue of starting dates on the cooling/heating trend.
i have serious doubts, that last decade was colder than the one before. do you have some numbers?
CATO Rawks! I hope they keep up the good work and more people start to listen to them.
David Bellamy? Was this list put together without enough time to get better than Bellamy?
sod (05:22:09) :
Off.
We are at an impasse. Some obviously think that a persons beliefs MUST impact their work in a bad way. Why they believe this is beyond me. Reality is that Christians, Jews, Muslims, Atheists, Agnostics, and people of every philosophical persuasion all work and prosper in various scientific fields every day. If their beliefs are interfering with what they do, then it will come out in the work they produce! It is that work and comments about it and it alone that are germain to the discussion. If you want to talk about other matters, then let’s make a thread on it or find a blog on it and go at it.
MattB (06:28:48) :
“David Bellamy? Was this list put together without enough time to get better than Bellamy?”
There are few people involved with this sham who hold more respect with the public than this man. Amongst the first to stand up and point out the utter lack of science and the total swamp of politics this issue brings, he has been attacked, smeared and had his livelihood trashed because he had the temeriity to point out that all the “relevant authorities”, such as the Royal Society, that the warmista labour on and on and on about are ALL tools of agenda and have become corrupt influences.
No-one had more right to point this out. No-one has shown more courage in the face of the assault. No-one has lost more as a result of exposing the lies and downright terror tactics of those who would rule us totally and disinform us utterly.
I suppose my amswer to you would be, even if they spent a year searching they would be hard pressed “to get better than Bellamy”.
“It doesn’t take a climate scientist to understand that the credibility of the persuasion depends on the credibility of the names listed.”
Two words: Al Gore
A few more words from Al himself:
“EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND: I graduated from Harvard in 1969 with a B.A. in Government. After graduating, I enlisted in the United States Army. I returned and attended Vanderbilt School of Religion (1971-72) and Vanderbilt School of Law (1974-76). ”
http://www.sos.state.or.us/elections/may162000/guide/dem/pres/gor.htm
@ur momisuglyJLKrueger (01:03:52) :
Thanks for that. So its over a decade, and not a single budget as JimB made it appear in his comment.
I knew 900 Billion for a single budget seemed a bit off the mark.
@ur momisugly Nasif Nahle (15:33:50) :
Using old scientist as evidence for scientists who where creationist but still did good science is apples and oranges. Almost everyone back in the day was a pretty devote religious person. The thing is, we know SO much more about the Earth and the origins of the earth and universe today.
I find it absolutely absurd for folks who claim to be scientists to hold a YEC view of the world. Even more so when trying to speak on climate science.
How can a person speak on climate when they think the earth is less than 10,000 years old? Sure, he may understand fluid dynamics, but what must be his thoughts on some of our oldest ice cores? The power of God made them look older? Or was it the devil trying to trick us?
That does not seem like standard reasoning and objectivity one needs when approaching science. The problem with creationism is the “scientist” has an answer and is looking for the evidence. Like many on both sides of the climate debate, here on this blog, and on other blogs boasting the opposite view.
Ben
Just Want Truth… (17:29:54) :
Tim McHenry (19:09:29) :
Unless someone has begun using my alias as a sock puppet you will find that my comments on this and other science sites are decidedly on the side of climte realism.
The point I make above is that Dr. Blick’s views have made him the target of the warmers, thus sucessfully allowing the subject to be changed, and the CATO message diminished.
This in no way legitimizes the tactics used by the warmers. I simply state the facts.
The Ad Hominim attack is and will likely remain thepreferred rhetorical tool of the warmers and it remains dishonest. But giving the warmers ammunition for such attacks does not help further the debate (or win).
@Burch Seymour (07:27:09) :
I don’t think the Goreacle ever claimed to be a scientist though? And he certainly did not sign a list of “Scientists” to try and make a point one way or another.
Thats the difference. The CATO folks are ideologues and have little interest in the climate debate beyond the politics. They tossed up a list of scientists and we are all supposed to go, “Oh and Aw, look at all those names they must be right” like this fantasy idea that concensous means anything.
I find it ironic that folks here are happy to cheer this “consensus” list and then dog on consensus if someone says something like “97% of scientists believe that man is effecting climate”
Ben