Seven Eminent Physicists Skeptical of AGW

Reposted from Populartechnology.net by invitation

Seven Eminent Physicists; Freeman Dyson, Ivar Giaever (Nobel Prize), Robert Laughlin (Nobel Prize), Edward Teller, Frederick Seitz, Robert Jastrow and William Nierenberg all skeptical of “man-made” global warming (AGW) alarm.

Freeman Dyson, Scholar, Winchester College (1936-1941), B.A. Mathematics, Cambridge University (1945), Research Fellow, Trinity College, Cambridge University (1946–1947), Commonwealth Fellow, Cornell University, (1947–1948), Commonwealth Fellow, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton University (1948–1949), Research Fellow, University of Birmingham (1949–1951), Professor of Physics, Cornell University (1951-1953), Fellow, Royal Society (1952), Professor of Physics, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton University (1953-1994), Chairman, Federation of American Scientists (1962-1963), Member, National Academy of Sciences (1964), Danny Heineman Prize, American Physical Society (1965), Lorentz Medal, Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (1966), Visiting Professor, Yeshiva University (1967-1968), Hughes Medal, The Royal Society (1968), Max Planck Medal, German Physical Society (1969), J. Robert Oppenheimer Memorial Prize (1970), Visiting Professor, Max Planck Institute for Physics and Astrophysics (1974-1975), Corresponding Member, Bavarian Academy of Sciences (1975), Harvey Prize (1977), Wolf Prize in Physics (1981), Andrew Gemant Award, American Institute of Physics (1988), Enrico Fermi Award, United States Department of Energy (1993), Professor Emeritus of Physics, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton University (1994-Present), Member, London Mathematical Society (2000), Member, NASA Advisory Council (2001-2003), President, Space Studies Institute (2003-Present)

Notable: Unification of Quantum Electrodynamics Theory.

Signed: Global Warming Petition Project

“My first heresy says that all the fuss about global warming is grossly exaggerated. Here I am opposing the holy brotherhood of climate model experts and the crowd of deluded citizens who believe the numbers predicted by the computer models. Of course, they say, I have no degree in meteorology and I am therefore not qualified to speak. But I have studied the climate models and I know what they can do. The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in. The real world is muddy and messy and full of things that we do not yet understand. It is much easier for a scientist to sit in an air-conditioned building and run computer models, than to put on winter clothes and measure what is really happening outside in the swamps and the clouds. That is why the climate model experts end up believing their own models.” – Freeman Dyson

Ivar Giaever, M.E., Norwegian Institute of Technology (1952), Ph.D. Theoretical Physics, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (1964), Engineer, Advanced Engineering Program, General Electric Company (1954–1956), Applied Mathematician, Research and Development Center, General Electric Company (1956–1958), Researcher, Research and Development Center, General Electric Company (1958–1988), Guggenheim Fellowship, Biophysics, Cambridge University (1969-1970), Oliver E. Buckley Condensed Matter Prize (1965), Nobel Prize in Physics (1973), Member, American Academy of Arts & Sciences (1974), Member, National Academy of Science (1974), Member, National Academy of Engineering (1975), Adjunct Professor of Physics, University of California, San Diego (1975), Visiting Professor, Salk Institute for Biological Studies (1975), Professor of Physics, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (1988-2005), Founder and Chief Technology Officer, Applied BioPhysics (1991-Present), Professor Emeritus of Physics, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (2005-Present)

Notable: Nobel Prize in Physics.

“I’m a skeptic. …Global Warming it’s become a new religion. You’re not supposed to be against Global Warming. You have basically no choice. And I tell you how many scientists support that. But the number of scientists is not important. The only thing that’s important is if the scientists are correct; that’s the important part.” – Ivar Giaever

Robert Laughlin, A.B. Mathematics, University of California, Berkeley (1972), Ph.D. Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1979), Fellow, IBM (1976-1978), Postdoctoral Member, Technical Staff, Bell Laboratories (1979–1981), Research Physicist, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (1982–2004), Associate Professor of Physics, Stanford University (1985–1989), E.O. Lawrence Award for Physics (1985), Oliver E. Buckley Condensed Matter Prize (1986), Eastman Kodak Lecturer, University of Rochester (1989), Professor of Physics, Stanford University (1989–1993), Fellow, American Academy of Arts & Sciences (1990), Anne T. and Robert M. Bass Professor of Physics, Stanford University (1992–Present), Professor of Applied Physics, Stanford University (1993-2007), Member, National Academy of Sciences (1994), Nobel Prize in Physics (1998), Board Member, Science Foundation Ireland (2002-2003), President, Asia-Pacific Center for Theoretical Physics (2004-2006), President, Korean Advanced Institute for Science and Technology (2004–2006)

Notable: Nobel Prize in Physics.

“The geologic record suggests that climate ought not to concern us too much when we’re gazing into the energy future, not because it’s unimportant, but because it’s beyond our power to control.” – Robert Laughlin

Edward Teller, B.S. Chemical Engineering, University of Karlsruhe (1928), Ph.D. Physics, University of Leipzig (1930), Research Associate, University of Leipzig (1929–1931), Research Associate, University of Göttingen (1931–1933), Rockefeller Fellow, Institute for Theoretical Physics, Copenhagen (1933–1934), Lecturer, London City College (1934), Professor of Physics, George Washington University (1935-1941), Researcher, Manhattan Project, Chicago Metallurgical Laboratory (1942-1943), Group Leader, Manhattan Project, Los Alamos National Laboratory (1943-1946), Professor of Physics, University of Chicago (1946-1952), Member, National Academy of Sciences (1948), Assistant Director, Los Alamos National Laboratory (1949-1952), Developer, Hydrogen Bomb (1951), Founder, Lawrence Livermore Laboratory (1952), Professor of Physics, University of California, Berkeley (1953-1975), Associate Director, Lawrence Livermore Laboratory (1954–1958), Harrison Medal (1955), Albert Einstein Award (1958), Director, Lawrence Livermore Laboratory (1958-1960), Professor, Hoover Institution on War Revolution and Peace, Stanford University (1960–1975), Enrico Fermi Award, United States Atomic Energy Commission (1962), Senior Research Fellow, Hoover Institution (1975-2003), Professor Emeritus of Physics, University of California, Berkeley (1975–2003), National Medal of Science (1982), Presidential Medal of Freedom (2003), (Died: September 9, 2003)

Notable: Manhattan Project Member, Developer of the Hydrogen Bomb and Founder of Lawrence Livermore Laboratory.

Signed: Global Warming Petition Project

“Society’s emissions of carbon dioxide may or may not turn out to have something significant to do with global warming–the jury is still out.” – Edward Teller

Frederick Seitz, A.B. Mathematics, Stanford University (1932), Ph.D. Physics, Princeton University (1934), Proctor Fellow, Princeton University (1934–1935), Instructor in Physics, University of Rochester (1935–1936), Assistant Professor of Physics, University of Rochester (1936–1937), Research Physicist, General Electric Company (1937–1939), Assistant Professor of Physics, University of Pennsylvania (1939–1941), Associate Professor of Physics, University of Pennsylvania (1941-1942), Professor of Physics, Carnegie Institute of Technology (1942-1949), Research Professor of Physics, University of Illinois (1949-1965), Chairman, American Institute of Physics (1954-1960), President Emeritus, American Physical Society (1961), President Emeritus, National Academy of Sciences (1962-1969), Graduate College Dean, University of Illinois (1964-1965), President Emeritus, Rockefeller University (1968-1978), Franklin Medal (1965), American Institute of Physics Compton Medal (1970), National Medal of Science (1973), (Died: March 2, 2008)

Notable: Pioneer in the field of solid-state physics and President Emeritus of the National Academy of Sciences.

Signed: Global Warming Petition Project

“Research data on climate change do not show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful. To the contrary, there is good evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful.” – Frederick Seitz

Robert Jastrow, A.B. Physics, Columbia University (1944), A.M. Physics, Columbia University (1945), Ph.D. Physics, Columbia University (1948), Adjunct Professor of Geophysics, Columbia University (1944–1982), Postdoctoral Fellow, Leiden University, Netherlands (1948-1949), Scholar, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton University (1949-1950, 1953), Assistant Professor of Physics, Yale (1953-1954), Chief, NASA Theoretical Division (1958-61), Founding Director, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (1961-1981), NASA Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement (1968), Professor of Earth Sciences, Dartmouth College (1981-1992), Chairman, Mount Wilson Institute (1992–2003), (Died: February 8, 2008)

Notable: Founding Director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies and hosted more than 100 CBS-TV network programs on space science.

Signed: Global Warming Petition Project

“The scientific facts indicate that all the temperature changes observed in the last 100 years were largely natural changes and were not caused by carbon dioxide produced in human activities.” – Robert Jastrow

William Nierenberg, B.S. Physics, City College of New York (1939), M.A. Physics, Columbia University (1942), Ph.D. Physics, Columbia University (1947), Researcher, Manhattan Project, Columbia SAM Laboratories (1942-1945), Instructor in Physics, Columbia University (1946–1948), Assistant Professor of Physics, University of Michigan (1948–1950), Associate Professor of Physics, University of California, Berkeley (1950-1953), Professor of Physics, University of California, Berkeley (1954–1965), Assistant Secretary General for Scientific Affairs, NATO (1960-1962), Director Emeritus, Scripps Institution of Oceanography (1965-1986), Member, White House Task Force on Oceanography (1969-1970), Member, National Academy of Sciences (1971), Chairman, National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmosphere (1971-1975), Member, National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmosphere (1971–1978), Member, National Science Board (1972–1978, 1982–1988), Chairman, Advisory Council, NASA (1978-1982), Member, Space Panel, Naval Studies Board, National Research Council (1978–1984), Member, Council of the National Academy of Sciences (1979-1982), Chairman, Carbon Dioxide Assessment Committee, National Academy of Sciences (1980–1983), NASA Distinguished Public Service Medal (1982), (Died: September 10, 2000)

Notable: Manhattan Project Member and Director Emeritus of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography.

Signed: Global Warming Petition Project

“The available data on climate change, however, do not support these predictions, nor do they support the idea that human activity has caused, or will cause, a dangerous increase in global temperatures. …These facts indicate that theoretical estimates of the greenhouse problem have greatly exaggerated its seriousness.” – William Nierenberg

Peer-Reviewed Climate Publications:

Can we control the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere?

(Energy, Volume 2, Issue 3, pp. 287-291, September 1977)

– Freeman J. Dyson

Evidence for long-term brightness changes of solar-type stars

(Nature, Volume 348, Number 6301, pp. 520-523, December 1990)

– Robert Jastrow

Evidence on the climate impact of solar variations

(Energy, Volume 18, Issue 12, pp. 1285-1295, December 1993)

– Robert Jastrow

Global warming: What does the science tell us?

(Energy, Volume 16, Issues 11-12, pp. 1331-1345, November-December 1991)

– Robert Jastrow, William Nierenberg, Frederick Seitz

Keeping cool on global warming

(The Electricity Journal, Volume 5, Issue 6, pp. 32-41, July 1992)

– Frederick Seitz, William Nierenberg, Robert Jastrow

Rebuttals:

A Rebuttal to “Jason and the Secret Climate Change War” (PDF) (Nicolas Nierenberg, Walter R. Tschinkel, Victoria J. Tschinkel)

Clouding the Truth: A Critique of Merchants of Doubt (PDF) (The Marshall Institute)

Early Climate Change Consensus at the National Academy: The Origins and Making of Changing Climate (PDF) (Nicolas Nierenberg, Walter R. Tschinkel, Victoria J. Tschinkel)

Vanity Scare (TCS Daily)

References:

2008 – 58th Meeting of Nobel Laureates (PDF) (University of Hartford)

Do people cause global warming? (The Heartland Institute)

Heretical thoughts about science and society (Edge: The Third Culture)

Letter from Frederick Seitz (Petition Project)

The Planet Needs a Sunscreen (The Wall Street Journal)

What the Earth Knows (The American Scholar)


Sponsored IT training links:

If interested in JN0-400 certification then take advantage of 1z0-053 dumps and 642-746 mock test written by certified expert to help you pass real test on time.


Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Dave Springer

Freeman Dyson is the coolest egghead evah.

Wonderful!

kim

Hey, what about me?
============

pat

A few adults have come down stairs to see what the kids are up to.

David, UK

There will doubtless be hundreds of AGW-sceptical scientists out there – the AGW science is just too weak and blatantly corrupted for it to be otherwise. Some of these sceptics will be keeping quiet in return for a quiet life and steady career. Some will be disingenuously pushing the alarm button in return for ever more grants. Some will be in a state of denial over their inner doubts about AGW in order to sleep at night whilst riding the alarmist train. And many, like those men featured above, will speak out in the face of threats and ostracism simply because they have a conscience and because it is the right thing to do.

toby

Given the age of these august gentlemen, some of whom unfortunately sullied their reputations by becoming the paid shills of tobacco companies, one cannot help thinking of the remark of Max Planck:
“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it”
The question is not about how many eminent old physicists are contrarians, but how many young ones?

Douglas DC

But,but they aren’t Climate Scientists! like AlGor-oh wait …
Never Miiind. (Channelling Emily Litella)…

theduke

An excellent piece recently published by Robert Laughlin:
http://www.theamericanscholar.org/what-the-earth-knows/

I don’t believe that the number of scientist that believe in a particular theory is germane.
When Albert Einstein was
informed of the publication of a book entitled 100 Authors
Against Einstein, he is said to have remarked, “If I were wrong,
then one would have been enough (Hawking, 1988); however,
that one opposing scientist would have needed proof in the form
of testable results.”
That brings us to the big lack in the climate alarmists argument, the lack of testable results. Since we don’t have a spare earth to experiment on we must use models which will only be testable if they are correct in 100 years.
So far they haven’t predicted the lack of “statistically significant” warming since 1995 very well. Statistically significant means that getting excited over a .1 ° C rise in 10 years makes no sense if many years rise or lower by .4 ° C from previous ones.

Dyson’s video is well worth watching on poptech.

Athelstan

I have to comment here if only to be in such exalted company.
The words and qualifications are the thing, just wish the message these Gentlemen are sending will be heard in the MSM…….oh yeah………..but “the science is settled!”
Any sane politicians listening?
Is there such a thing as a sane politician?
Not in Britain seemingly.
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/07/march-of-progress.html
Sigh!

Don Mattox

You don’t have to be a “climate scientist” to understand the basic tenets of science. I think things are summarized best by “Sometimes you know what you don’t know and sometimes you don’t know what you don’t know”.

Casper

Good collection, but what organization awards the “Noble Prize”?

Bruce Cobb

Surely, all are (or were) in the employ of Big Oil, besides being just old (or deceased) white men. Sarc/off

John of Cloverdale WA

“The geologic record suggests that climate ought not to concern us too much when we’re gazing into the energy future, not because it’s unimportant, but because it’s beyond our power to control.” – Robert Laughlin.
Well said! Maybe the ignorant Media and climatology modellers should be taught a bit of geology to show that Redwood like forests existed 45 million years ago within the Arctic Circle about 1000 miles away from present day living trees. But don’t expect these so called climatologists to admit it when their grant money might be in danger of disappearing. As for the media, bad news always outsells good news.

RoyFOMR

So the Science is only “settled” when you ignore the views of unsettling Scientists and any studies that indicate alternative theories, is that it?
On such “incontrovertible” and “robust” foundations we have erected castles-in-the-sky, resource-sapping cathedrals and self-congratulationary monuments to hubristic
fantasies and greed that demand no less than a full suspension of disbelief.
I have little problem with the politicos who wash down their trough foraging with this swill. They meet my expectations, in general, and I occasionally experience pleasurable twinges when the odd individual sticks a brave neck out.
I can’t even find it in me to blame the silent majority of Scientists who, er keep silent, can’t afford to rock the good ship, SS Government Funding.
I have nothing other than bilious contempt for those who’ve hijacked the educational establishment to brainwash a generation of children with a brand of nihilism and propoganda
that shamelessly pushes political propoganda before dispassionate and objective learning.

A “bit” at odds with the official policy of the American Physical Society. I guess the membership’s attempt to retract the 2007 statement ended with the update in April 2010.
http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm should have a link here, and now it does. 🙂

Spartacus

The long list of Scientists, cv’s and their skeptical quotes about climate should be gathered and an article written about it. This should give public opinion a great balance about the established idea of how scientists “major” support the AGW idea….

It took the physicists to fully question Cold Fusion as well. Perhaps they have a little more humility and are more demanding of themselves and others in the face of nonlinear dynamics and complexity.

They are true scientists in every respect, and as such can’t be trusted.
How possibly could they compete in physics and chemistry with a railway engineer?
AGW proponents say: certainly not, no contest; the Indian railway’s (the envy of the western world) expert wins hands down.

TerryS

Re: Toby

Given the age of these august gentlemen, some of whom unfortunately sullied their reputations by becoming the paid shills of tobacco companies….

Wow. You’ve convinced me with your infallible logic. From now on I will never believe anything said by any scientist who has received funding from any industry. I will only believe scientists who, throughout their career, have only had funding from special interest groups and government (who as we all know are completely neutral). I wont bother investigating any of the science behind their claims, I’ll just dismiss any claims they make.

Evan Jones

I sometimes wonder if anyone has done the 8th-grade calculation regarding feedback. The way a History graduate would look at basic demographics. Wait — I am a history graduate (M.A., Columbia University, 1985). So I’ll take an 8th-grade look. I won’t even use algebra (though one could).
Let us consider the gross factors.
— We have a 40% increase in CO2.
I will stipulate this. We add c. 7 Bil. Metric Tons Carbon to the atmosphere annually. Somewhat over half this is absorbed by land and sea sinks. The rest accumulates in the atmospheric sink (which contains c. 750 BMTC). The amount absorbed is variable and the persistence of CO2 (long or short) are factors, but the basic fact, confirmed by independent measurements so far show we are — at this point — increasing atmospheric CO2 at 0.4% per year.
— There has been some warming this century. How much is at issue.
Adjusted data shows a global increase of roughly 0.7C. We do not know what the raw data shows. However, it is a fact that if one takes a straight average of USHCN stations for the 20th century, one finds that raw data shows a trend of +0.14C per station average and adjusted data is +0.59. If you grid the data, you get roughly +0.25C raw vs. +0.72 adjusted. So we can infer, until such a time that the raw data is actually available, that global raw vs. global adjusted will tell us roughly the same story.
— A doubling of CO2 without any feedback (positive or negative) is roughly a +1.2C forcing.
Again, this is not without dispute. But as it is accepted by Drs. Spencer, Christy, and Lindzen, we will stipulate that it is enough to be going along with at this time.
— There are factors other than CO2 that produce warming.
We’ll consider land use (as endorsed by Dr. Pielke) and “black carbon”, which creates the “dirty snow” phenomenon in the Arctic (reducing albedo by c. 3% and having a “salt-in-the-driveway” effect).
— There is a natural warming trend going back to 1650 roughly equivalent to 20th century warming.
We have to rely on proxy data, and there is controversy concerning the historical record. However, we can reasonably infer that at least part of 20th century warming is natural (especially when one examines the period from 1920 – 1940).
So, we have as our working figures pro tem:
— A 40% increase in CO2.
— A temperature increase of roughly +0.25C (raw), and +0.72 (adjusted).
— +1.2C warming (without feedback) per doubling of CO2.
— Warming from other (non-CO2) anthropogenic factors.
— Some natural warming.
Well, as we look at it with our 8th-grader minds, we can see that a 40% increase in CO2 will produce around a +0.6C forcing. That is well in excess of raw temperature increase and nearly equal to adjusted temperature increase. And this is on top of some natural warming and non-CO2 anthropogenic warming.
The IPCC mainstream estimate indicates that positive feed back will almost triple the raw warming effects of CO2. So a CO2 forcing of 0.6C should produce an increase in temperatures of c. +1.5C. (Or at least some magnification even if the effect is not proportional.) This has not happened.
Therefore, one may reasonably conclude, for now, that observational data is not consistent with any positive CO2 feedback so far and that it is possible, even likely (depending on the degree of natural and non-CO2 manmade warming) that there has been at least some negative feedback.

The view of the eminent scientists is heart warming, but
“Water is the driver of nature” ; Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519).
Only about 0.001 percent of the total Earth’s water is in the atmosphere, with a the residence time of about 9 to 10 days. The replacement comes mainly from the ocean, which have an average depth of 3800 meters and a temperature of 4° Celsius. The climate change issue would be served decisively if the ocean would be much more in focus.

SteveW

John of Cloverdale WA says:
July 25, 2010 at 8:03 am
“… Redwood like forests existed 45 million years ago within the Arctic Circle …”
The Dye 3 ice core from southern Greenland has basal forest remains with an estimated age of ~450,000 years (a little closer to present day).
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2694912/

ozspeaksup

after hearing the first of the reith Lectures on ABC Radio National in Aus theis arvo,
I,d love to get this on their screens, however R Williams is so ardent a warmie I doubt it would get a passing derisory mention:-(

Please read the links in the Rebuttals section debunking the Tobacco smears, especially
‘Clouding the Truth: A Critique of Merchants of Doubt’ and ‘Vanity Scare’.

latitude

“Research data on climate change do not show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful. To the contrary, there is good evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful.” – Frederick Seitz
===========================================================
In any other time, on any other planet, warmer and more plants would be a good thing.
That’s what is so confusing to me. Obviously warmists are not sensible people, because any sensible person would be all for it. Considering our planet has spent most of it’s time very cold.
That is only if you believe that CO2 carries that much weight in the first place.

Here is an excert from ‘Vanity Scare’ regarding Dr. Seitz,

To find out if the startling claim was true — that Seitz “directed a 45M tobacco industry effort to hide health impacts of smoking” — I called him at his apartment in Manhattan. Unless there is more to the story, the accusation appears to be a willful distortion, if not an outright lie.
“That’s ridiculous, completely wrong,” Seitz told me. “The money was all spent on basic science, medical science,” he said.
According to Seitz, the CEO of RJ Reynolds — the tobacco company — was on the board of Rockefeller University while Seitz was a full-time employee there. “He was not a scientist,” Seitz said of the executive, but he believed in supporting the University’s dedication to basic research — in a little over a century, Rockefeller University has had 23 Nobel Prize winners affiliated with it, in fields of medicine and chemistry. RJ Reynolds allocated $5 million a year to Seitz to direct basic research.
To figure out how to distribute the money, Seitz says he assembled some top folks in different fields of scientific research — such as James Shannon, the director of the National Institutes of Health for 13 years, and Maclyn McCarty, the legendary geneticist — to help direct the funds.
What kind of research did they support? Seitz mentioned the work of Stanley Prusiner, who won the Nobel prize for his research into prions (Prusiner even thanks Seitz and RJ Reynolds in his Nobel Prize acceptance speech which you can read here).
When I asked Seitz if he ever spent money to try to debunk a link between smoking and ill-health, he said no. When I asked him if he himself had ever denied a link between smoking and cancer, Seitz (who, remember, is almost 100 years old) again said no and told me “my father was a 19th century man, and even he told me from when I was young that there was a connection between smoking and cancer” and that “we often talked about the hazards of smoking.” In other words, Seitz was aware of the ill-effects of smoking for a very long time, and has never tried to deny that.”

timetochooseagain

Teller, Seitz, Jastrow, and Nierenberg are all deceased, so describing them as present tense skeptical of AGW is not correct. They were when they were alive, but they are not alive now-which doesn’t mean they believe now, it’s just not normal to use the present tense when speaking of the dead.

toby says:
July 25, 2010 at 7:30 am
“Given the age of these august gentlemen, some of whom unfortunately sullied their reputations by becoming the paid shills of tobacco companies,”
1) prove that they were paid by tobacco companies
2) prove that they were paid “shills” of the tobacco companies – keeping in mind that you must prove that they knew they were just saying whatever the tobacco companies wanted them to say and that they didn’t really believe it.
3) and while you’re at it, prove that whatever it was that the tobacco companies were alledgely paying them to say, was in fact, false.
for the record, i think smoking is disgusting and stupid and have never smoked. my interest is in the truth regardless of what that truth may be or whether i might find it unpleasant.

kwik

Okay, HURRY, get those names on the Black List!
Cannot have them running around publishing any papers! We need to know who they are, so we can stop them in the Peer review process!!!
What? Some magazine might take their papers anyway???? Then boycott that paper.

Richard Sharpe

Casper says on July 25, 2010 at 7:57 am

Good collection, but what organization awards the “Noble Prize”?

Those are the real Nobel Prizes, not the other ones that are more like encouragement prizes given out during graduation.

Galvanize

Have the likes of Stephen Hawking or Roger Penrose ever aired their thoughts on AGW?

Mikael Pihlström

The peer-reviewed articles given are dated 1977-1993. The newest is
seventeen years old. A lot of new research has been done meanwhile.
I do know that Dyson’s dissent is more recent.

Inversesquare

toby says:
July 25, 2010 at 7:30 am
“Given the age of these august gentlemen, some of whom unfortunately sullied their reputations by becoming the paid shills of tobacco companies,
Reply:
Have you read the rebuttals?

Teller (Dr. Strangelove) was one of the original global warming alarmists- going back to the 1950s. As he got older, he got a little smarter.

Society’s emissions of carbon dioxide may or may not turn out to have something significant to do with global warming–the jury is still out. As a scientist, I must stand silent on this issue until it’s resolved scientifically. As a citizen, however, I can tell you that I’m entertained by the high political theater that the nation’s politicians have engaged in over the last few months. It’s wonderful to think that the world is so very wealthy that a single nation–America–can consider spending $100 billion or so each year to address a problem that may not exist–and that, if it does exist, certainly has unknown dimensions.

Inversesquare

Richard Sharpe says:
July 25, 2010 at 9:04 am
Casper says on July 25, 2010 at 7:57 am
Good collection, but what organization awards the “Noble Prize”?
Those are the real Nobel Prizes, not the other ones that are more like encouragement prizes given out during graduation.
I think he was trying to point out the typo…;)

Jimbo

Physicists V ‘Calamtalogy‘? Who will win out? Time will tell.

Andrew30

evanmjones says: July 25, 2010 at 8:44 am
… Something about being in 8th grade, but it was difficult to follow.
evanmjones, have you considered the following:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalton_Minimum
The Dalton Minimum was a period of low solar activity, from about 1790-1830 that coincided with a period of lower-than-average global temperatures.
The Year Without a Summer, in 1816, occurred during the Dalton Minimum.
1. The Sun was quiet for 40 years.
2. The Earth got very cold.
3. We don’t understand the exact relationship.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_minimum
The Maunder Minimum was a period of low solar activity, from about 1645-1715 that coincided with a period of lower-than-average global temperatures.
The Maunder Minimum coincided with the middle — and coldest part — of the Little Ice Age.
1. The Sun was quiet for 70 years.
2. The Earth got very cold.
3. We don’t understand the exact relationship.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sporer_Minimum
The Sporer Minimum was a period of low solar activity, from about 1460-1550 that coincided with a period of lower-than-average global temperatures.
1. The Sun was quiet for 90 years.
2. The Earth got very cold.
3. We don’t understand the exact relationship.
In science correlation is not causation however in all cases of solar minimums we always see a significant long term drop in global temperature, every single time, there are no exceptions. We do not see any periods of prolonged cold temperatures in the last 500 years that happened during normal solar activity, again no exceptions.
At one time we just knew that there was a connection between smoking and cancer, but it took and examination of actual cases over decades with modern technology to determine the exact relationship.
We have entered another Solar Minima. We now have an actual case and this time we have the modern technology we need to actually measure and finally understand the exact relationship as it unfolds in the coming decades.
If we can truly understand what actually happens during the event, based on actual measurements, and not models, then we will be in a better position to understand and perhaps even explain the warming of the recent past.
We must get out of the lab, stop with the models and go outside and look at the real thing.
[REPLY – Yes, I’ve considered that. There’s some correlation, although the Oort Minimum occurred during the Medieval Warm period. The Spoerer, Wolf, Maunder, and Dalton minimums partially, but not completely, correlate with the LIA. We may or may not be entering one now (someone wanted to cal it the “Ad Ho Minimum”, which gets my vote). Leif Svalgaard, our solar expert, contends the correlation of the Seuss/DeVries and Gleissberg cycles with cooling periods is not great and the TSI delta is insufficient. So I’m not sure what to think. Svensmark may be about to be real-world tested, though, now. We’ll observe! ~ Evan]

Kevin Kilty

Maybe I am not up on the various degrees of augustness, but what became of S. Fred Singer in this list? Philip Abelson expressed skepticism about the quality of supporting data as well, but maybe post humus one’s opinions evaporate.

londo

It is striking how many senior (and emeritus) scientists that are not swayed by the AWG orthodoxy. The independence between scientific results and the monthly pay check is a striking characteristic of a “climate skeptic”.

Mikael Pihlström

londo says:
July 25, 2010 at 9:41 am
It is striking how many senior (and emeritus) scientists that are not swayed by the AWG orthodoxy. The independence between scientific results and the monthly pay check is a striking characteristic of a “climate skeptic”.
——-
It is striking how many, many more senior scientist are convinced by AGW theory.
The independence between scientific result – pay check is a striking characteristic
of a scientist.

James Sexton

Kirly says:
July 25, 2010 at 9:02 am
“……..3) and while you’re at it, prove that whatever it was that the tobacco companies were alledgely paying them to say, was in fact, false……”
While its probably too late to rehash the smoking debate, we can learn from the history of the debate. When the EPA conducted the testing to determine if second-hand smoke was harmful, the EPA had standards and benchmarks in their tests that whatever substance being test had to meet before the EPA could make the “harmful” determination. Second-hand smoke never met the criteria. The EPA’s response was to lower the standards only for second-had smoke and made the determination it was harmful. Today, most regard second-hand smoke being harmful as proven scientific fact.
Your disclaimer…”for the record, i think smoking is disgusting and stupid and have never smoked.”
My disclaimer…..I’ve smoked for all of my adult life. While it is an expensive habit, I get the bonus of being ostracized from certain segments of society which has a very pleasant outcome for people such as myself. When I think of the smoking debate of the past, I’m reminiscent of a quote from Gerry Spence, in what is seemingly an unrelated incident. But on further inspection, they are very closely tied. Gerry Spence, in a response to a colleague questioning his decision to represent Randy Weaver or Ruby Ridge fame/infamy. Partial quote…
“This man is wrong, his beliefs are wrong. His relationship to mankind is wrong. He was perhaps legally wrong when he failed to appear and defend himself in court. But the first wrong was not his. Nor was the first wrong the government’s. The first wrong was ours.
In this country we embrace the myth that we are still a democracy when we know that we are not a democracy, that we are not free, that the government does not serve us but subjugates us. Although we give lip service to the notion of freedom, we know the government is no longer the servant of the people but, at last has become the people’s master. We have stood by like timid sheep while the wolf killed, first the weak, then the strays, then those on the outer edges of the flock, until at last the entire flock belonged to the wolf. We did not care about the weak or about the strays. They were not a part of the flock. We did not care about those on the outer edges. They had chosen to be there. But as the wolf worked its way towards the center of the flock we discovered that we were now on the outer edges. Now we must look the wolf squarely in the eye. That we did not do so when
the first of us was ripped and torn and eaten was the first wrong. It was our wrong.
That none of us felt responsible for having lost our freedom has been a part of an insidious progression. In the beginning the attention of the flock was directed not to the marauding wolf but to our own deviant members within the flock. We rejoiced as the wolf destroyed them for they were our enemies. We were told that the weak lay under the rocks while we faced the blizzards to rustle our food, and we did not care when the wolf took them. We argued that they deserved it. When one of our flock faced the wolf alone it was always eaten. Each of us was afraid of the wolf, but as a flock we were not afraid. Indeed the wolf cleansed the herd by destroying the weak and dismembering the aberrant element within. As time went by, strangely, the herd felt more secure under the rule of the wolf. It believed that by belonging to this wolf it would remain safe from all the other wolves. But
we were eaten just the same.”……..

Brian W

evanmjones (july 25, 2010 8:44am)
Your 40% is misleading. As a concentration of total volume its .01% or 100ppm. This is equivalent to adding just 1 extra molecule per 10,000. You forgot about N2 and O2.
You say “a 40% increase in CO2 will produce around a +0.6C forcing.”
Really, what proof does anybody have that this will occur except for some questionable mathematics.
You say “observational data is not consistent with any positive CO2 feedback so far”. This would be a true statement since there are no “positive feedbacks”. If there was feedback working like they claim, it would have been detected immediately. There would be no grey area or confusion. Co2 influencing climate? Forget about it . I view it as a scientific superstition.
[REPLY – Perhaps. Perhaps not. But leading skeptics such as Dr. Lindzen think it is so, so I am willing to stipulate it for purpose of initial testing. It wouldn’t be the first time in the cosmos a small factor made a significant difference. And the result is that even if CO2 forcing is true and even if world temperature increase-according-to-CRU is true (which I doubt), there are STILL no positive feedbacks in evidence. ~ Evan]

Inversesquare says:
July 25, 2010 at 9:30 am

Multiple typos, actually.

James Sexton says:
July 25, 2010 at 9:58 am

I don’t believe scond hand smoke causes cancer, unless you have the same exposure as a smoker, then maybe. But it IS annoying, and can be harmful to those with adverse respiratory conditions. It’s a habit that involves others against their will, and that’s why it should be banned in public places.

Mikael Pihlström

stevengoddard says:
July 25, 2010 at 9:28 am
Teller (Dr. Strangelove) was one of the original global warming alarmists- going back to the 1950s. As he got older, he got a little smarter:
….. It’s wonderful to think that the world is so very wealthy that a single nation–America–can consider spending $100 billion or so each year to address a problem that may not exist–and that, if it does exist, certainly has unknown dimensions.
——
If a problem has ‘unknown dimensions’ you might want to recommend
some research?
The sceptic SPPI talks about 79 billion spent since 1989 – where does
Teller get the 100 billion/year from?
Anyhow, science would be progressing towards research on global-wide
systems, with or without climate fears.
And it seems to me that at least WUWT bloggers are passionate about
this kind of research?

Ed Murphy

Andrew30 says:
“We must get out of the lab, stop with the models and go outside and look at the real thing.”
Heh, its a SCORCHER in Charlotte, NC just like it was in Hotlanta, GA. The wind feels like its coming straight from the SUN!
In a way it really is… have you looked at the solar wind lately? Or the sun?
http://sdowww.lmsal.com/sdomedia/SunInTime/2010/07/25/f_HMImag_171.jpg

Gary Pearse

toby says:
July 25, 2010 at 7:30 am
“Given the age of these august gentlemen…”
Many thinking 30 yr-olds working as post docs in the unbelievably large number of institutions that rely on the largesse of AGW ideologue promoters, are closet sceptics, but short of quitting their science to make a living at something else, what are they to do. The answer is attain oldguy-gal-hood and then speak your mind.
Now I have one for you. Could you at least be honest here and admit that you were shocked and disappointed at the revelations of Climategate – even the loudest journalists on the side of AGW (Monbiot and others) had the integrity to do so. They felt betrayed. Many have changed their minds about the verity of AGW theory in the face of the egregious, unscientific, partisan manipulations and creation of false data. It is not as much fun a place to be these days compared to the free-for-all-love-in it was prior to November 2009.
Darn it, if the world is heading for calamitous AGW disaster, the data shouldn’t need enhancements and augmentations of a few tenths of a degree here and there. Even the raw data should be marching in lockstep with CO2 trends and we shouldn’t be needing to adjust it upward. If we adjust it upward, it must be that the effect is not imposing enough as it is. I have already predicted in other threads that as the earth slips deeper into its present cooling stage, the AGW hangers on will be the residual banner-carrying-Luddite-end-of-the-world bunch that is always a statistical part of any movement. At least have an exit strategy toby.

rbateman

7 out of 10 people I meet think Global Warming is a bunch of crap. They use those specific words more often than not.
I find 3 out of 10 who still think that C02 is dangerous, but they don’t know why. They are miffed that the geovernmet/scientists have no solutions or plan for the traditional pollution problems.
A lot of those people are concerned about the change in climate, but not the kind the AGW theory blasts on the airwaves.
They are worried about the ability of the long-range weather forecasters to get it right.
All of these people are looking for answers, but they have given up getting them from the current agenda.
They are being convinced more every day that they are being fed a line of bs.