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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.







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’.
“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,
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.
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.
Casper says on July 25, 2010 at 7:57 am
Those are the real Nobel Prizes, not the other ones that are more like encouragement prizes given out during graduation.
Have the likes of Stephen Hawking or Roger Penrose ever aired their thoughts on AGW?
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.
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.
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…;)
Physicists V ‘Calamtalogy‘? Who will win out? Time will tell.
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]
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.
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”.
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.
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.”……..
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]
Multiple typos, actually.
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.
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?
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
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.
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.