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.







Well, when you’re sitting at a poker game and you pay to see, don’t let anyone grab the pot UNTIL THEY SHOW THEIR CARDS.
evanmjones
[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). Lief 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]
I must confess I’m beginning to get heartily sick of all this: ‘Lief Svalgaard, our solar expert, contends ….the TSI delta is insufficient.” stuff.
If you look closely at Svalgaard’s most recent (5/27/10) effort ‘”Has the Sun’s Output Really Changed Significantly Since the Little Ice Age?”
http://www.leif.org/research/Does%20The%20Sun%20Vary%20Enough.pdf
(watch the %20 spaces)
you will inevitably end up with Svalgaard’s Chart 16, where he states “So, Reconstructions of TSI are converging towards having no ‘background'”. This chart includes graphs of 10 TSI reconstructions, including Wang’s and Svalgaard’s own. However, Svalgaard provides no sense of direction for his claimed convergence of ‘no background’ (to TSI variation). The graphs shown don’t converge to anything. He hasn’t even dated them, should one consider time of publication is an important criterion for goodness of fit. They are simply multiple estimates of TSI with no quality factor(s) by which the various estimates might be weighted and combined.
Svalgaard’s conclusion in his 5/27/10 paper is:
• Variation in Solar Output is a Factor of Ten too Small to Account for The Little Ice Age,
• Unless the Climate is Extraordinarily Sensitive to Very Small Changes,
• But Then the Phase (‘Line-Up of Wiggles’) is Not Right
• Way Out: Sensitivity and Phases Vary Semi-Randomly on All Time Scales.
Svalgaard is right to belittle correlation by the “Line-up of Wiggles”. He could throw in visual comparisons of charts, like Judith Lean’s SORCE 2008 beautiful map diagrams (Charts 14, 20), or of co-plots of traces (Charts 24, 27).
http://www.searchanddiscovery.net/documents/2008/08069lean/lean.pdf
The human eye is indeed easily deceived. Correlation is a mathematical operation leading to a lag-dependent number, hence a function. Correlation needs to be quantified, but NEITHER Lean nor Svalgaard have ever attempted to compute the correlation between global average surface temperature and TSI reconstructions.
The key point is Svalgaard’s second bullet point in his Conclusions: “Unless the Climate is … Sensitive to … Small Changes”. About this, Judith Lean says in her Chart 13, current understanding assumes that climate response to solar radiative forcing is thermodynamic…
BUT empirical evidence suggests it is dynamic, rather than (or as well as) thermodynamic…
engages existing circulation patterns (Hadley, Ferrel and Walter cells) and atmosphere-ocean interactions (ENSO)…
involves both direct (surface heating) and indirect (stratospheric influence) components.
and
solar irradiance provides a well specified external climate forcing for testing models and understanding.
Lief Svalgaard likes to both blog and publish as the kidney punching soccer skinhead of solar science, claiming the case of the Sun’s recent deep minimum is evidence that all TSI reconstructions before his own are…..obsolete. In some cases the acrimony is so bad Svalgaard’s ‘non-admirers’ can’t even bring themselves to cite his papers. But examination of the literature suggests at this point in time he is a simply an over-stated ‘consensus’ of ……one.
It’s a bit like good old De Gaulle’s Montreal statement “La France? C’est MOI”.
ecoeng says:
I must confess I’m beginning to get heartily sick of all this: ‘Lief Svalgaard, our solar expert, contends ….the TSI delta is insufficient.” stuff…..
_______________________________________________________
I find it quite interesting that Dr Svalgaard spends so much time here at WUWT trouncing any solar – climate connecting beyond the 0.1C that IPCC allows.
After being an eye witness to the rapid and deliberate spreading of false information (propaganda) by the media on a nation wide basis, one of which left me jobless in 1992 and the current one that will also destroy my present livelihood I have no trust in the establishment.
This is especially true in light of the academic paper, by Obama’s regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein. he argues the U.S. government should ban “conspiracy theorizing.”
Among the beliefs Sunstein wants to ban is the theory of global warming is a deliberate fraud. the 2008 paper is here: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1084585
Sunstein thinks the best government response to “conspiracy theories” is “cognitive infiltration of extremist groups….
“We suggest a distinctive tactic for breaking up the hard core of extremists who supply conspiracy theories: cognitive infiltration of extremist groups, whereby government agents or their allies (acting either virtually or in real space, and either openly or anonymously) will undermine the crippled epistemology of believers by planting doubts about the theories and stylized facts that circulate within such groups, thereby introducing beneficial cognitive diversity… [he suggests agents] might enter chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups and attempt to undermine percolating conspiracy theories by raising doubts about their factual premises, causal logic or implications for political action.”
That said here are other articles I have found on the variability of the sun. At this point I do not know what to believe, but I do not think any of the current scientists, PHD or not, does either. The we do not know what we don’t know problem.
UCLA atmospheric scientists have discovered a previously unknown basic mode of energy transfer from the solar wind to the Earth’s magnetosphere.
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/scientists-discover-surprise-in-101025.aspx
UV is that it has the energy to breakup O2 to atomic O, which facilitates O3, which also absorbs uv… And from what i have read on the subject recently it should effect stratospheric temperatures… (and by extension global climate.) http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0469(1979)036%3C1084:TROSOI%3E2.0.CO;2
NASA article below also raises the question if reduced UV effects upper atmospheric temperatures.
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/coolingthermosphere.html
NASA: Cosmic Rays Hit Space Age High
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2009/29sep_cosmicrays/
Cosmic Ray count since 1965
http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/query.cgi?startdate=1964/10/20&starttime=00:00&enddate=2009/12/30&endtime=07:16&resolution=Automatic%20choice&picture=on
NASA: Solar Dynamics Observatory: The ‘Variable Sun’ Mission
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2010/05feb_sdo/
Geomagnetism and climate : the last 400 years
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CCEQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fadsabs.harvard.edu%2Fabs%2F2003EAEJA…..9655N&ei=G2VQTL63D8SqlAe4y8C4CQ&usg=AFQjCNH0Q16r91LIlv-CmdydDDgDwNpiaQ
NOAA chart of Sunspot – radio flux – -Geomagnetic-
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ftpdir/weekly/RecentIndices.txt
Geomagnetic Disturbance Index
http://www.nwra.com/spawx/ap.html
NOAA – Sun at it’s most active:
http://i446.photobucket.com/albums/qq187/bobclive/ThesunNOAA.jpg
NASA:Sun’s brightness has dropped by 0.02% at visible wavelengths and 6% at extreme UV wavelengths since the solar minimum of 1996
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2009/01apr_deepsolarminimum/
NASA: Solar Variability
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/SORCE/sorce_03.php
SUN -CLIMATE link papers:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VHB-5033Y1W-2&_user=38557&_coverDate=05%2F15%2F2010&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000004358&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=38557&md5=4e363178f789c1677708384f728ce49d
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/features.cfm?feature=1319
Solar energy reached a summer maximum (9% higher than at present) ca 11 ka ago and has been decreasing since then, primarily in response to the precession of the equinoxes.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VBC-50822BB-1&_user=10&_coverDate=07%2F31%2F2010&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1414645412&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=97088e0536a3db0e3ea75e7fa28d175c
Lesson from the past: present insolation minimum holds potential for glacial inception
Ulrich C. Müller & Jörg Pross, Institute of Geosciences, University of Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VBC-4R5G3HY-4&_user=10&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F2007&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1411146245&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=3e90ecdae545f9a1fa43ca0e021bf5d3
The strong statistical correlation between skepticism and being dead in Mr. Watts selection suggest he should attend more APS meetings.
Their is a strong correlation between Russell Seitz posting and the posts containing inaccurate statements.
Gail Combs says:
July 28, 2010 at 10:39 am
I find it quite interesting that Dr Svalgaard spends so much time here at WUWT trouncing any solar – climate connecting beyond the 0.1C that IPCC allows.
Be fair.
Leif has convinced me that he defends the science results he finds statistically convincing and refutes the rest in a discipline where he has spent a lifetime studying and publishing.
The 0.1 change is not an IPCC number out of the blue. It is what he has estimated from the data and metadata available to him.
Now he might be wrong even in that, but somebody should publish a refutation. Or there might exist several amplification mechanisms, ala Svensmark, plankton etc that together create a chaotic system that destroys direct correlations of global temperature to solar irradiance. Or global temperature is so badly measured that correlations are lost . Or ….
Time will tell.
You should not be mixing him up with cognitive infiltrators though. I get as pugnacious 🙂 when people spout what I think is nonsense in my field ( elementary particles).
Gail, to be fair Leif doesn’t understand the limitations of computer modeling and when I asked him if a model could be programmed to get the results that you wanted, he ridiculously said no. This is unfortunately a common occurrence with scientists who use computers in their field but are not computer scientists and thus have no remote clue about their limitations. It is why they have unrealistic faith in model results. A model can be programmed to get any results that you want and are nothing more than the subjective opinions of the scientists creating them. This alone is enough to make me question his opinion on many things.
I have been told enough times by my AGW skpetic friends that scientific consesus does not equate to truth.
So I am not sure I get why we are listing 7 scientists who may have been skeptical (which is different that disagreeing) with Climate Change (AGW) when they were alive.
If you don’t buy that consensus should have a place in science, certainly scrounging for a scattering of scientists, even eminent ones, who presumably agree with you, should not sway the science either.
FYI – for those in the list who are no longer alive – seems unfair to quote their opinions in perpetuity. They do not have the ability to change their minds anymore.
Tom, pointing out eminent scientists who do not agree with AGW alarm supports the notion for a lack of consensus and thus the skeptic position.
Many educated individuals disagree with the global-warming-caused-by-man theory as poorly principled, inaccurate or otherwise invalid. Each individual seems to have their own individual idea and I can see no common ground among them.
Of the serious comments here I see only a they-are-wrong-and-we-are-right approach. That will not hold water any more than the warming glaciers hold ice.
The true situation is that changes to our planet are occurring which will bring about major changes to our civilizations and probably cause the death of millions as those changes occur.
So besides the I-am-right=you-are-wrong crap what are we doing about the changes in our environment which occur for whatever reason?
Thanx for your un-cited opinion, kbutler.
Saying that the “true situation is that changes to our planet are occurring which will bring about major changes to our civilizations and probably cause the death of millions as those changes occur” is pure conjecture, not the ‘true situation.’
If you go back to RealClimate, you won’t get any “I-am-right=you-are wrong” discussion, for the simple reason that RC [and similar blogs simply don’t allow any points of view contrary to the Party line [CO2=CAGW].
As you may or may not be aware, CO2 has been almost twenty times higher in the geologic past — and many times higher than the present — while the planet descended into long Ice Ages. Where is your god now?
The current claim is if CO2 rises from one molecule in 2,600, to one molecule in 2,500, runaway global warming will result. Those holding that belief ignore the plain fact that CO2 has been much higher many times in the past, with no climate catastrophe.
But of course, belief systems are almost impossible to correct, being caused by cognitive dissonance: if the flying saucers didn’t arrive as scheduled, that can only mean that their arrival has been re-scheduled; it couldn’t possibly mean there are no flying saucers. [See Leon Festinger.]
Cognitive dissonance is a universal hallmark of believers in CAGW. Skeptics are largely immune from CD, because skeptics are simply asking for convincing evidence of CAGW. So far, the only “evidence” comes from computer models. Of course, that is not evidence, it is conjecture.