WUWT readers may recall this story: Pielke Sr. on the gang of 18 letter to congress
Now, other scientists have seen that 18, and raised the stakes. Their letter is below:
February 8, 2011
To the Members of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate:
In reply to “The Importance of Science in Addressing Climate Change”
On 28 January 2011, eighteen scientists sent a letter to members of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate urging them to “take a fresh look at climate change.” Their intent, apparently, was to disparage the views of scientists who disagree with their contention that continued business-as-usual increases in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions produced from the burning of coal, gas, and oil will lead to a host of cataclysmic climate-related problems.
We, the undersigned, totally disagree with them and would like to take this opportunity to briefly state our side of the story.
The eighteen climate alarmists (as we refer to them, not derogatorily, but simply because they view themselves as “sounding the alarm” about so many things climatic) state that the people of the world “need to prepare for massive flooding from the extreme storms of the sort being experienced with increasing frequency,” as well as the “direct health impacts from heat waves” and “climate-sensitive infectious diseases,” among a number of other devastating phenomena. And they say that “no research results have produced any evidence that challenges the overall scientific understanding of what is happening to our planet’s climate,” which is understood to mean their view of what is happening to Earth’s climate.
To these statements, however, we take great exception. It is the eighteen climate alarmists who appear to be unaware of “what is happening to our planet’s climate,” as well as the vast amount of research that has produced that knowledge.
For example, a lengthy review of their claims and others that climate alarmists frequently make can be found on the Web site of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change (see http://www.co2science.org/education/reports/prudentpath/prudentpath.php). That report offers a point-by-point rebuttal of all of the claims of the “group of eighteen,” citing in every case peer-reviewed scientific research on the actual effects of climate change during the past several decades.
If the “group of eighteen” pleads ignorance of this information due to its very recent posting, then we call their attention to an even larger and more comprehensive report published in 2009, Climate Change Reconsidered: The 2009 Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC). That document has been posted for more than a year in its entirety at www.nipccreport.org.
These are just two recent compilations of scientific research among many we could cite. Do the 678 scientific studies referenced in the CO2 Science document, or the thousands of studies cited in the NIPCC report, provide real-world evidence (as opposed to theoretical climate model predictions) for global warming-induced increases in the worldwide number and severity of floods? No. In the global number and severity of droughts? No. In the number and severity of hurricanes and other storms? No.
Do they provide any real-world evidence of Earth’s seas inundating coastal lowlands around the globe? No. Increased human mortality? No. Plant and animal extinctions? No. Declining vegetative productivity? No. More frequent and deadly coral bleaching? No. Marine life dissolving away in acidified oceans? No.
Quite to the contrary, in fact, these reports provide extensive empirical evidence that these things are not happening. And in many of these areas, the referenced papers report finding just the opposite response to global warming, i.e., biosphere-friendly effects of rising temperatures and rising CO2 levels.
In light of the profusion of actual observations of the workings of the real world showing little or no negative effects of the modest warming of the second half of the twentieth century, and indeed growing evidence of positive effects, we find it incomprehensible that the eighteen climate alarmists could suggest something so far removed from the truth as their claim that no research results have produced any evidence that challenges their view of what is happening to Earth’s climate and weather.
But don’t take our word for it. Read the two reports yourselves. And then make up your own minds about the matter. Don’t be intimidated by false claims of “scientific consensus” or “overwhelming proof.” These are not scientific arguments and they are simply not true.
Like the eighteen climate alarmists, we urge you to take a fresh look at climate change. We believe you will find that it is not the horrendous environmental threat they and others have made it out to be, and that they have consistently exaggerated the negative effects of global warming on the U.S. economy, national security, and public health, when such effects may well be small to negligible.
Signed by:
Syun-Ichi Akasofu, University of Alaska1
Scott Armstrong, University of Pennsylvania
James Barrante, Southern Connecticut State University1
Richard Becherer, University of Rochester
John Boring, University of Virginia
Roger Cohen, American Physical Society Fellow
David Douglass, University of Rochester
Don Easterbrook, Western Washington University1
Robert Essenhigh, The Ohio State University1
Martin Fricke, Senior Fellow, American Physical Society
Lee Gerhard, University of Kansas1
Ulrich Gerlach, The Ohio State University
Laurence Gould, University of Hartford
Bill Gray, Colorado State University1
Will Happer, Princeton University2
Howard Hayden, University of Connecticut1
Craig Idso, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change
Sherwood Idso, USDA, U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory1
Richard Keen, University of Colorado
Doral Kemper, USDA, Agricultural Research Service1
Hugh Kendrick, Office of Nuclear Reactor Programs, DOE1
Richard Lindzen, Massachusetts Institute of Technology2
Anthony Lupo, University of Missouri
Patrick Michaels, Cato Institute
Donald Nielsen, University of California, Davis1
Al Pekarek, St. Cloud State University
John Rhoads, Midwestern State University1
Nicola Scafetta, Duke University
Gary Sharp, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study
S. Fred Singer, University of Virginia1
Roy Spencer, University of Alabama
George Taylor, Past President, American Association of State Climatologists
Frank Tipler, Tulane University
Leonard Weinstein, National Institute of Aerospace Senior Research Fellow
Samuel Werner, University of Missouri1
Thomas Wolfram, University of Missouri1
1 – Emeritus or Retired
2 – Member of the National Academy of Sciences
Endorsed by:
Rodney Armstrong, Geophysicist
Edwin Berry, Certified Consulting Meteorologist
Joseph Bevelacqua, Bevelacqua Resources
Carmen Catanese, American Physical Society Member
Roy Clark, Ventura Photonics
John Coleman, Meteorologist KUSI TV
Darrell Connelly, Geophysicist
Joseph D’Aleo, Certified Consulting Meteorologist
Terry Donze, Geophysicist1
Mike Dubrasich, Western Institute for Study of the Environment
John Dunn, American Council on Science and Health of NYC
Dick Flygare, QEP Resources
Michael Fox, Nuclear industry/scientist
Gordon Fulks, Gordon Fulks and Associates
Ken Haapala, Science & Environmental Policy Project
Martin Hertzberg, Bureau of Mines1
Art Horn, Meteorologist
Keith Idso, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change
Jay Lehr, The Heartland Institute
Robert Lerine, Industrial and Defense Research and Engineering1
Peter Link, Geologist
James Macdonald, Chief Meteorologist for the Travelers Weather Service1
Roger Matson, Society of Independent Professional Earth Scientists
Tony Pann, Meteorologist WBAL TV
Ned Rasor, Consulting Physicist
James Rogers, Geologist1
Norman Rogers, National Association of Scholars
Thomas Sheahen, Western Technology Incorporated
Andrew Spurlock, Starfire Engineering and Technologies, Inc.
Leighton Steward, PlantsNeedCO2.org
Soames Summerhays, Summerhays Films, Inc.
Charles Touhill, Consulting Environmental Engineer
David Wojick, Climatechangedebate.org
1 – Emeritus or Retired
Letter in PDF form: TruthAboutClimateChangeOpenLetter
Correct me if I’m wrong, but arent those “ohh so terrible” consequences simply projections of what “might” happen … To say that they are not happening today as evidence that GW is “not a problem” completely misses the point. GW, if it is a problem has only just begun… You should be sending this letter in a hundred years and coming up with a better set of reasons for today… I mean, I know its a bunch of republicans, but come on.. Surely they won’t fall for that excuse… Ohh wait. They probably will…
to DCC; The CO2 report has 54 pages of references, which brings “lengthy” down to a meer 114 pages of rebuttle. Impressive is what it is, I hope to get through all of it.
I’m not sure how many times we have to correct the heretics among you but it’s 18 organizations not Phd’s. Jeses, if you can’t even get that logic what hope is there for science to over come belief.
Yes but if you dont carefully pick your scientists, you’ll never get a pre-determined result.
Is Roger Pielke Sr or Jr going to endorse or sign? Seems a little empty without it.
Story dropped to AP, Fox, MSNBC, The Hill, and others — an hour well spent. Let’s see if they pick-up a solid news piece for a change.
Trevor Pugh says: February 8, 2011 at 2:22 pm
“I’m not sure how many times we have to correct the heretics among you but it’s 18 organizations not Phd’s. Jeses, if you can’t even get that logic what hope is there for science to over come belief.”
From Dr Pelke’s post:
“The letter of January 28, 2011 to the Members of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate is from
John Abraham, University of St. Thomas
Barry Bickmore, Brigham Young University
Gretchen Daily,* Stanford University
G. Brent Dalrymple,* Oregon State University
Andrew Dessler, Texas A&M University
Peter Gleick,* Pacific Institute
John Kutzbach,* University of Wisconsin-Madison
Syukuro Manabe,* Princeton University
Michael Mann, Penn State University
Pamela Matson,* Stanford University
Harold Mooney,* Stanford University
Michael Oppenheimer, Princeton University
Ben Santer, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Richard Somerville, Scripps Institution of Oceanography
Kevin Trenberth, National Center for Atmospheric Research
Warren Washington, National Center for Atmospheric Research
Gary Yohe, Wesleyan University
George Woodwell,* The Woods Hole Research Center”
Looks like 18 people not 18 organizations to me, especially since Stanford U is on there 3 times.
I almost flunked a geology course from Don Easterbrook of Western Washington University back in the 70’s.
To the 36 signers of the letter dated February 8 2011 to the US Congress,
Thank you for your service in support of scientific openness.
The open scientific debate is making its way past the smoke screen of the liberal MSM, ideological environmentalist NGOs & IPCC groupies!
Viva the climate science renaissance over IPCC biased ideology!
John
Bart Verheggen says:
February 8, 2011 at 10:39 am
Perhaps time to develop a critical look into more than just one direction.
——-
Bart Verheggen,
Yes indeed it is time! I agree with you. Opening up the scientific debate into broader context is happening at an accelerating rate as shown by the letter signed by the 36 scientists. Viva la renaissance!
John
Lady Life Grows says:
February 8, 2011 at 12:32 pm (Edit)
On my computer, there was ad adfor SimUText just below your report. It is worth noting that it had a picture of a polar bear on a small iceberg. Last Summer, I took an undergraduate level course in animal Ecology, and SimUText was used as part of that course. It was a simulation of moose and wolves on a Canadian island. It was conceded that warmer temperatures meant more plants, and that this would mean more moose if there were no wolves. But the program was set to oscillate more wildly in wolves reducing-moose-until-their-population-crashed-resulting-in wolf-crash, in higher temperatures, which meant that higher temperatures caused extinction of the moose and then the wolves. That is how dishonest biologists can be. More food, more moose results in extinction. Sure.
—-
I like the statement above except that it was still too apologetic and polite–maybe there is not such a problem. The actual evidence was that belief in global warming poses a serious threat to the biosphere. That is why I spend time on this site (well, ok, and my fellow posters are terribly funny). I want more life on Earth, and these lies threaten even the life we already have. It is NOT merely expensive. It is a threat to human well-being. And if humans starve to death as a result of 180 degrees wrong actions, the wild world will NOT be better off, but much worse. Not only will starving humans pressure wild areas more, but wildlife will also feel the damaging effects directly. Extinctions could come from all this false alarmism.
People, countries, economies and lives are already harmed by this CAGW propagandist alarmism. Today’s three-year-long recession traces its roots to the sudden rise in gasoline and oil prices driven by Nancy Pelosi’s House of Representatives policies in spring and summer 2007 – right after she took over the US House of Representatives from the (more energy rational) republicans. Sure, Bush was still President, but he did NOT prevent these catastrophic laws and budgets fro coming through enabling the EPA and deliberately restraining oil production and exploration. When oil prices rose right afterwords, that tipped the economy and manufacturing and shipping and production and aircraft and travel and retail business -> and the losses blew up the false bubbles in inflated housing and securities markets – also being propped up by bad democrat interest and loan policies that were NOT opposed by Bush.
So we entered the 2008 recession just in time to drop the securities and stock market to turn the presidency over to the democrats. And continue the disastrous energy policies that threaten billions with shorter, harder lives and kill millions through poverty, disease and illness and starvation and bad water ….
Moderators,
Sorry I messed up my blockquotes in my February 8, 2011 at 3:56 pm comment directed at Bart Verheggen.
John
Trevor Pugh says:
February 8, 2011 at 2:22 pm
I’m not sure how many times we have to correct the heretics among you but it’s 18 organizations not Phd’s. Jes[u]s, if you can’t even get that logic what hope is there for science to over come belief.
Clarify your comment: The letter these 18 “scientists” sent to the new Congress claiming that THEY – and ONLY THEY as hard-core highly-paid and professionally-taxpayer-funded CAGW propagandists- could be trusted to speak for the “truth” about CAGW issues was not sent on behalf of organizations but by these 18 self-chosen guru’s as individuals.
I believe Trevor Pugh and others have dueling letters confused.
I believe this topic is about the letter discussed on WUWT here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/04/pielke-sr-on-the-gang-of-18-letter-to-congress/
According to http://ipccinfo.com/
“The IPCC was established by the World Meteorological Organization and United Nations Environment Programme and represents the consensus science position on climate change, directly engaging more than 2,500 scientists from more than 130 nations.”
And now there are 18? What happened to the other 2482? Are the present temperatures causing extinctions?
Just so you don’t get confused, if you see “rebuttal”, it’s how most people spell “rebuttle”, and if you see “mere”, its how the rest of us spell “meer”.
😉
Yes, 36:18 = 2:1, such a nice round number! 🙂
Plus 45 endorsers; 45:18 = 5:2, or 2.5:1.
Total 81:18! or 9:2, 4.5:1 .
Nice, nice, very nice. So many different people in the same device!
Bravo all.
I wonder if President Obama got the message, too.
The thing that leapt out at me from this letter is that the signatories are not asking for money, or expecting to benefit personally from policies and legislation.
Bit of a contrast to the other lot.
Think about the damage the “environmental” movement has done to the world in the name of AGW. The recent uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt are food related. These countries eat a lot of bread. There have been weather related crop failures that have reduced world wheat production. In the past, other sources of grain or similar foodstuffs were available to replace wheat. But, with corn, sugar cane and barley being diverted into ethanol for fuel production instead of food, the world is becoming short on alternative FOOD products.
Bottom Line: efforts to reduce dependence on “carbon based” fuels by “renewables” is creating the potential for disaster. (Course these products are also carbon based and would be better utilized as food for carbon based life forms rather than fuel) So add destabilization of a large portion of the world to the list of achievements of the Global Warming Crowd. The House and Senators might grasp these implications.
An excellent riposte. Lets hope some of the MSM pick it up.
Never underestimate the stupidity of some politicians, While Germany is rapidly back-pedalling on renewable energy, the UK government is hurtling towards it with the tenacity and speed of a rampaging elephant with an acid coated burr up its bottom.
Well done!
Who exactly is http://www.co2science.org? The original letter sent in January makes reference to the National Academy of Sciences which includes many scientists from across the nation (not to mention similar organizations that have the same message regarding climate change from around the world). The only three people with a science background at co2science appear to be related (since the chairman, president, and vice-president all share the same last name). First impression: biased opinion.
The rebuttal letter claims the studies referenced in the co2 document provide no real-world evidence. Well, how about including studies that do include real-world evidence? Just because they were not included does not mean they do not exist.
And the NIPCC? Come on. Everyone knows the IPCC as a group established by two organizations from the United Nations. They are just trying to hi-jack the name and credibility. And their website even indicates they are just an off-shoot from co2science. Second impression: very biased.
Here is my problem: Yes, many millions of years ago the CO2 levels were much larger and there was a greater amount of vegetation. Two issues:
1) There were no humans there at the time. You can’t compare what is happening now to what happened then.
2) Over those many millions of years, CO2 levels came down as vegetation floruished, died and through numerous processes ended up buried and eventually turned to fossil fuels.
It seems ignorant to think that there would be no environmental effect in releasing the CO2 stored in the Earth over millions of years suddenly being released rapidly in 1 or 2 centuries.
One last thought: In the 1970’s, we experienced the impact of a manufactured energy crunch and realized we needed to change our relationship with energy. So far, very little has changed. Anyone check on the price of a gallon of gasoline recently? Don’t we need a real energy policy… like 3 decades ago!
Polititians in America and Europe will always support scare stories, any excuse
to belabour the poor citizens with ever increasing taxes especially when they
say we are doing this for your benefit, hypocrisy writ large!!