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
Sensor Operator
Dig a little deeper, the Idso’s have published literally hundreds of papers in the scientific literature. They may be the worlds leading source of real experimental data on the effects of varying carbon dioxide levels. They also refer you to hundreds of sources authored by others.
sensorop;
The NAS “official” position is a textbook case of association executives and ‘crats sucking up to the Powers-That-Be-At-The-Moment on behalf of the entire membership, who were not and will not be consulted on the matter.
No John Christy? Disappointing.
Wondering Aloud:
Okay, Dr. Idso (senior in this case, not the two sons having now confirmed they ARE related) has a number of papers. Some of these papers are just science. Not a bad thing, but hardly proves his competance in the field. For example: “A set of equations for full spectrum and 8-14 um and 10.5-12.5 um thermal radiation from cloudless skies.” I bet there is nothing wrong with this paper. Except it is just a paper. If one has a PhD, you are somewhat expected to have a number of papers.
The problem is that the conclusions reached in the paper are not peer reviewed and are just re-hashes of arguements made by others and in some cases are just wrong. They continue to use a simple example that more CO2 is better for plants… based on a very controlled scenario. That is not how the real world works. Having studied oceanography we have to accept the first major problem that the world is very dirty beaker and we may never have a perfect answer since we don’t have results from a pristine environment, and I am not talking about pollution. Ocean water may taste like salt but there is alot more than just NaCl in there, i.e. what does pure ocean water mean? How do we create standards for a system that is in constant flux? (FYI, one does exist and is used by scientists around the world so everyone is comparing apples to apples.)
And I did dig a little deeper into the paper and of the hunderds of paper they site, most of them are from people talking about increases in CO2 and the negative effects on the environment from climate change. Even Dr. Mann’s papers are included in his references. If we considered the positions taken by the papers you would find the vast majority support AGW.
Also, the Idsos’ have a pedigree that shows they are closely connected to the coal and fossil fuel industry (Exxon/Mobil, Peabody Energy) which also forces people to question their sincerity. Do they believe in the science, or do they believe in the science that pays their bills? Folks want to criticize scientists as supporting AGW to get funding. Well, it happens on the other side as well.
Remember, their simple example is that more CO2 helps plants grow better (done inside an aquarium). Well, we know for a fact that CO2 has been rising in the atmosphere (look at but it does not appear the vegatative biomass, on land or in the oceans, is doing better.
Also, I believe it was the senior Idso who wrote a paper warning of global cooling due to increased CO2 levels. So as folks complain about all of the papers warning of global cooling, apparently we need to consider who was writing those papers.
So, to be polite, the CO2 center is not exactly the National Academy of Sciences.
I wish I could find it but back in the late 90’s or early 00’s, there was a great story about a power plant in the southeast US. The company saw that the government (under Clinton) was pushing stricter regulations on pollution from plants. Rather than play catch up (and have to make many changes at once), they created a schedule to upgrade their facility to meet the expected requirements. In the end, they have one of the cleanest plants in the country. Of course, the Clinton administration did not implement the regulations and when Bush came into office, the regulations were thrown out and not implemented. During an interview with the power company’s CEO or president (can’t remember which) they asked about two areas. First, did they have to raise rates to implement the upgrades. The answer: no. They had plenty of money and had a gradual implementation that did not require them to raise rates.
The more important question: Would you have made these upgrades/changes if you knew the regulations would not be implemented, let alone enforced? His anwser: No. Even though they plant is one of the best/cleanest in the nation, they would not have made these changes. Why? Money. They implemented the changes in a way that would not negatively affect their cash flow and would be cheaper than having the implement changes all at once. However, not having to make any changes is even cheaper.
Sensor operator says:
“Remember, their simple example is that more CO2 helps plants grow better (done inside an aquarium). Well, we know for a fact that CO2 has been rising in the atmosphere (look at but it does not appear the vegatative biomass, on land or in the oceans, is doing better.”
There is a lot in error with your post, but the comment above is flat wrong. Increased CO2 does in fact promote plant growth. A few of many examples:
click1
click2
click3 [see “key findings” section]
click4
click5
I have more if you’re interested, just ask. More CO2 is a net benefit to the biosphere. Further, no global harm can be shown as a result of the rise in this trace gas. The real world facts show that CO2 is harmless and beneficial. More is better.
I picked your comment because for many years I raised tropical fish, and with a CO2 injection system, plant growth exploded. There is no doubt in my mind that increased CO2 is beneficial for agricultural production, as click5 above shows.
Smokey:
Okay, most of the pictures you have are from similar types of controlled experiments hyped by the Idsos. Yes, if I increase one of the many (not the only) components used by vegatation to grow, it will grow faster. However, there are many other knobs involved in the real world when we consider whole fields and environments, not one or two plants in controlled instances.
Actual studies suggest that at best, in real world situations, vegatation yields may increase by 13% due to changes in the atmosphere (i.e. do not consider plant industries that grow things like tulips in higher CO2 controlled environments). But for real numbers (20-30% increased production with CO2 rates ~double the environment) take a look at http://www.hortnet.co.nz/publications/science/n/neder/co2_nr1.htm#top. And note that they indicate much higher (around 1000 ppm) is not useful.
Also, remember CO2 is only one ingredient. Experiments have shown that even with an incease in yield from increased CO2 levels, other limiting factors, such as the amount of water or nitrogen available, will prevent the plants from grower any faster. Not to be a broken record, but there is more than one knob/dial involved. The concern from scientists is that the negative impacts from AGW will likely outweigh the benefit.
Remember what we were taught by our parents as well: all things in moderation. Plants need water to grow too. But if you overwater a plant, it will die.
But there is another problem that is being ignored in this topic. Plants can only remove CO2 from the atmosphere if they are alive. Once they die (and decompose) the CO2 is released back into the atmosphere. Essentially, the only way the environment can thrive and help with CO2 is if we allow forests and fields to grow and not be cut down. This is not to say we need to stop farming, but we need to recognize the vital importance of forests and trees in our neighborhoods.
As for the plot in click 5. Sorry, this is just junk science. I could plot the number of galaxies found by the Hubble space telescope over time and get a similar plot. Just because two items can be plotted on top of each other does not indicate cause and affect. Especially in this case since the more likely cause for an increase in agricultural production is increased amount of farming required to support a larger population requiring more raw materials like grains and cotton, i.e. population versus time will give the same, and proper result.
Smokey:
It is not to say that CO2 is note required by vegatation, but to claim increased CO2 is good requires a number of other boundary/initial conditions:
1) You must let plants, trees, and shrubs grow and cannot rely on agriculture to reduce CO2. Once the plant is cut down, it begins one of a number of processes, either through decomposition or even by becoming part of our food cabin, in which the CO2 goes BACK into the atmosphere. Matter doesn’t just disappear, it has to go somewhere.
2) All of these studies and examples are under controlled scenarios. What about the real world when many other variables come into affect. We know that there is already higher levels of CO2 but that did not help the Russian wheat harvest when fires struck. And what about water? Droughts and floods (just ask Australia) have devastating impacts on vegatation as well. CO2 is not the only knob. The concern is that the negative impacts from AGW will overwhelm the possible positive impacts.
3) Increased CO2 into the oceans is not a good thing. While some plants may be able to survive, the most important species, i.e. phytoplankton, will be harmed. For example, coccolithophores are currently have some significant problems since their calcium carbonate shells are being damaged by the increased ph of the water from added CO2. And, since oceans are warming, other species, like diatoms, are also struggling… even though CO2 levels are higher.
As for the plot show in click 5: in is just science to be polite. I could plot the number of galaxies detected by the Hubble space telescope over the same time period and get a similar result. Just because two lines can be shown to overlap does not prove cause and affect. The more likely anwser is that greater agricultural production was required to meet the needs of a larger population that has increased the amount of goods, including food and clothing, that are consumed.
The complaint from folks regarding CO2 versus global temperature change is they think something else is causing the changes. But to the best of our abilities, no one has presentated an alternate hypothesis, that has stood up to the scientific process, to show it is not AGW. Some folks have complained that is not the anti-AGW’s responsibility. But right now, all of the science says it is from AGW. So please, show me that the CO2 (which has been show to be from anthropogenic sources) and global T hockey sticks are not directly related.
Oops, missed a word in the previous post (not just trying to be nasty here).
I meant that the figure shown in click 5 is junk science.
Just correcting my mistake.
Sensor operator,
Thank you for that link verifying that at current an projected CO2 concentrations, plants will benefit. And of course, no global harm has ever been demonstrated due to the rise in CO2. Therefore, more CO2 is harmless and beneficial. QED
I agree that correllation is not necessarily causation. But the 34% increase in agricultural production since 1990 far exceeds the growth in population. Since added CO2 does in fact promote plant growth, you will have to do more than believe that chart is wrong. Why don’t you produce a chart backing up your [so far] baseless opinions?
And if you must believe that CO2 is a problem [which you probably do despite the lack of any evidence], then by your reasoning we should immediately reduce U.S. postal rates.☺
Smokey,
I do not agree that at projected CO2 concentrations that plants will benefit. Only that in controlled situations, if the only variable is CO2, an increase in CO2 can result in an increase in plant production. You cannot avoid the other impacts on climate change, i.e. changes in temperature and flooding/drought, will be much worse than the minor gains in plant production. So no, more CO2 is not harmless and beneficial.
That is the problem with the presentation from Soyface. They only changed the CO2. You also need to change water and temperature. For example, corn does not reproduce above 95 degrees Fahrenheit. Since I do not like to make up numbers here you go. They also point out that weeds also benefit from higher CO2 levels, increasing stress on crop plants. Even better, the picture they include on page 75 indicates that herbcide effectiveness decreases with increasing CO2.
So going back to click 5 being bad science. A quick check online can find a nice article about land use change in Georgia from 1935-1982 here. While the article is not free, the abstract points out that:
In all regions, NPP (net primary production) rose most between 1960 and 1982, coinciding with increases in inputs such as fertilizer and irrigation.
So, with a minor search the most likely culprit is a change in the agricultural process and not an increase in CO2. Having talked with some folks I know over at the USDA, this is consistent across the US as a whole. No big surprises.
Cause: more nutrients given to plants
Effect: more production
As to the US postal rate, while it is amusing, it shows that if someone tries, you can plot two completely independent variables and visually imply a connection. The same problem I pointed out in click 5.
I hate when I miss html tags:
Article 1: US Agriculture
Article 2: Georgia
Credibility indicia.
.
Of the 18 singers of the first letter, 7 are members of the NAS. I wonder how many of them are actually actively engaged in climate research? I would guess most to all, but I have not checked this out.
Of the 34 (?) we have 2 members of the NAS and perhaps 14 who are retired. One of those including the 86 year old Fred Singer, the right wing red baiting hawk, who has for his own anti government political views denied the harmful effects things like tobacco smoke, the hole in the ozone layer and DDT, despite being an expert in none of these areas. He has even taken money from the Moonies. (In the early 1990s, while officially “on leave” from the University of Virginia, Singer set up the Washington Institute for Values in Public Policy with the help of the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution and with funding support from the Unification Church (also known as “Moonies,” followers of the Rev. Sun Myung Moon, founder of the Unification Church).)
Singer is obviously politically motived and neither a credible nor an expert on climate.
Wonder how many other deniers share some of these traits: (1) retired, (2) right wing anti-government commie paranoia types, (3) do not engage in climate science research or peer reviewed publication, (4) are associated with anti-government think tanks and (5) take money from fringe groups like the Moonies?