Over 650 scientist challenge the UN OPCC and herr Gore!!

#1
gsvol

gsvol

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2008
Messages
14,179
Likes
11
#1
Scientists Continue to Debunk “Consensus” in 2008

Update: January 28, 2009: James Hansen's Former NASA Supervisor Declares Himself a Skeptic - Says Climate Fears "Embarrassed NASA"

Update: December 22, 2008: 11 More Scientists Join Senate Report

INTRODUCTION:

Over 650 dissenting scientists from around the globe challenged man-made global warming claims made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Vice President Al Gore.

This new 231-page U.S. Senate Minority Report -- updated from 2007’s groundbreaking report of over 400 scientists who voiced skepticism about the so-called global warming “consensus” -- features the skeptical voices of over 650 prominent international scientists, including many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN IPCC.

This updated report includes an additional 250 (and growing) scientists and climate researchers since the initial release in December 2007.

The over 650 dissenting scientists are more than 12 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.

The chorus of skeptical scientific voices grow louder in 2008 as a steady stream of peer-reviewed studies, analyses, real world data and inconvenient developments challenged the UN’s and former Vice President Al Gore's claims that the "science is settled" and there is a "consensus."

On a range of issues, 2008 proved to be challenging for the promoters of man-made climate fears.

Promoters of anthropogenic warming fears endured the following: Global temperatures failing to warm; Peer-reviewed studies predicting a continued lack of warming; a failed attempt to revive the discredited “Hockey Stick”; inconvenient developments and studies regarding rising CO2; the Spotless Sun; Clouds; Antarctica; the Arctic; Greenland’s ice; Mount Kilimanjaro; Global sea ice; Causes of Hurricanes; Extreme Storms; Extinctions; Floods; Droughts; Ocean Acidification; Polar Bears; Extreme weather deaths; Frogs; etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc!
 
#4
#4
The over 650 dissenting scientists are more than 12 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.
Click to expand...

This statement is a complete joke. This is yet another attempt by Inhoffe to obscure the real discussion with a politics. While the 650 people exist, many of them are biologists who sign onto the anti- crowd because they disagree with certain predictions of extinction, or atmospheric scientists who disagree with some of the calculations involved in determining lifetime of certain greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, or meteorologists who are certainly not climate scientists, or geologists who make their living exploring for oil. There are probably only a handful of people that really belong on that list and have a legitimate complaint about something that is being overlooked or performed in their opinion incorrectly in the AGW literature when it comes to actual warming of the atmosphere and what man's impact is on that.

While that alone always makes me wonder why anyone should be all that impressed with Inhoffe's list - this statement kicks it up a notch. It actually tries to compare this list with the number of people working on the IPCC report with a completely dishonest intent. Why just pick the Summary for Policy Makers to compare to? Because they want the small number of 52 people. The actual number of people who prepared the many chapters of the IPCC 4th assessment dwarf the number who worked on the extremely small policy for summary makers. Furthermore, the IPCC is just summarizing the state of the science - they aren't actually doing the science - so one should really go ahead and throw in all of the authors used by the IPCC to write their report (who are not members or authors of the IPCC). So, when you add these people in, the number would soon dwarf Inhoffe's. It's just a silly assertion.
 
#6
#6
TennTradition said:
This statement is a complete joke. This is yet another attempt by Inhoffe to obscure the real discussion with a politics. While the 650 people exist, many of them are biologists who sign onto the anti- crowd because they disagree with certain predictions of extinction, or atmospheric scientists who disagree with some of the calculations involved in determining lifetime of certain greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, or meteorologists who are certainly not climate scientists, or geologists who make their living exploring for oil. There are probably only a handful of people that really belong on that list and have a legitimate complaint about something that is being overlooked or performed in their opinion incorrectly in the AGW literature when it comes to actual warming of the atmosphere and what man's impact is on that.

While that alone always makes me wonder why anyone should be all that impressed with Inhoffe's list - this statement kicks it up a notch. It actually tries to compare this list with the number of people working on the IPCC report with a completely dishonest intent. Why just pick the Summary for Policy Makers to compare to? Because they want the small number of 52 people. The actual number of people who prepared the many chapters of the IPCC 4th assessment dwarf the number who worked on the extremely small policy for summary makers. Furthermore, the IPCC is just summarizing the state of the science - they aren't actually doing the science - so one should really go ahead and throw in all of the authors used by the IPCC to write their report (who are not members or authors of the IPCC). So, when you add these people in, the number would soon dwarf Inhoffe's. It's just a silly assertion.
Click to expand...

I wonder if there is any way to compare the credentials of these two groups (those who advocate and those who refute)? I have no way of knowing who is who here, maybe you can give some info?
 
#7
#7
The effects, scale, and interactions of global climate change are in debate with virtually all scientists in relevant fields. That isn't the same thing as debating whether global climate change exists, or whether humans are playing a role or not.

It's interesting how global climate change isn't real, but when that assertion is picked apart suddenly it's anthropogenic climate change that isn't real, and then when THAT'S picked apart, buffalo farts come into the conversation...
 
#9
#9
666 said:
This is a joke. Anyone can print out this form and mail it in and claim to be anyone they want to.
Click to expand...

The UN committee is a joke, the UN paid 'scientists' with questionable credentials from all over the world to produce their report and $650,000 of that money ended unaccounted for, the temperature data from China was proven to have been falsified.
 
#10
#10
orangeblooded2 said:
State of Knowledge | Science | Climate Change | U.S. EPA



How empty is theroy in the presence of fact.
Mark Twain
Click to expand...

If you read the IPCC report, the "very likely," "likely," etc. stuff all directly stand for a set range of typical probability. Because the report was written for world leaders and policy makers who do not have a scientific background, the decided it would be more meaningful to describe "95 % chance of occurrence" as "very likely." If one describes a 95 % probability to someone not in a scientific field, they automatically grab on to the 5 % of it not happening, and turn it into a "maybe." But it isn't a "maybe" chance. It's a statistically very significant chance of it happening.

That's why they used that terminology. Unfortunately, it has somewhat backfired as critics latch on to it as an indication of a lack of hard evidence to support the IPCC's findings. In reality, they just don't understand the nature or scope of the object of study.
 
#11
#11
IPorange said:
If you read the IPCC report, the "very likely," "likely," etc. stuff all directly stand for a set range of typical probability. Because the report was written for world leaders and policy makers who do not have a scientific background, the decided it would be more meaningful to describe "95 % chance of occurrence" as "very likely." If one describes a 95 % probability to someone not in a scientific field, they automatically grab on to the 5 % of it not happening, and turn it into a "maybe." But it isn't a "maybe" chance. It's a statistically very significant chance of it happening.

That's why they used that terminology. Unfortunately, it has somewhat backfired as critics latch on to it as an indication of a lack of hard evidence to support the IPCC's findings. In reality, they just don't understand the nature or scope of the object of study.
Click to expand...



Here's an interactive website were all info is available
and you can ask questions about anything to do with
any thing about "Global Warming"

"ASK DR.GLOBAL WARMING" from The US Global Change Research Information Office.


http://www.gcrio.org/doctorgc/index.php
 
Last edited:
#12
#12
The topic if far too politicized to give any kind of blanket credibility to either side. In fact, the "in your face" political aspects of the pro-AGW crowd are one of the reasons I'm skeptical of anything said from camp.

Having said that, anybody heard what James Hansen's ex-boss at NASA had to say? (Hansen is the Prophet to Gore's Allah in populist AGW circles if you didn't know that) Dr John S Theon, retired senior NASA atmospheric scientist, uncorked this little gem:

"I appreciate the opportunity to add my name to those who disagree that global warming is man made."

Watch carefully to see how this man's character and credentials are treated after coming forth with this view.
 
#13
#13
orangeblooded2 said:
Here's an interactive website were all info is available
and you can ask questions about anything to do with
any thing about "Global Warming"

"ASK DR.GLOBAL WARMING" from The US Global Change Research Information Office.

cPanel®

I can't get the link to foward,but it can be googled!
Click to expand...

I think it was because you spelled the website wrong.
http://www.gcrio.org/
 
Last edited:
#14
#14
IPorange said:
If you read the IPCC report, the "very likely," "likely," etc. stuff all directly stand for a set range of typical probability. Because the report was written for world leaders and policy makers who do not have a scientific background, the decided it would be more meaningful to describe "95 % chance of occurrence" as "very likely." If one describes a 95 % probability to someone not in a scientific field, they automatically grab on to the 5 % of it not happening, and turn it into a "maybe." But it isn't a "maybe" chance. It's a statistically very significant chance of it happening.

That's why they used that terminology. Unfortunately, it has somewhat backfired as critics latch on to it as an indication of a lack of hard evidence to support the IPCC's findings. In reality, they just don't understand the nature or scope of the object of study.
Click to expand...

I agree...good points.
 
#15
#15
KB5252 said:
I wonder if there is any way to compare the credentials of these two groups (those who advocate and those who refute)? I have no way of knowing who is who here, maybe you can give some info?
Click to expand...

It isn't that some of these people don't have good credentials...it's just inappropriate to skew their perspective into the belief that there is no link between man and global warming. For example, a biologist can completely disagree with the modeling results that suggest that there will be more rainfall in specific new areas and thus a rise in malaria - which is a legitimate complaint, but that doesn't mean that man somehow doesn't contribute to warming.

So, my point is to say that comparison of credentials isn't necessary at first - just an honest hashing out of what the problem is. Then, for the ones that truly disagree with the concept of man-made warming, then we can compare credentials. There are 1000 PhD faculty members within 2000 feet of where I am sitting right now. If I could go get an honest opinion from them, I could produce a list that would easily rival in number Inhoffe's of scientists who think that man does contribute to warming. I wouldn't get 1000 because Richard Lindzen is somewhere around here, but I would get a lot. Does that mean that they must be right? No. But my point is that this is a small number of people, many of have a complaint which is not centered on the main question (as Inhoffe would suggest).
 
#16
#16
TennTradition said:
It isn't that some of these people don't have good credentials...it's just inappropriate to skew their perspective into the belief that there is no link between man and global warming. For example, a biologist can completely disagree with the modeling results that suggest that there will be more rainfall in specific new areas and thus a rise in malaria - which is a legitimate complaint, but that doesn't mean that man somehow doesn't contribute to warming.

So, my point is to say that comparison of credentials isn't necessary at first - just an honest hashing out of what the problem is. Then, for the ones that truly disagree with the concept of man-made warming, then we can compare credentials. There are 1000 PhD faculty members within 2000 feet of where I am sitting right now. If I could go get an honest opinion from them, I could produce a list that would easily rival in number Inhoffe's of scientists who think that man does contribute to warming. I wouldn't get 1000 because Richard Lindzen is somewhere around here, but I would get a lot. Does that mean that they must be right? No. But my point is that this is a small number of people, many of have a complaint which is not centered on the main question (as Inhoffe would suggest).
Click to expand...

What would they know about it? I kid!

Seriously though TT what is it you do and who do you work for that would have all these experts on the subject?
 
#18
#18
KB5252 said:
What would they know about it? I kid!

Seriously though TT what is it you do and who do you work for that would have all these experts on the subject?
Click to expand...

I'm a graduate student, so they're all faculty members here. It isn't that they are experts on the subject (and if I implied that, I didn't mean to) - but neither are the folks on Inhoffe's list...or perhaps I should say most of them are not. They may be experts in the area they research - but for very few of those is that area of research the question of anthropogenic climate change (it is more often the effects of warming, or even just some area of science that is affected by it such as biologists). My point was just that lists are just that...lists...they tell you very little about the facts and it would be easy to get a similar list of scientists just within a short distance of where I'm sitting that would say man does contribute. They are each equally worthless.
 
#19
#19
MG1968 said:
why, or how, is global warming occurring on other planets?
Click to expand...

MG, you may be throwing this out there in general...but I will respond..but I don't know a lot about this. Other planets could warm for a variety of reasons...though I would suspect that chief among these would be solar activity....which is also the chief contributor to our warming. CO2 isn't going to warm you up alone...it must trap the sun's energy in to begin with. The data shouldn't be thrown out...and it would be great to understand it...but I suspect that we really don't have the tools (and the appropriate amount of data) to try to understand why other planets are warming. This would be particularly interesting if these planets have continued warming in the last 5 years or so as the sun's activity has dropped off. Do you know if they have? I do not.
 
#20
#20
hndog609 said:
The topic if far too politicized to give any kind of blanket credibility to either side. In fact, the "in your face" political aspects of the pro-AGW crowd are one of the reasons I'm skeptical of anything said from camp.

Having said that, anybody heard what James Hansen's ex-boss at NASA had to say? (Hansen is the Prophet to Gore's Allah in populist AGW circles if you didn't know that) Dr John S Theon, retired senior NASA atmospheric scientist, uncorked this little gem:

"I appreciate the opportunity to add my name to those who disagree that global warming is man made."

Watch carefully to see how this man's character and credentials are treated after coming forth with this view.
Click to expand...


I'm with you hndog - folks like Al Gore have done as much to cause skepticism as to create believers. Zealotry begets zealotry.

It will be interesting to see what is said of Theon.
 
#21
#21
MG1968 said:
why, or how, is global warming occurring on other planets?
Click to expand...

Regional warming isn't global warming. I will also add there can be climatic forcings that are solar in nature, but effect only one particular planet, because of longterm changes in orbital paths or changes in a planet's tilt. Just like the Earth has Milankovitch cycles, other planets also do not have perfect continuous orbits. They all wobble a bit and change over time, due to interactions with each other's gravity and what not. I don't claim to be an expert on the solar system, but I do know there is more going on than just the Sun's output, which is complex and dynamic in itself (obviously).

Climate Progress Blog Archive The “Other Planets Are Warming” Myth

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-other-planets-solar-system.htm
 
#22
#22
A few humorous terms I picked up doing a search on AGW.

Thermaggedon

Venus Envy (ie Al Gore has...)

Goracle
 
#24
#24
sorry, I know I'm not supposed to shoot the messenger, but Climate Progress is a branch of the Center for American Progress, a left wing activist group funded by George Soros.

this quote from the first comment tells me all I need to know about the "true believers"

There is no hope in trying to make such people understand what’s going on with global warming or peak oil; the best we can hope for is to muster enough enlightened people to pass the needed legislation. If that means we have to save these people from their own warped beliefs, so be it.
Click to expand...

enlightened people?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top