Global warming...yes again

[Skull]

so are you saying the universe has a center and the Earth is it? and that this "fact" is supported by general relativity?

cause that's really the point i was addressing, and the position you seem to be supporting

If this is in response to me ...no the universe doesn't have a center with respect to Euclidean geometry ...however with respect to Relativity we on earth choose our position in the universe as the locus for all of our systems/ observations... that makes the earth the center of the universe ...for now that is relatively speaking ...again. Everything "resolves" mathmatically around the earth. Even as the earth changes position within our own solar system and likewise our solar system changes position withing our galaxy and our galaxy changes position within our quadrant of the universe and so on everything we derive mathmatically originates here within our position with respect to all of the universe ...that by definition places the earth at the center of the universe. Everything in the universe is in motion therefore from our vantage point what we observe is all referenced back to our location in the universe. Just a thought really ..and what can you do with that ...probably nothing !! Since none of us work for JPL

 

[Skull]

It's nice to see you using such an impartial source <snicker> to support you position <snicker>. I loved the intense discussion of data, the unattached view, along with citations to the science which supports his contentions

Well, I almost said it with a straight face...

....

Oh wait, he doesn't even know the difference between weather and climate. Maybe we should send him a high-school science text first. After that maybe we can get him to fact-check, or at least teach him where in papers opinion pieces go.

Bryan

Bryan the author of the article is the following:
David Deming is a geophysicist, an adjunct scholar with the National Center for Policy Analysis, and associate professor of Arts and Sciences at the University of Oklahoma.

Perhaps his learned esteem among climatologists hasn't reached the gravitas that yours has ...but then again he is quoted in a national newspaper ..as well as the national news last night ..just a thought!

 

[Skull]

U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007
December 20, 2007

Posted By Marc Morano - Marc_Morano@EPW.Senate.Gov - 9:47 AM ET

U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007

Senate Report Debunks "Consensus"

Complete U.S. Senate Report Now Available: (LINK)
Complete Report w/out Intro: (LINK)

INTRODUCTION:

Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.


The new report issued by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee’s office of the GOP Ranking Member details the views of the scientists, the overwhelming majority of whom spoke out in 2007.



Even some in the establishment media now appear to be taking notice of the growing number of skeptical scientists. In October, the Washington Post Staff Writer Juliet Eilperin conceded the obvious, writing that climate skeptics "appear to be expanding rather than shrinking." Many scientists from around the world have dubbed 2007 as the year man-made global warming fears “bite the dust.” (LINK) In addition, many scientists who are also progressive environmentalists believe climate fear promotion has "co-opted" the green movement. (LINK)


This blockbuster Senate report lists the scientists by name, country of residence, and academic/institutional affiliation. It also features their own words, biographies, and weblinks to their peer reviewed studies and original source materials as gathered from public statements, various news outlets, and websites in 2007. This new “consensus busters” report is poised to redefine the debate.


Many of the scientists featured in this report consistently stated that numerous colleagues shared their views, but they will not speak out publicly for fear of retribution. Atmospheric scientist Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, author of almost 70 peer-reviewed studies, explains how many of his fellow scientists have been intimidated.



“Many of my colleagues with whom I spoke share these views and report on their inability to publish their skepticism in the scientific or public media,” Paldor wrote. [Note: See also July 2007 Senate report detailing how skeptical scientists have faced threats and intimidation - LINK ]



Scientists from Around the World Dissent



This new report details how teams of international scientists are dissenting from the UN IPCC’s view of climate science. In such nations as Germany, Brazil, the Netherlands, Russia, New Zealand and France, nations, scientists banded together in 2007 to oppose climate alarmism. In addition, over 100 prominent international scientists sent an open letter in December 2007 to the UN stating attempts to control climate were “futile.” (LINK)



Paleoclimatologist Dr. Tim Patterson, professor in the department of Earth Sciences at Carleton University in Ottawa, recently converted from a believer in man-made climate change to a skeptic. Patterson noted that the notion of a “consensus” of scientists aligned with the UN IPCC or former Vice President Al Gore is false. “I was at the Geological Society of America meeting in Philadelphia in the fall and I would say that people with my opinion were probably in the majority.”


This new committee report, a first of its kind, comes after the UN IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri implied that there were only “about a dozen" skeptical scientists left in the world. (LINK) Former Vice President Gore has claimed that scientists skeptical of climate change are akin to “flat Earth society members” and similar in number to those who “believe the moon landing was actually staged in a movie lot in Arizona.” (LINK) & (LINK)


The distinguished scientists featured in this new report are experts in diverse fields, including: climatology; oceanography; geology; biology; glaciology; biogeography; meteorology; oceanography; economics; chemistry; mathematics; environmental sciences; engineering; physics and paleoclimatology. Some of those profiled have won Nobel Prizes for their outstanding contribution to their field of expertise and many shared a portion of the UN IPCC Nobel Peace Prize with Vice President Gore.



Additionally, these scientists hail from prestigious institutions worldwide, including: Harvard University; NASA; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR); Massachusetts Institute of Technology; the UN IPCC; the Danish National Space Center; U.S. Department of Energy; Princeton University; the Environmental Protection Agency; University of Pennsylvania; Hebrew University of Jerusalem; the International Arctic Research Centre; the Pasteur Institute in Paris; the Belgian Weather Institute; Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute; the University of Helsinki; the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S., France, and Russia; the University of Pretoria; University of Notre Dame; Stockholm University; University of Melbourne; University of Columbia; the World Federation of Scientists; and the University of London.


The voices of many of these hundreds of scientists serve as a direct challenge to the often media-hyped “consensus” that the debate is “settled.”



A May 2007 Senate report detailed scientists who had recently converted from believers in man-made global warming to skepticism. [See May 15, 2007 report: Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics: Growing Number of Scientists Convert to Skeptics After Reviewing New Research – (LINK) ]


The report counters the claims made by the promoters of man-made global warming fears that the number of skeptical scientists is dwindling.


Examples of “consensus” claims made by promoters of man-made climate fears:


Former Vice President Al Gore (November 5, 2007): “There are still people who believe that the Earth is flat.” (LINK) Gore also compared global warming skeptics to people who 'believe the moon landing was actually staged in a movie lot in Arizona' (June 20, 2006 - LINK)


CNN’s Miles O’Brien (July 23, 2007): The scientific debate is over.” “We're done." O’Brien also declared on CNN on February 9, 2006 that scientific skeptics of man-made catastrophic global warming “are bought and paid for by the fossil fuel industry, usually.” (LINK)


On July 27, 2006, Associated Press reporter Seth Borenstein described a scientist as “one of the few remaining scientists skeptical of the global warming harm caused by industries that burn fossil fuels.” (LINK)

Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, Chairman of the IPCC view on the number of skeptical scientists as quoted on Feb. 20, 2003: “About 300 years ago, a Flat Earth Society was founded by those who did not believe the world was round. That society still exists; it probably has about a dozen members.” (LINK)

Agence France-Press (AFP Press) article (December 4, 2007): The article noted that a prominent skeptic “finds himself increasingly alone in his claim that climate change poses no imminent threat to the planet.”



Andrew Dessler in the eco-publication Grist Magazine (November 21, 2007): “While some people claim there are lots of skeptical climate scientists out there, if you actually try to find one, you keep turning up the same two dozen or so (e.g., Singer, Lindzen, Michaels, Christy, etc., etc.). These skeptics are endlessly recycled by the denial machine, so someone not paying close attention might think there are lots of them out there -- but that's not the case. (LINK)



The Washington Post asserted on May 23, 2006 that there were only “a handful of skeptics” of man-made climate fears. (LINK)



UN special climate envoy Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland on May 10, 2007 declared the climate debate "over" and added “it's completely immoral, even, to question” the UN’s scientific “consensus." (LINK)





ABC News Global Warming Reporter Bill Blakemore reported on August 30, 2006: “After extensive searches, ABC News has found no such [scientific] debate” on global warming. (LINK)



# #

 

[Skull]

Brief highlights of the report featuring over 400 international scientists:


Israel: Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem has authored almost 70 peer-reviewed studies and won several awards. &#8220;First, temperature changes, as well as rates of temperature changes (both increase and decrease) of magnitudes similar to that reported by IPCC to have occurred since the Industrial revolution (about 0.8C in 150 years or even 0.4C in the last 35 years) have occurred in Earth's climatic history. There's nothing special about the recent rise!&#8221;



Russia: Russian scientist Dr. Oleg Sorochtin of the Institute of Oceanology at the Russian Academy of Sciences has authored more than 300 studies, nine books, and a 2006 paper titled &#8220;The Evolution and the Prediction of Global Climate Changes on Earth.&#8221; &#8220;Even if the concentration of &#8216;greenhouse gases&#8217; double man would not perceive the temperature impact,&#8221; Sorochtin wrote.



Spain: Anton Uriarte, a professor of Physical Geography at the University of the Basque Country in Spain and author of a book on the paleoclimate, rejected man-made climate fears in 2007. &#8220;There's no need to be worried. It's very interesting to study [climate change], but there's no need to be worried,&#8221; Uriate wrote.





Netherlands: Atmospheric scientist Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, a scientific pioneer in the development of numerical weather prediction and former director of research at The Netherlands' Royal National Meteorological Institute, and an internationally recognized expert in atmospheric boundary layer processes, &#8220;I find the Doomsday picture Al Gore is painting &#8211; a six-meter sea level rise, fifteen times the IPCC number &#8211; entirely without merit,&#8221; Tennekes wrote. &#8220;I protest vigorously the idea that the climate reacts like a home heating system to a changed setting of the thermostat: just turn the dial, and the desired temperature will soon be reached."



Brazil: Chief Meteorologist Eugenio Hackbart of the MetSul Meteorologia Weather Center in Sao Leopoldo &#8211; Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil declared himself a skeptic. &#8220;The media is promoting an unprecedented hyping related to global warming. The media and many scientists are ignoring very important facts that point to a natural variation in the climate system as the cause of the recent global warming,&#8221; Hackbart wrote on May 30, 2007.



France: Climatologist Dr. Marcel Leroux, former professor at Université Jean Moulin and director of the Laboratory of Climatology, Risks, and Environment in Lyon, is a climate skeptic. Leroux wrote a 2005 book titled Global Warming &#8211; Myth or Reality? - The Erring Ways of Climatology. &#8220;Day after day, the same mantra - that &#8216;the Earth is warming up&#8217; - is churned out in all its forms. As &#8216;the ice melts&#8217; and &#8216;sea level rises,&#8217; the Apocalypse looms ever nearer! Without realizing it, or perhaps without wishing to, the average citizen in bamboozled, lobotomized, lulled into mindless ac*ceptance. ... Non-believers in the greenhouse scenario are in the position of those long ago who doubted the existence of God ... fortunately for them, the Inquisition is no longer with us!&#8221;



Norway: Geologist/Geochemist Dr. Tom V. Segalstad, a professor and head of the Geological Museum at the University of Oslo and formerly an expert reviewer with the UN IPCC: &#8220;It is a search for a mythical CO2 sink to explain an immeasurable CO2 lifetime to fit a hypothetical CO2 computer model that purports to show that an impossible amount of fossil fuel burning is heating the atmosphere. It is all a fiction.&#8221;



Finland: Dr. Boris Winterhalter, retired Senior Marine Researcher of the Geological Survey of Finland and former professor of marine geology at University of Helsinki, criticized the media for what he considered its alarming climate coverage. &#8220;The effect of solar winds on cosmic radiation has just recently been established and, furthermore, there seems to be a good correlation between cloudiness and variations in the intensity of cosmic radiation. Here we have a mechanism which is a far better explanation to variations in global climate than the attempts by IPCC to blame it all on anthropogenic input of greenhouse gases. &#8220;



Germany: Paleoclimate expert Augusto Mangini of the University of Heidelberg in Germany, criticized the UN IPCC summary. &#8220;I consider the part of the IPCC report, which I can really judge as an expert, i.e. the reconstruction of the paleoclimate, wrong,&#8221; Mangini noted in an April 5, 2007 article. He added: &#8220;The earth will not die.&#8221;



Canada: IPCC 2007 Expert Reviewer Madhav Khandekar, a Ph.D meteorologist, a scientist with the Natural Resources Stewardship Project who has over 45 years experience in climatology, meteorology and oceanography, and who has published nearly 100 papers, reports, book reviews and a book on Ocean Wave Analysis and Modeling: &#8220;To my dismay, IPCC authors ignored all my comments and suggestions for major changes in the FOD (First Order Draft) and sent me the SOD (Second Order Draft) with essentially the same text as the FOD. None of the authors of the chapter bothered to directly communicate with me (or with other expert reviewers with whom I communicate on a regular basis) on many issues that were raised in my review. This is not an acceptable scientific review process.&#8221;



Czech Republic: Czech-born U.S. climatologist Dr. George Kukla, a research scientist with the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University, expressed climate skepticism in 2007. &#8220;The only thing to worry about is the damage that can be done by worrying. Why are some scientists worried? Perhaps because they feel that to stop worrying may mean to stop being paid,&#8221; Kukla told Gelf Magazine on April 24, 2007.



India: One of India's leading geologists, B.P. Radhakrishna, President of the Geological Society of India, expressed climate skepticism in 2007. &#8220;We appear to be overplaying this global warming issue as global warming is nothing new. It has happened in the past, not once but several times, giving rise to glacial-interglacial cycles.&#8221;



USA: Climatologist Robert Durrenberger, past president of the American Association of State Climatologists, and one of the climatologists who gathered at Woods Hole to review the National Climate Program Plan in July, 1979: &#8220;Al Gore brought me back to the battle and prompted me to do renewed research in the field of climatology. And because of all the misinformation that Gore and his army have been spreading about climate change I have decided that &#8216;real&#8217; climatologists should try to help the public understand the nature of the problem.&#8221;



Italy: Internationally renowned scientist Dr. Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists and a retired Professor of Advanced Physics at the University of Bologna in Italy, who has published over 800 scientific papers: &#8220;Significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming."



New Zealand: IPCC reviewer and climate researcher Dr. Vincent Gray, an expert reviewer on every single draft of the IPCC reports going back to 1990 and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of "Climate Change 2001: &#8220;The [IPCC] &#8216;Summary for Policymakers&#8217; might get a few readers, but the main purpose of the report is to provide a spurious scientific backup for the absurd claims of the worldwide environmentalist lobby that it has been established scientifically that increases in carbon dioxide are harmful to the climate. It just does not matter that this ain't so.&#8221;



South Africa: Dr. Kelvin Kemm, formerly a scientist at South Africa&#8217;s Atomic Energy Corporation who holds degrees in nuclear physics and mathematics: &#8220;The global-warming mania continues with more and more hype and less and less thinking. With religious zeal, people look for issues or events to blame on global warming.&#8221;



Poland: Physicist Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, Chairman of the Central Laboratory for the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Radiological Protection in Warsaw: &#8220;&#8220;We thus find ourselves in the situation that the entire theory of man-made global warming&#8212;with its repercussions in science, and its important consequences for politics and the global economy&#8212;is based on ice core studies that provided a false picture of the atmospheric CO2 levels.&#8221;



Australia: Prize-wining Geologist Dr. Ian Plimer, a professor of Earth and Environmental Sciences at the University of Adelaide in Australia: "There is new work emerging even in the last few weeks that shows we can have a very close correlation between the temperatures of the Earth and supernova and solar radiation.&#8221;



Britain: Dr. Richard Courtney, a UN IPCC expert reviewer and a UK-based climate and atmospheric science consultant: &#8220;To date, no convincing evidence for AGW (anthropogenic global warming) has been discovered. And recent global climate behavior is not consistent with AGW model predictions.&#8221;



China: Chinese Scientists Say C02 Impact on Warming May Be &#8216;Excessively Exaggerated&#8217; &#8211; Scientists Lin Zhen-Shan&#8217;s and Sun Xian&#8217;s 2007 study published in the peer-reviewed journal Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics: "Although the CO2 greenhouse effect on global climate change is unsuspicious, it could have been excessively exaggerated." Their study asserted that "it is high time to reconsider the trend of global climate change.&#8221;



Denmark: Space physicist Dr. Eigil Friis-Christensen is the director of the Danish National Space Centre, a member of the space research advisory committee of the Swedish National Space Board, a member of a NASA working group, and a member of the European Space Agency who has authored or co-authored around 100 peer-reviewed papers and chairs the Institute of Space Physics: &#8220;The sun is the source of the energy that causes the motion of the atmosphere and thereby controls weather and climate. Any change in the energy from the sun received at the Earth&#8217;s surface will therefore affect climate.&#8221;





Belgium: Climate scientist Luc Debontridder of the Belgium Weather Institute&#8217;s Royal Meteorological Institute (RMI) co-authored a study in August 2007 which dismissed a decisive role of CO2 in global warming: "CO2 is not the big bogeyman of climate change and global warming. &#8220;Not CO2, but water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas. It is responsible for at least 75 % of the greenhouse effect. This is a simple scientific fact, but Al Gore's movie has hyped CO2 so much that nobody seems to take note of it.&#8221;



Sweden: Geologist Dr. Wibjorn Karlen, professor emeritus of the Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology at Stockholm University, critiqued the Associated Press for hyping promoting climate fears in 2007. &#8220;Another of these hysterical views of our climate. Newspapers should think about the damage they are doing to many persons, particularly young kids, by spreading the exaggerated views of a human impact on climate.&#8221;



USA: Dr. David Wojick is a UN IPCC expert reviewer, who earned his PhD in Philosophy of Science and co-founded the Department of Engineering and Public Policy at Carnegie-Mellon University: &#8220;In point of fact, the hypothesis that solar variability and not human activity is warming the oceans goes a long way to explain the puzzling idea that the Earth's surface may be warming while the atmosphere is not. The GHG (greenhouse gas) hypothesis does not do this.&#8221; Wojick added: &#8220;The public is not well served by this constant drumbeat of false alarms fed by computer models manipulated by advocates.&#8221;

 

[Skull]

: (LINK)# # #



Background: Only 52 Scientists Participated in UN IPCC Summary

The over 400 skeptical scientists featured in this new report outnumber by nearly eight times the number of scientists who participated in the 2007 UN IPCC Summary for Policymakers. The notion of &#8220;hundreds&#8221; or &#8220;thousands&#8221; of UN scientists agreeing to a scientific statement does not hold up to scrutiny. (See report debunking &#8220;consensus&#8221; LINK) Recent research by Australian climate data analyst Dr. John McLean revealed that the IPCC&#8217;s peer-review process for the Summary for Policymakers leaves much to be desired. (LINK)

Proponents of man-made global warming like to note how the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the American Meteorological Society (AMS) have issued statements endorsing the so-called "consensus" view that man is driving global warming. But both the NAS and AMS never allowed member scientists to directly vote on these climate statements. Essentially, only two dozen or so members on the governing boards of these institutions produced the "consensus" statements. This report gives a voice to the rank-and-file scientists who were shut out of the process. (LINK)

The most recent attempt to imply there was an overwhelming scientific &#8220;consensus&#8221; in favor of man-made global warming fears came in December 2007 during the UN climate conference in Bali. A letter signed by only 215 scientists urged the UN to mandate deep cuts in carbon dioxide emissions by 2050. But absent from the letter were the signatures of these alleged &#8220;thousands&#8221; of scientists. (See AP article: - LINK )


UN IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri urged the world at the December 2007 UN climate conference in Bali, Indonesia to "Please listen to the voice of science.&#8221;


The science has continued to grow loud and clear in 2007. In addition to the growing number of scientists expressing skepticism, an abundance of recent peer-reviewed studies have cast considerable doubt about man-made global warming fears. A November 3, 2007 peer-reviewed study found that &#8220;solar changes significantly alter climate.&#8221; (LINK) A December 2007 peer-reviewed study recalculated and halved the global average surface temperature trend between 1980 &#8211; 2002. (LINK) Another new study found the Medieval Warm Period &#8220;0.3C warmer than 20th century&#8221; (LINK)


A peer-reviewed study by a team of scientists found that "warming is naturally caused and shows no human influence." (LINK) &#8211; Another November 2007 peer-reviewed study in the journal Physical Geography found &#8220;Long-term climate change is driven by solar insolation changes.&#8221; (LINK ) These recent studies were in addition to the abundance of peer-reviewed studies earlier in 2007. - See "New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears" (LINK )


With this new report of profiling 400 skeptical scientists, the world can finally hear the voices of the &#8220;silent majority&#8221; of scientists.



LINKS TO COMPLETE U.S. SENATE REPORT: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007

Complete Report: (LINK) (Released December 20, 2007)

Complete Report w/out Intro: (LINK)

# # #

 

[Warthaug]

Bryan the author of the article is the following:
David Deming is a geophysicist, an adjunct scholar with the National Center for Policy Analysis, and associate professor of Arts and Sciences at the University of Oklahoma.

So? He's still not a climatologist and made some pretty obvious errors that wouldn't be acceptable in a high-school science class. Its ironic that you seem to deem him a reputable source, while I have the same degree, and hold a similar position, and yet you seem the think I'm full of s**t.

As a scholar he should have known better. And he should have used google, he'd have found out just how wrong he is after about 2 seconds:

According to NOAA this years Jan-Feb was one of the warmest on record. Around the world new temperature highs were set, from Canada, to the Himalayas, to the USA and the UK.

Of course, with the exception of the first link these are all weather, and not really relevant, but it goes to show just how selective Deming was in picking his examples.

Not exactly a tactic which engenders trust.

Perhaps his learned esteem among climatologists hasn't reached the gravitas that yours has

We're at the same point - the very bottom. Scientists from unrelated fields commenting on theirs. There is one difference though - I at least take the time to try and make sure I'm not lying. Which is probably why Deming is being investigated for academic misconduct, while I am not.

...but then again he is quoted in a national newspaper .

Ohhhh, a national news paper. It must be true then.

Oh, wait, I was once quoted in one of Canada's national news papers, and on a national news broadcast, as saying "Hepatitis A is an autoimmune disorder", which is exactly 100% the opposite of what I said. And, according to the local paper last year I've cured HIV.

Don't I wish.

News papers are the last place I'd go for accurate scientific information. The job of papers is to sell subscriptions - period. And they're quite willing to bend the truth to get those dollars.

And lets not forget that the wash. times does have a long history of exaggeration, and "bending the truth", a lack of editorial freedom, and at least according to Columbian Journalism Review is one of the most politically biased news sources in the US. Not the national tattler by any stretch of the imagination, but as papers go I wouldn't consider them a reputable source.

And while we're talking about reputable sources, would this be a bad time to point out Deming is under investigation for academic misconduct - a fancy way of saying they think he's falsified his results - and is (or at least was) suspended from his faculty position as a result.

And since you seem to want to play the degree game, although for the life of me I don't know why:

Bryan Heit, PhD
Research Fellow, Hospital for Sick Children
Toronto, Canada

Hmm, lets see: Author of several scientific papers, a book chapter, appeared thee times in national news papers and/or TV broadcasts, and I'm sure there's a little more...

So do my creds stack up to Demings?

 

[Hank49]

And since you seem to want to play the degree game, although for the life of me I don't know why:

Bryan Heit, PhD
Research Fellow, Hospital for Sick Children
Toronto, Canada

Hmm, lets see: Author of several scientific papers, a book chapter, appeared thee times in national news papers and/or TV broadcasts, and I'm sure there's a little more...

So do my creds stack up to Demings?

I'm impressed. Although I was more impressed when you said you were " a farmer". This has been a very interesting thread. Informative. thanks

 

[Warthaug]

I'm impressed. Although I was more impressed when you said you were " a farmer".

Not too bad, eh? From the hog shed to the ivory tower

Of course, had they told me before I started the climb that they'd have to decontaminate the toxic mold off of the asbestos before I could move into the tower, I might not have gone this route.

True story - couldn't move into my first office until the removed the asbestos. guys went in, ran out, and in went a decontamination team to kill the mold. Then the asbestos guys when in, and then I got my office.

Bryan \

 

[Charlie99]

Here's an interesting open letter to UN Sec. General from 100 scientists, many of whom are on the IPCC: Don't fight, adapt


A key point of the letter

The IPCC Summaries for Policy Makers are the most widely read IPCC reports amongst politicians and non-scientists and are the basis for most climate change policy formulation. Yet these Summaries are prepared by a relatively small core writing team with the final drafts approved line-by-line by *government *representatives.

The great *majority of IPCC contributors and *reviewers, and the tens of thousands of other scientists who are qualified to comment on these matters, are not involved in the preparation of these documents. The summaries therefore cannot properly be represented as a consensus view among experts.

They then further note:

Contrary to the impression left by the IPCC Summary reports:

z Recent observations of phenomena such as glacial retreats, sea-level rise and the migration of temperature-sensitive species are not evidence for abnormal climate change, for none of these changes has been shown to lie outside the bounds of known natural variability.

z The average rate of warming of 0.1 to 0. 2 degrees Celsius per decade recorded by satellites during the late 20th century falls within known natural rates of warming and cooling over the last 10,000 years.

z Leading scientists, including some senior IPCC representatives, acknowledge that today's computer models cannot predict climate. Consistent with this, and despite computer projections of temperature rises, there has been no net global warming since 1998. That the current temperature plateau follows a late 20th-century period of warming is consistent with the continuation today of natural multi-decadal or millennial climate cycling.

In stark contrast to the often repeated assertion that the science of climate change is "settled," significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming. But because IPCC working groups were generally instructed (see http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/docs/wg1_timetable_2006-08-14.pdf) to consider work published only through May, 2005, these important findings are not included in their reports; i.e., the IPCC assessment reports are already materially outdated.

The UN climate conference in Bali has been planned to take the world along a path of severe CO2 restrictions, ignoring the lessons apparent from the failure of the Kyoto Protocol, the chaotic nature of the European CO2 trading market, and the ineffectiveness of other costly initiatives to curb greenhouse gas emissions. Balanced cost/benefit analyses provide no support for the introduction of global measures to cap and reduce energy consumption for the purpose of restricting CO2 emissions. Furthermore, it is irrational to apply the "precautionary principle" because many scientists recognize that both climatic coolings and warmings are realistic possibilities over the medium-term future.

A bit of moderation is called for, otherwise the side effects of the "cure" may be worse than the original "disease".

 

[H2Andy]

A bit of moderation is called for, otherwise the side effects of the "cure" may be worse than the original "disease".

they agree with the ICC that the brown stuff has hit the fan:

"The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued increasingly alarming conclusions about the climatic influences of human-produced carbon dioxide (CO2), a non-polluting gas that is essential to plant photosynthesis. While we understand the evidence that has led them to view CO2 emissions as harmful,"

their issue is what to do about it:

"the IPCC's conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity."

basically they're saying, yeah, we screwed the pooch, but let's not go bankrupt fixing things. this is not about science; it's about economics.

this, of course, will be read by people with agendas and will be turned into more "evidence" that there is no scientific consensus as to global warming

to repeat:

this letter does not dispute global warming. it disputes what to do about it

of note is that most, if not all the signatories of that letter are non-specialists in climatology and form the minority view regarding global warming:

Signatories of an open letter on the UN climate conference

so your'e basically passing off the minority view as somehow invalidating the consensus. there will always be a minority view (in this case a very tiny minority view, mostly of non-specialists).

just because there is a minority view doesn't mean that the consensus is invalid.

by the way, anybody can write an open letter to the UN. i've been tempted to do it many times to complain about the noise their black helicopters make in my back yard.