The Secret Campaign of President Bush's Administration To Deny Global Warming

[peejay 327]

The earth has only so much carrying capacity and when it eventually gets exceeded...it won't be pretty. Unfortunately humankind has never shown much inclination to voluntarily restrain itself. Natural forces will eventually do what humankind refuses to do.

Exactly. The "legions of Katrinas" will exterminate the surplus population and things will go back to normal.

Do I detect a hint of ridicule and scoff to your reply to my post? I'm wounded!

The "natural forces" I was refering to are more in line with the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse (Pestilence, War, Famine, and Death). They have been around since the beginning and have a way of thinning the herd when humankind gets too arrogant and obnoxious.

Your "legions of Katrina's" are a minor player in the lineup.

[GaryC 7]

Here's an interesting little gem on the idea of scientific concensus on GW.

American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG)

The only major scientific organization that presently rejects the finding of significant human influence on recent climate is the American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG), according to a statement by the Council of the American Quaternary Association.[6] The AAPG Policy Statement on Climate Change Policy,[22] adopted in 1999,[23] states

"Recently published research results do not support the supposition of an anthropogenic cause of global climate change...Detailed examination of current climate data strongly suggests that current observations do not correlate with the assumptions or supportable projections of human-induced greenhouse effects."

As of May 2007, the AAPG is in the process of updating its statement, in part because "the current policy statement is not supported by a significant number of our members and prospective members." [24] A proposed statement [25] includes:

"Humans, simply by virtue of the size of the world's population, represent a new agent of change through our significant modifications related to land use, urbanization, industrial activity, and through changes in atmospheric composition related to fuel combustion and deforestation. The size and continued growth of the world's population indicates that continued change to the planet is inevitable."

The proposed statement lists increased greenhouse gases as one of "several contributing factors" to climate change but makes no comment on whether recent global warming is or is not primarily anthropogenic. It notes that the AAPG "respects the conclusions of [the IPCC]".

Yeah right, try this one.

7 May 2007

Father of Climatology Calls Manmade Global Warming Absurd

DaveScot

Reid Bryson is Emeritus Professor of Meteorology, of Geography and of Environmental Studies. Senior Scientist, Center for Climatic Research, The Gaylord Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies (Founding Director), the University of Wisconsin, Madison. Many climatologists regard him as the father of climatology. Professor Bryson calls manmade global warming absurd.

Excerpts from The Faithful Heretic

Reid A. Bryson holds the 30th PhD in Meteorology granted in the history of American education. Emeritus Professor and founding chairman of the University of Wisconsin Department of Meteorology—now the Department of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences—in the 1970s he became the first director of what’s now the UW’s Gaylord Nelson Institute of Environmental Studies. He’s a member of the United Nations Global 500 Roll of Honor—created, the U.N. says, to recognize “outstanding achievements in the protection and improvement of the environment.” He has authored five books and more than 230 other publications and was identified by the British Institute of Geographers as the most frequently cited climatologist in the world.

“All this argument is the temperature going up or not, it’s absurd,” Bryson continues. “Of course it’s going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we’re coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we’re putting more carbon dioxide into the air.”

Bryson mentions the retreat of Alpine glaciers, common grist for current headlines. “What do they find when the ice sheets retreat, in the Alps?”

We recall the two-year-old report saying a mature forest and agricultural water-management structures had been discovered emerging from the ice, seeing sunlight for the first time in thousands of years. Bryson interrupts excitedly.

“A silver mine! The guys had stacked up their tools because they were going to be back the next spring to mine more silver, only the snow never went,” he says. “There used to be less ice than now. It’s just getting back to normal.”

Q: Could you rank the things that have the most significant impact and where would you put carbon dioxide on the list?

A: Well let me give you one fact first. In the first 30 feet of the atmosphere, on the average, outward radiation from the Earth, which is what CO2 is supposed to affect, how much [of the reflected energy] is absorbed by water vapor? In the first 30 feet, 80 percent, okay?

Q: Eighty percent of the heat radiated back from the surface is absorbed in the first 30 feet by water vapor…

A: And how much is absorbed by carbon dioxide? Eight hundredths of one percent. One one-thousandth as important as water vapor. You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide.

PROF REID BRYSON, DEAN OF US CLIMATOLOGISTS, DISCOURSES ON GLOBAL WARMING

2. Global Warming? by Reid A. Bryson Ph.D., D.Sc., D.Engr.1

The Built-in Nonsense Detector:

Hardly a day goes by without a news article in the paper containing a reference to someone’s opinion about “Global Warming”. A quick search of the Internet uncovers literally hundreds of items about “Global Warming”. Issues of atmospheric science journals will normally have at least one article on climatic change, usually meaning “Global Warming” or some aspect thereof. Whole generations of graduate students have been trained to believe that we know the main answers about climate change and only have to work out the details.

Why then do I bother you by introducing this section with such a ludicrous title?

I do it because, as one who has spent many decades studying the subject professionally, I find that there are enormous gaps in the understanding of those making the most strident claims about climatic change. In order to read the news rationally, the educated reader needs a few keys to quickly sort the patently absurd from the possibly correct. I propose to supply some of those keys to give the reader at least a rudimentary nonsense detector.

Some Common Fallacies

1. The atmospheric warming of the last century is unprecedented and unique. Wrong. There are literally thousands of papers in the scientific literature with data that shows that the climate has been changing one way or the other for at least a million years.

2. It is a fact that the warming of the past century was anthropogenic in origin, i.e. man-made and due to carbon dioxide emission. Wrong. That is a theory for which there is no credible proof. There are a number of causes of climatic change, and until all causes other than carbon dioxide increase are ruled out, we cannot attribute the change to carbon dioxide alone.

3. The most important gas with a “greenhouse” effect is carbon dioxide. Wrong. Water vapor is at least 100 times as effective as carbon dioxide, so small variations in water vapor are more important than large changes in carbon dioxide.

4. One cannot argue with the computer models that predict the effect of a doubling of carbon dioxide or other “greenhouse gasses”. Wrong. To show this we must show that the computer models can at least duplicate the present-day climate. This they cannot do with what could be called accuracy by any stretch of the imagination. There are studies that show that the average error in modeling present precipitation is on the order of 100%, and the error in modeling present temperature is about the same size as the predicted change due to a doubling of carbon dioxide. For many areas the precipitation error is 300-400 percent.

5. I am arguing that the carbon dioxide measurements are poorly done. Wrong. The measurements are well done, but the interpretation of them is often less than acceptably scientific.

6. It is the consensus of scientists in general that carbon dioxide induced warming of the climate is a fact. Probably wrong. I know of no vote having been taken, and know that if such a vote were taken of those who are most vocal about the matter, it would include a significant fraction of people who do not know enough about climate to have a significant opinion. Taking a vote is a risky way to discover scientific truth.

So What Can We Say about Global Warming?

We can say that the Earth has most probably warmed in the past century. We cannot say what part of that warming was due to mankind’s addition of “greenhouse gases” until we consider the other possible factors, such as aerosols. The aerosol content of the atmosphere was measured during the past century, but to my knowledge this data was never used.

We can say that the question of anthropogenic modification of the climate is an important question — too important to ignore. However, it has now become a media free-for-all and a political issue more than a scientific problem. What a change from 1968 when I gave a paper at a national scientific meeting and was laughed at for suggesting that people could possibly change the climate!

http://www.uncommondescent.com/global-warm...-warming-absurd

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Try again. I think its relatively easy to find individual scientists who support your view - rather less easy IMO to find a major scientific group or organization that does.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

Main article: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

In February 2007, the IPCC released a summary of the forthcoming Fourth Assessment Report. According to this summary, the Fourth Assessment Report finds that human actions are "very likely" the cause of global warming, meaning a 90% or greater probability.[2]

"The world's leading climate scientists said global warming has begun, is very likely caused by man, and will be unstoppable for centuries, ... . The phrase very likely translates to a more than 90 percent certainty that global warming is caused by man's burning of fossil fuels. That was the strongest conclusion to date, making it nearly impossible to say natural forces are to blame."[6]

"The report said that an increase in hurricane and tropical cyclone strength since 1970 more likely than not can be attributed to man-made global warming. The scientists said global warming's connection varies with storms in different parts of the world, but that the storms that strike the Americas are global warming-influenced."[7]

"On sea levels, the report projects rises of 7-23 inches by the end of the century. That could be augmented by an additional 4-8 inches if recent surprising polar ice sheet melt continues."[8]

[edit] Joint science academies’ statement 2005

In 2005 the national science academies of the G8 nations, plus Brazil, China and India, three of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases in the developing world, signed a statement on the global response to climate change. The statement stresses that the scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action [9], and explicitly endorsed the IPCC consensus.

[edit] Joint science academies’ statement 2001

In 2001, following the publication of the IPCC Third Assessment Report, sixteen national science academies issued a joint statement explicitly acknowledging the IPCC position as representing the scientific conensus on climate change science. Among the signatories are the science academies of Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, the Carribean, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Malaysia, New Zealand, Sweden, and the United Kingdom.[10]

[edit] U.S. National Research Council, 2001

In 2001 the Committee on the Science of Climate Change of the National Research Council published Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions [11]. This report explicitly endorses the IPCC view of attribution of recent climate change as representing the view of the scientific community:

The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability. Human-induced warming and associated sea level rises are expected to continue through the 21st century... The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue. [12]

[edit] American Meteorological Society

The American Meteorological Society (AMS) statement adopted by their council in 2003 said:

There is now clear evidence that the mean annual temperature at the Earth's surface, averaged over the entire globe, has been increasing in the past 200 years. There is also clear evidence that the abundance of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has increased over the same period. In the past decade, significant progress has been made toward a better understanding of the climate system and toward improved projections of long-term climate change... Human activities have become a major source of environmental change. Of great urgency are the climate consequences of the increasing atmospheric abundance of greenhouse gases... Because greenhouse gases continue to increase, we are, in effect, conducting a global climate experiment, neither planned nor controlled, the results of which may present unprecedented challenges to our wisdom and foresight as well as have significant impacts on our natural and societal systems. [13]

[edit] American Geophysical Union

The American Geophysical Union (AGU) statement [3] adopted by the society in 2003 declares its virtual certainty that rising levels of greenhouse gases will cause the global surface temperature to be warmer:

"Human activities are increasingly altering the Earth's climate. These effects add to natural influences that have been present over Earth's history. Scientific evidence strongly indicates that natural influences cannot explain the rapid increase in global near-surface temperatures observed during the second half of the 20th century.

Human impacts on the climate system include increasing concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases (e.g., carbon dioxide, chlorofluorocarbons and their substitutes, methane, nitrous oxide, etc.), air pollution, increasing concentrations of airborne particles, and land alteration. A particular concern is that atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide may be rising faster than at any time in Earth's history, except possibly following rare events like impacts from large extraterrestrial objects.

Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations have increased since the mid-1700s through fossil fuel burning and changes in land use, with more than 80% of this increase occurring since 1900. Moreover, research indicates that increased levels of carbon dioxide will remain in the atmosphere for hundreds to thousands of years. It is virtually certain that increasing atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases will cause global surface climate to be warmer."

[edit] American Institute of Physics

The Governing Board of the American Institute of Physics endorsed the AGU statement on human-induced climate change:[4]

"The Governing Board of the American Institute of Physics has endorsed a position statement on climate change adopted by the American Geophysical Union (AGU) Council in December 2003."

[edit] American Astronomical Society

The American Astronomical Society has endorsed the AGU statement:[5]

"In endorsing the "Human Impacts on Climate" statement, the AAS recognizes the collective expertise of the AGU in scientific subfields central to assessing and understanding global change, and acknowledges the strength of agreement among our AGU colleagues that the global climate is changing and human activities are contributing to that change."

[edit] Federal Climate Change Science Program, 2006

On May 2, 2006, the Federal Climate Change Science Program commissioned by the Bush administration in 2002 released the first of 21 assessments that concluded that there is clear evidence of human influences on the climate system (due to changes in greenhouse gases, aerosols, and stratospheric ozone) [14]. The study said that observed patterns of change over the past 50 years cannot be explained by natural processes alone, though it did not state what percentage of climate change might be anthropogenic in nature.

[edit] American Association for the Advancement of Science

The American Association for the Advancement of Science stated, "The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society." [15]

[edit] Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London

The Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London stated, "We find that the evidence for human-induced climate change is now persuasive, and the need for direct action compelling." [16]

[edit] Geological Society of America

"The Geological Society of America (GSA) supports the scientific conclusions that Earth’s climate is changing; the climate changes are due in part to human activities; and the probable consequences of the climate changes will be significant and blind to geopolitical boundaries. Furthermore, the potential implications of global climate change and the time scale over which such changes will likely occur require active, effective, long-term planning." [17]

[edit] American Association of State Climatologists

The statement from the American Association of State Climatologists noted the difficulties with predicting impacts due to climate change, while acknowledging that human activities are having an effect on climate: "Climate prediction is difficult because it involves complex, nonlinear interactions among all components of the earth’s environmental system. (...) The AASC recognizes that human activities have an influence on the climate system. Such activities, however, are not limited to greenhouse gas forcing and include changing land use and sulfate emissions, which further complicates the issue of climate prediction. Furthermore, climate predictions have not demonstrated skill in projecting future variability and changes in such important climate conditions as growing season, drought, flood-producing rainfall, heat waves, tropical cyclones and winter storms. These are the type of events that have a more significant impact on society than annual average global temperature trends. Policy responses to climate variability and change should be flexible and sensible – The difficulty of prediction and the impossibility of verification of predictions decades into the future are important factors that allow for competing views of the long-term climate future. Therefore, the AASC recommends that policies related to long-term climate not be based on particular predictions, but instead should focus on policy alternatives that make sense for a wide range of plausible climatic conditions regardless of future climate." [18]

[edit] American Chemical Society

The American Chemical Society stated, "The overwhelming balance of evidence indicates that reducing greenhouse gas emissions is the prudent and responsible course of action at this time. Although vigorous climate research is certainly needed to reduce uncertainties and to identify potential adverse effects, it should not forestall prudent action now to address the issue. ACS believes that public and private efforts today are essential to protect the global climate system for the well-being of future generations." [19]

[edit] American Quaternary Association

The American Quaternary Association stated, "Few credible scientists now doubt that humans have influenced the documented rise in global temperatures since the Industrial Revolution. The first government-led U.S. Climate Change Science Program synthesis and assessment report supports the growing body of evidence that warming of the atmosphere, especially over the past 50 years, is directly impacted by human activity." [20]

[edit] Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia)

"Engineers Australia believes that Australia must act swiftly and proactively in line with global expectations to address climate change as an economic, social and environmental risk... We believe that addressing the costs of atmospheric emissions will lead to increasing our competitive advantage by minimising risks and creating new economic opportunities.Engineers Australia believes the Australian Government should ratify the Kyoto Protocol."[21]

[edit] Statements by dissenting organizations

[edit] American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG)

The only major scientific organization that presently rejects the finding of significant human influence on recent climate is the American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG), according to a statement by the Council of the American Quaternary Association.[6] The AAPG Policy Statement on Climate Change Policy,[22] adopted in 1999,[23] states

"Recently published research results do not support the supposition of an anthropogenic cause of global climate change...Detailed examination of current climate data strongly suggests that current observations do not correlate with the assumptions or supportable projections of human-induced greenhouse effects."

As of May 2007, the AAPG is in the process of updating its statement, in part because "the current policy statement is not supported by a significant number of our members and prospective members." [24] A proposed statement [25] includes:

"Humans, simply by virtue of the size of the world's population, represent a new agent of change through our significant modifications related to land use, urbanization, industrial activity, and through changes in atmospheric composition related to fuel combustion and deforestation. The size and continued growth of the world's population indicates that continued change to the planet is inevitable."

The proposed statement lists increased greenhouse gases as one of "several contributing factors" to climate change but makes no comment on whether recent global warming is or is not primarily anthropogenic. It notes that the AAPG "respects the conclusions of [the IPCC]".

[edit] Scientific consensus

A question which frequently arises in conveying the scientific opinion to a broader audience is to what extent that opinion rises to the level of a consensus. Several scientific organizations have explicitly used the term "consensus" in their statements:

* American Association for the Advancement of Science: "The conclusions in this statement reflect the scientific consensus represented by, for example, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and the Joint National Academies' statement." [26]

* US National Academy of Science: "In the judgment of most climate scientists, Earth’s warming in recent decades has been caused primarily by human activities that have increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. ... On climate change, [the National Academies’ reports] have assessed consensus findings on the science..." [27]

* Joint Science Academies' statement, 2005: "We recognise the international scientific consensus of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)." [28]

* American Meteorological Society: "The nature of science is such that there is rarely total agreement among scientists. Individual scientific statements and papers—the validity of some of which has yet to be assessed adequately—can be exploited in the policy debate and can leave the impression that the scientific community is sharply divided on issues where there is, in reality, a strong scientific consensus. The IPCC was established ... to fulfill the critical role of providing objective scientific, technical, and economic assessments of the current state of knowledge about various aspects of climate change. IPCC assessment reports are prepared at approximately five-year intervals by a large international group of experts who represent the broad range of expertise and perspectives relevant to the issues. The reports strive to reflect a consensus evaluation of the results of the full body of peer-reviewed research. ... They provide an analysis of what is known and not known, the degree of consensus, and some indication of the degree of confidence that can be placed on the various statements and conclusions." [29]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_co...g_organizations

Edited June 24, 2007 by erekose

[GaryC 7]

Try again. I think its relatively easy to find individual scientists who support your view - rather less easy IMO to find a major scientific group or organization that does.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_co...g_organizations

Thats because major groups and organizations need funding. That funding comes from people that have a vested interest in one side or another. I trust respected individuals that have no ax to grind more than groups that are hunting for funding. That list is growing by the day.

[AnaAndDaniel 0]

now with china blasting their furnaces to the max, thing we will get a lot worse sooner than later. still, if we learn how to cclean up our end, we can sell the technology to the chinese down the river.

Daniel

:energetic:

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Try again. I think its relatively easy to find individual scientists who support your view - rather less easy IMO to find a major scientific group or organization that does.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_co...g_organizations

Thats because major groups and organizations need funding. That funding comes from people that have a vested interest in one side or another. I trust respected individuals that have no ax to grind more than groups that are hunting for funding. That list is growing by the day.

I think given the number of scientists and scientific bodies that support this interpretation - I'd say that's rather simplistic, given that most professional scientists belong to any number of these professional organisations.

[GaryC 7]

Try again. I think its relatively easy to find individual scientists who support your view - rather less easy IMO to find a major scientific group or organization that does.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_co...g_organizations

Thats because major groups and organizations need funding. That funding comes from people that have a vested interest in one side or another. I trust respected individuals that have no ax to grind more than groups that are hunting for funding. That list is growing by the day.

I think given the number of scientists and scientific bodies that support this interpretation - I'd say that's rather simplistic, given that most professional scientists belong to any number of these professional organisations.

That is because when a scientist is part of a group that is beholding to a particular group for funding they either tow the pro-global warming line or are silenced. I give you this as an example:

Global Warming Weather Channel Row: Heidi Cullen vs. James Spann

By Keith Walters Jones

Jan 21, 2007

Heidi Cullen hosts a show on the Weather Channel called "The Climate Code with Dr. Heidi Cullen." She also writes on the Weather Channel web site and has caused quite a stir with her online blog. Though she has since tried to spin it, the weather babe basically says global warming is man made and if you are a meteorologist on any local television show and you refuse to tout that view, you should not be certified the American Meteorological Society.

In Ms. Cullen's world, meteorologists must tout the Weather Channel's 'expert' point of view or be marginalized as a kook that has been decertified by the AMA.

http://www.nationalledger.com/cgi-bin/artm...8&num=11117

The goal of the pro-global warming types is to marginalize anyone with an opposing view and ultimately silence them.

Edited June 24, 2007 by Iniibig ko si Luz forever

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Try again. I think its relatively easy to find individual scientists who support your view - rather less easy IMO to find a major scientific group or organization that does.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_co...g_organizations

Thats because major groups and organizations need funding. That funding comes from people that have a vested interest in one side or another. I trust respected individuals that have no ax to grind more than groups that are hunting for funding. That list is growing by the day.

I think given the number of scientists and scientific bodies that support this interpretation - I'd say that's rather simplistic, given that most professional scientists belong to any number of these professional organisations.

That is because when a scientist is part of a group that is beholding to a particular group for funding they either tow the pro-global warming line or are silenced. I give you this as an example:

Global Warming Weather Channel Row: Heidi Cullen vs. James Spann

By Keith Walters Jones

Jan 21, 2007

Heidi Cullen hosts a show on the Weather Channel called "The Climate Code with Dr. Heidi Cullen." She also writes on the Weather Channel web site and has caused quite a stir with her online blog. Though she has since tried to spin it, the weather babe basically says global warming is man made and if you are a meteorologist on any local television show and you refuse to tout that view, you should not be certified the American Meteorological Society.

In Ms. Cullen's world, meteorologists must tout the Weather Channel's 'expert' point of view or be marginalized as a kook that has been decertified by the AMA.

http://www.nationalledger.com/cgi-bin/artm...8&num=11117

The goal of the pro-global warming types is to marginalize anyone with an opposing view and ultimately silence them.

With due respect, the Weather Channel is a far cry for from say, The American Meteorological Society, The American Geophysical Union or the American Institute of Physics (large bodies which represent thousands of members).

[GaryC 7]

Try again. I think its relatively easy to find individual scientists who support your view - rather less easy IMO to find a major scientific group or organization that does.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_co...g_organizations

Thats because major groups and organizations need funding. That funding comes from people that have a vested interest in one side or another. I trust respected individuals that have no ax to grind more than groups that are hunting for funding. That list is growing by the day.

I think given the number of scientists and scientific bodies that support this interpretation - I'd say that's rather simplistic, given that most professional scientists belong to any number of these professional organisations.

That is because when a scientist is part of a group that is beholding to a particular group for funding they either tow the pro-global warming line or are silenced. I give you this as an example:

Global Warming Weather Channel Row: Heidi Cullen vs. James Spann

By Keith Walters Jones

Jan 21, 2007

Heidi Cullen hosts a show on the Weather Channel called "The Climate Code with Dr. Heidi Cullen." She also writes on the Weather Channel web site and has caused quite a stir with her online blog. Though she has since tried to spin it, the weather babe basically says global warming is man made and if you are a meteorologist on any local television show and you refuse to tout that view, you should not be certified the American Meteorological Society.

In Ms. Cullen's world, meteorologists must tout the Weather Channel's 'expert' point of view or be marginalized as a kook that has been decertified by the AMA.

http://www.nationalledger.com/cgi-bin/artm...8&num=11117

The goal of the pro-global warming types is to marginalize anyone with an opposing view and ultimately silence them.

With due respect, the Weather Channel is a far cry for from say, The American Meteorological Society, The American Geophysical Union or the American Institute of Physics (large bodies which represent thousands of members).

All groups that depend of financing. I can give you a long list of respected professionals that disagree with the GW nonsense. But that would burst the pro-global warming types bubble so they ignore them.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Try again. I think its relatively easy to find individual scientists who support your view - rather less easy IMO to find a major scientific group or organization that does.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_co...g_organizations

Thats because major groups and organizations need funding. That funding comes from people that have a vested interest in one side or another. I trust respected individuals that have no ax to grind more than groups that are hunting for funding. That list is growing by the day.

I think given the number of scientists and scientific bodies that support this interpretation - I'd say that's rather simplistic, given that most professional scientists belong to any number of these professional organisations.

That is because when a scientist is part of a group that is beholding to a particular group for funding they either tow the pro-global warming line or are silenced. I give you this as an example:

Global Warming Weather Channel Row: Heidi Cullen vs. James Spann

By Keith Walters Jones

Jan 21, 2007

Heidi Cullen hosts a show on the Weather Channel called "The Climate Code with Dr. Heidi Cullen." She also writes on the Weather Channel web site and has caused quite a stir with her online blog. Though she has since tried to spin it, the weather babe basically says global warming is man made and if you are a meteorologist on any local television show and you refuse to tout that view, you should not be certified the American Meteorological Society.

In Ms. Cullen's world, meteorologists must tout the Weather Channel's 'expert' point of view or be marginalized as a kook that has been decertified by the AMA.

http://www.nationalledger.com/cgi-bin/artm...8&num=11117

The goal of the pro-global warming types is to marginalize anyone with an opposing view and ultimately silence them.

With due respect, the Weather Channel is a far cry for from say, The American Meteorological Society, The American Geophysical Union or the American Institute of Physics (large bodies which represent thousands of members).

All groups that depend of financing. I can give you a long list of respected professionals that disagree with the GW nonsense. But that would burst the pro-global warming types bubble so they ignore them.

Given that some of these bodies are not-for-profit - again I think that's rather simplistic.

[GaryC 7]

Just for the fun of it I will post the list.

Believe global warming is not occurring

* Timothy F. Ball, former Professor of Geography, University of Winnipeg: "(The world's climate) warmed from 1680 up to 1940, but since 1940 it's been cooling down. The evidence for warming is because of distorted records. The satellite data, for example, shows cooling." (November 2004) [5] "The temperature hasn't gone up. ... But the mood of the world has changed: It has heated up to this belief in global warming." (August 2006) [6] "Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. ... By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling." (Feb. 5, 2007) [7]

Believe accuracy of climate projections is inadequate

Scientists in this section conclude that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the next century. They do not conclude specifically that the current projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to the difficulty of global climate modeling.

* J. Scott Armstrong and Kesten Green write: "We conducted an audit of Chapter 8 of the IPCC’s WG1 Report. We found enough information to make judgments on 89 out of the total of 140 principles. The forecasting procedures that were used violated 72 principles. Many of the violations were, by themselves, critical. We have been unable to identify any scientific forecasts to support global warming. Claims that the Earth will get warmer have no more credence than saying that it will get colder." [8]

* Roger A. Pielke, Senior Research Scientist at the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES) wrote: “Humans are significantly altering the global climate, but in a variety of diverse ways beyond the radiative effect of carbon dioxide. The IPCC assessments have been too conservative in recognizing the importance of these human climate forcings as they alter regional and global climate. These assessments have also not communicated the inability of the models to accurately forecast the spread of possibilities of future climate. The forecasts, therefore, do not provide any skill in quantifying the impact of different mitigation strategies on the actual climate response that would occur.” [9]

* Hendrik Tennekes, retired Director of Research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute: "The blind adherence to the harebrained idea that climate models can generate 'realistic' simulations of climate is the principal reason why I remain a climate skeptic. From my background in turbulence I look forward with grim anticipation to the day that climate models will run with a horizontal resolution of less than a kilometer. The horrible predictability problems of turbulent flows then will descend on climate science with a vengeance." [10]

* Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists : "models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are incoherent and invalid from a scientific point of view". [11]

Believe global warming is primarily caused by natural processes

Scientists in this section conclude that the observed warming is more likely attributable to natural causes than to human activities.

* Khabibullo Ismailovich Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovskaya Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences and the supervisor of the Astrometria project of the Russian section of the International Space Station: "Global warming results not from the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, but from an unusually high level of solar radiation and a lengthy - almost throughout the last century - growth in its intensity...Ascribing 'greenhouse' effect properties to the Earth's atmosphere is not scientifically substantiated...Heated greenhouse gases, which become lighter as a result of expansion, ascend to the atmosphere only to give the absorbed heat away." (Russian News & Information Agency, Jan. 15, 2007 [12]) (See also [13], [14], [15])

* Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: "[T]he recent warming trend in the surface temperature record cannot be caused by the increase of human-made greenhouse gases in the air." (Capitalism Magazine, August 22, 2002)[16] Baliunas and Soon wrote that "there is no reliable evidence for increased severity or frequency of storms, droughts, or floods that can be related to the air’s increased greenhouse gas content." (Marshall Institute, March 25, 2003) [17]

* David Bellamy, environmental campaigner, broadcaster and botanist: "Global warming is a largely natural phenomenon. The world is wasting stupendous amounts of money on trying to fix something that can’t be fixed."[18]

* Reid Bryson, emeritus professor of Meteorology: "It’s absurd. Of course it’s going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we’re coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we’re putting more carbon dioxide into the air." [19].

* Robert M. Carter, geologist, researcher at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University in Australia: "The essence of the issue is this. Climate changes naturally all the time, partly in predictable cycles, and partly in unpredictable shorter rhythms and rapid episodic shifts, some of the causes of which remain unknown." (Telegraph, April 9, 2006 [20])

* George V. Chilingar, Professor of Civil and Petroleum Engineering at the University of Southern California: "The authors identify and describe the following global forces of nature driving the Earth’s climate: (1) solar radiation ..., (2) outgassing as a major supplier of gases to the World Ocean and the atmosphere, and, possibly, (3) microbial activities ... . The writers provide quantitative estimates of the scope and extent of their corresponding effects on the Earth’s climate [and] show that the human-induced climatic changes are negligible." (Environmental Geology, vol. 50 no. 6, August 2006 [21])

* Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa: "That portion of the scientific community that attributes climate warming to CO2 relies on the hypothesis that increasing CO2, which is in fact a minor greenhouse gas, triggers a much larger water vapour response to warm the atmosphere. This mechanism has never been tested scientifically beyond the mathematical models that predict extensive warming, and are confounded by the complexity of cloud formation - which has a cooling effect. ... We know that [the sun] was responsible for climate change in the past, and so is clearly going to play the lead role in present and future climate change. And interestingly... solar activity has recently begun a downward cycle." (The Hill Times, March 22, 2004 [22])

* Don Easterbrook, Professor of Geology, Western Washington University: "global warming since 1900 could well have happened without any effect of CO2. If the cycles continue as in the past, the current warm cycle should end soon and global temperatures should cool slightly until about 2035" [23]

* William M. Gray, Professor of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University: "This small warming is likely a result of the natural alterations in global ocean currents which are driven by ocean salinity variations. Ocean circulation variations are as yet little understood. Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature changes. We are not that influential."[24]) "I am of the opinion that [global warming] is one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people." [25]) "So many people have a vested interest in this global-warming thing—all these big labs and research and stuff. The idea is to frighten the public, to get money to study it more."[26])

* George Kukla, retired Professor of Climatology at Columbia University and Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, said in an interview: "What I think is this: Man is responsible for a PART of global warming. MOST of it is still natural." (Gelf Magazine, April 24, 2007) [27]

* David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware: "About half of the warming during the 20th century occurred prior to the 1940s, and natural variability accounts for all or nearly all of the warming." (May 15, 2006 [28])

* Marcel Leroux, former Professor of Climatology, Université Jean Moulin: "The possible causes, then, of climate change are: well-established orbital parameters on the palaeoclimatic scale, ... solar activity, ...; volcanism ...; and far at the rear, the greenhouse effect, and in particular that caused by water vapor, the extent of its influence being unknown. These factors are working together all the time, and it seems difficult to unravel the relative importance of their respective influences upon climatic evolution. Equally, it is tendentious to highlight the anthropic factor, which is, clearly, the least credible among all those previously mentioned." (M. Leroux, Global Warming - Myth or Reality?, 2005, p. 120 [29])

* Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa: global warming "is the biggest scientific hoax being perpetrated on humanity. There is no global warming due to human anthropogenic activities. The atmosphere hasn’t changed much in 280 million years, and there have always been cycles of warming and cooling. The Cretaceous period was the warmest on earth. You could have grown tomatoes at the North Pole"[30]

* Tim Patterson [31], paleoclimatologist and Professor of Geology at Carleton University in Canada: "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years. On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?" [32][33]

* Ian Plimer, Professor of Mining Geology, The University of Adelaide: "We only have to have one volcano burping and we have changed the whole planetary climate... It looks as if carbon dioxide actually follows climate change rather than drives it". [[34]]

* Frederick Seitz, retired, former solid-state physicist, former president of the National Academy of Sciences: "So we see that the scientific facts indicate that all the temperature changes observed in the last 100 years were largely natural changes and were not caused by carbon dioxide produced in human activities." (Environment News, 2001 [35])

* Nir Shaviv, astrophysicist at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem: "[T]he truth is probably somewhere in between [the common view and that of skeptics], with natural causes probably being more important over the past century, whereas anthropogenic causes will probably be more dominant over the next century. ... [A]bout 2/3's (give or take a third or so) of the warming [over the past century] should be attributed to increased solar activity and the remaining to anthropogenic causes." His opinion is based on some proxies of solar activity over the past few centuries. [36]

* Fred Singer, Professor emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia: "The greenhouse effect is real. However, the effect is minute, insignificant, and very difficult to detect." (Christian Science Monitor, April 22, 2005) [37] "The Earth currently is experiencing a warming trend, but there is scientific evidence that human activities have little to do with it.", NCPA Study No. 279, Sep. 2005 [38]. “It’s not automatically true that warming is bad, I happen to believe that warming is good, and so do many economists.” (CBC's Denial machine @ 19:23 - Google Video Link)

* Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: "[T]here's increasingly strong evidence that previous research conclusions, including those of the United Nations and the United States government concerning 20th century warming, may have been biased by underestimation of natural climate variations. The bottom line is that if these variations are indeed proven true, then, yes, natural climate fluctuations could be a dominant factor in the recent warming. In other words, natural factors could be more important than previously assumed." (Harvard University Gazette, 24 April 2003 [39])

* Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London: "...the myth is starting to implode. ... Serious new research at The Max Planck Institute has indicated that the sun is a far more significant factor..." (Global Warming as Myth [40])

* Henrik Svensmark, Danish National Space Center: "Our team ... has discovered that the relatively few cosmic rays that reach sea-level play a big part in the everyday weather. They help to make low-level clouds, which largely regulate the Earth’s surface temperature. During the 20th Century the influx of cosmic rays decreased and the resulting reduction of cloudiness allowed the world to warm up. ... most of the warming during the 20th Century can be explained by a reduction in low cloud cover." [41]

* Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, Professor Emeritus from University of Ottawa: "At this stage, two scenarios of potential human impact on climate appear feasible: (1) the standard IPCC model ..., and (2) the alternative model that argues for celestial phenomena as the principal climate driver. ... Models and empirical observations are both indispensable tools of science, yet when discrepancies arise, observations should carry greater weight than theory. If so, the multitude of empirical observations favours celestial phenomena as the most important driver of terrestrial climate on most time scales, but time will be the final judge." (In J. Veizer, "Celestial climate driver: a perspective from four billion years of the carbon cycle", Geoscience Canada, March, 2005. [42], [43])

Believe cause of global warming is unknown

Scientists in this section conclude it is too early to ascribe any principal cause to the observed rising temperatures, man-made or natural.

* Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and Director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks: "Thus, there is a possibility that only a fraction of the present warming trend may be attributed to the greenhouse effect resulting from human activities. This conclusion is contrary to the IPCC (2007) Report, which states that “most” of the present warming (+0.7°C/100 years) is due to the greenhouse effect."[44]

* Claude Allègre, geochemist, Institute of Geophysics (Paris): "The increase in the CO2 content of the atmosphere is an observed fact and mankind is most certainly responsible. In the long term, this increase will without doubt become harmful, but its exact role in the climate is less clear. Various parameters appear more important than CO2. Consider the water cycle and formation of various types of clouds, and the complex effects of industrial or agricultural dust. Or fluctuations of the intensity of the solar radiation on annual and century scale, which seem better correlated with heating effects than the variations of CO2 content." (Translation from the original French version in L'Express, May 10, 2006 [45])

* Robert C. Balling, Jr., director of the Office of Climatology and a professor of geography at Arizona State University: "t is very likely that the recent upward trend [in global surface temperature] is very real and that the upward signal is greater than any noise introduced from uncertainties in the record. However, the general error is most likely to be in the warming direction, with a maximum possible (though unlikely) value of 0.3 °C. ... At this moment in time we know only that: (1) Global surface temperatures have risen in recent decades. (2) Mid-tropospheric temperatures have warmed little over the same period. (3) This difference is not consistent with predictions from numerical climate models." (George C. Marshall Institute, Policy Outlook, September 2003[46])

* John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC reports (answering to "If global temperatures are increasing, to what extent is the increase attributable to greenhouse gas emissions from human activity as opposed to natural variability or other causes?"): "No one knows. Estimates today are given by climate model simulations made against a backdrop of uncertain natural variability, assumptions about how greenhouse gases affect the climate, and model shortcomings in general. The evidence from our work (and others) is that the way the observed temperatures are changing in many important aspects is not consistent with model simulations." [47]

* William R. Cotton, Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at University of Colorado said in a presentation, "It is an open question if human produced changes in climate are large enough to be detected from the noise of the natural variability of the climate system." [48]

* Chris de Freitas, Associate Professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland: "There is evidence of global warming. ... But warming does not confirm that carbon dioxide is causing it. Climate is always warming or cooling. There are natural variability theories of warming. To support the argument that carbon dioxide is causing it, the evidence would have to distinguish between human-caused and natural warming. This has not been done." (The New Zealand Herald, May 9, 2006 [49])

* David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma: "The amount of climatic warming that has taken place in the past 150 years is poorly constrained, and its cause--human or natural--is unknown. There is no sound scientific basis for predicting future climate change with any degree of certainty. If the climate does warm, it is likely to be beneficial to humanity rather than harmful. In my opinion, it would be foolish to establish national energy policy on the basis of misinformation and irrational hysteria." (Testimony before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, December 6, 2006 [50])

* Richard Lindzen, Alfred Sloane Professor of Atmospheric Science at the Massachussetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences: "We are quite confident (1) that global mean temperature is about 0.5 °C higher than it was a century ago; (2) that atmospheric levels of CO2 have risen over the past two centuries; and (3) that CO2 is a greenhouse gas whose increase is likely to warm the earth (one of many, the most important being water vapor and clouds). But--and I cannot stress this enough--we are not in a position to confidently attribute past climate change to CO2 or to forecast what the climate will be in the future." [51] "[T]here has been no question whatsoever that CO2 is an infrared absorber (i.e., a greenhouse gas — albeit a minor one), and its increase should theoretically contribute to warming. Indeed, if all else were kept equal, the increase in CO2 should have led to somewhat more warming than has been observed." (San Francisco Examiner, July 12, 2006 [52] and in Wall Street Journal, June 26, 2006, Page A14)

* Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville: "We need to find out how much of the warming we are seeing could be due to mankind, because I still maintain we have no idea how much you can attribute to mankind." (George C. Marshall Institute Washington Roundtable on Science and Public Policy, April 17, 2006 [53])

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scien...rming_consensus

Does this look like a consensus to you?

Given that some of these bodies are not-for-profit - again I think that's rather simplistic.

Not for profits still need financing. If they want it they must tow the line.

Edited June 24, 2007 by Iniibig ko si Luz forever

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Well the obvious point is that there are many thousands of earth/climate scientists around the world - and every single one of them belongs to one or more professional societies.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Not for profits still need financing. If they want it they must tow the line.

Gary - all that most of those bodies do is produce journals and schedule conferences to publish/promote their members work. That's how they work... How the individual scientist gets funded - whether that be for an academic body or private company is a separate issue.

[GaryC 7]

Well the obvious point is that there are many thousands of earth/climate scientists around the world - and every single one of them belongs to one or more professional societies.

Thank you for making my point. When you say this or that group falls on the side of man-made global warming and hold that up as your proof if doesn't prove a thing. These scientists may be part of these groups and they disagree. So just because the leader of the group says they believe something does not mean there is a consensus. It only means they must publicly state the pro-global warming line to placate the contributors.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Well the obvious point is that there are many thousands of earth/climate scientists around the world - and every single one of them belongs to one or more professional societies.

Thank you for making my point. When you say this or that group falls on the side of man-made global warming and hold that up as your proof if doesn't prove a thing. These scientists may be part of these groups and they disagree. So just because the leader of the group says they believe something does not mean there is a consensus. It only means they must publicly state the pro-global warming line to placate the contributors.

Can you substantiate that argument with reference to say, theAmerican Geophysical Union?