Just before Christmas I posted a note from Marc Morano with a list of 400 or so climate change skeptics. I also noted that just two years ago Ian Lowe, head of the Australian Conservation Foundation, published a book wrongly claiming that there were only five climate change skeptics in the whole world, while Al Gore in his award winning documentary wrongly claimed all skeptics were in the pay of big oil.
Now Marc Morano has sent me an update including a few more names to add to the list of 400, and more information on a name already on the list. Like the initial 400, these are scientists who have been quoted in 2007 as skeptical of the idea that the global warming over the last century is significant and/or has been primarily driven by man-made carbon dioxide emissions. Like me, most of people on the list do not believe we currently have a climate crisis.
1. Dr. Klaus P. Heiss formerly of Princeton University and Mathematica, and a space engineer who has worked with NASA, the US Atomic Energy Commission and the Office of Naval Research.
Heiss received the NASA Public Service award for unique contributions to the US Space Program and is a member of the International Astronautics Academy. Heiss dissented from what he termed the “alleged climate catastrophe” in 2007. “The 20th Century increased the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere continuously. Man-made CO 2 grew exponentially; however, global temperatures fell between 1940 and 1975, during the time span
as the global industrial production almost exploded. Then [temperatures] rose strongly to 1990 and they have since stagnated, with the exception of El-Nino 1998 – at roughly the same level, although CO 2 emissions are still rising,” Heiss wrote in a September 7, 2007 commentary titled “No Reason For Hysteria.” “The entire atmospheric carbon dioxide, of which man-made CO 2 is only a fraction of, is not to blame for global warming,” Klaus explained. “Carbon
dioxide is not responsible for the warming of the global climate over the last 150 years. But what then? For more than 90 percent are changes in the Earth-Sun relationship to the climate fluctuations. One is the sun’s activities themselves, such as the recently discovered 22-year-cycles occur and sunspots,” Heiss continued. “Looking at the
climate history of our planet, it is clear to see – and quite reassuring with regard to the possible consequences of global warming as predicted by the IPCC — that we are now (more precisely, in the last two to three million years ago) in a very cold climate period. Any warming would give us only the best long-term climate of the last
560 million years back,” he added. “Moreover, despite all the proposed measures and their enormous costs, most professional economic studies indicate that warmer times are generally better,” he concluded.
2. Economist Dr. Arnold Kling, formerly of the Federal Reserve Board and Freddie Mac, expressed man-made climate skepticism in 2007. “I am worried about climate change. In one respect, I may be more worried than other people. I am worried because I have very little confidence that we know what is causing it,” Kling wrote in a December 21, 2007 commentary. “One of my fears is that we could reduce carbon emissions
by some drastic amount, only to discover that–oops–it turns out that climate change is being caused by something else,” Kling explained. “I am not a skeptic about the rise in average temperatures. Nor am I skeptical that the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been increasing. However, I remain skeptical about the connection between the two,” he wrote.
3. Meteorologist Thomas B. Gray is the former head of the Space Services branch at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and a researcher in NOAA’s Space Environment Laboratory and
Environmental Research Laboratories. Gray also served as an aviation meteorologist for the United States Air Force. Gray asserted that “climate change is a natural occurrence” and dissented from the view
that mankind faces a “climate crisis” in 2007. “I was awarded by MS in meteorology from Florida State University and I became interested in pale climatology,” Gray wrote to EPW on December 25, 2007. “Nothing
that is occurring in weather or in climate research at this time can be shown to be abnormal in the light of our knowledge of climate variations over geologic time,” Gray explained. “I am sure that the concept of a ‘Global Temperature’ is nonsense,” he added. “The claims of those convinced that AGW (anthropogenic global warming) is real and dangerous are not supported by reliable data,” Gray concluded.
4. Physical chemist Dr. Peter Stilbs, who chairs the climate seminar Department of Physical Chemistry at the Royal Institute of Technology (KTH) in Stockholm has authored more than 165 scientific publications in refereed journals since 1970. Stilbs coordinated a meeting of international scientists and declared his skepticism about man-made climate fears. Stilbs wrote on December 21, 2006, “By the final panel discussion stage of the conference, there appeared to be wide agreement” about several key points regarding man-made climate fears. Stilbs announced that the scientists, concluded: “There is no strong evidence to prove significant human influence on climate on a global basis. The global cooling trend from 1940 to 1970 is inconsistent with models based on anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions. Actual claims put forward are that an observed global temperature increase of about 0.3 degrees C since 1970 exceeds what could be expected from natural variation. However, recent temperature data do not indicate any continued global warming since 1998.” Stilbs also noted, “There is no
reliable evidence to support that the 20th century was the warmest in the last 1000 years. Previous claims based on the ‘Mann hockey-stick curve’ are by now totally discredited.” Stilbs concluded by noting that the team of international scientists concluded: “There is no doubt that the science behind ‘the climate issue’ is far from settled. As so many cosmic effects are omitted from climate models, there is no credibility for arguments such as ‘there is no other explanation’ [than anthropogenic generation of carbon dioxide]. This must be remembered when making future political decisions related to these matters.”
Stilbs also was one of the signatories of the December 13, 2007 letter critical of the UN IPCC’s climate view.
“These [IPCC] 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,” the letter Stilbs signed explained.
5. Geography professor Dr. Randy Cerveny of Arizona State University oversees the university’s meteorology program and was named to a key post at the UN’s World Meteorological Organization in 2007. Cerveny, who has written nearly 100 scientific papers and magazine articles, is in charge of developing a global weather archive for the UN. He was also a contributing author to the skeptical climate change book Shattered Consensus: The True State of Global Warming, edited by climatologist Dr. Patrick Michaels. Cerveny rejected catastrophic fears of man-made climate change in 2007. “I don’t think [global warming] is going to be catastrophic,” Cerveny said according to a October 7, 2007 article. “Hopefully, our grandkids are going to have a
lot better weather information than we did, and they will be able to answer a lot of the questions we’re just in the process of asking,” Cerveny explained.
6. Paul C. Knappenberger, a senior researcher with New Hope Environmental Services, has published numerous peer-reviewed studies related to climate change, including a 2006 study questioning the linkage between global warming and severe hurricanes. Knappenberger also serves as administrator for the skeptical climate change website www.WorldClimateReport.com. The website’s stated goal is to “point out the weaknesses and outright fallacies in the science that is being touted as ‘proof’ of disastrous warming.” The website also describes itself as the “definitive and unimpeachable source for what [the journal] Nature now calls the ‘mainstream skeptic’ point of view, which is that climate change is a largely overblown issue and that the best expectation is modest change over the next 100 years.”
7. Climatologist Dr. Robert Balling of Arizona State University, the former head of the university’s Office of Climatology, has served as a climate consultant to the United Nations Environment Program, the World Climate Program, the World Meteorological Organization, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.
Balling, who has also served in the UN IPCC, would have preferred former Vice President Al Gore had won the presidency in 2000. He has authored several books on global warming, including “The Heated
Debate” and “The Satanic Gases.” Balling expressed skepticism about man-made climate fears in 2007. “In my lifetime, this global-warming issue might fade away,” Balling said in a November 11, 2007 interview
with the Arizona Republic. Noting the pressure he feels as a skeptical scientist, Balling explained, “Somehow I’ve been branded this horrible person who belongs in the depths of hell.” He added, “There’s just no
tolerance right now.” The article explained, “Balling’s research over the years has explored sun activity, pollution from volcanoes, the urban-heat-island effect and errors in past temperature models as possible causes of rising temperatures.”
Marc Morano has also indicated that there is a whole new section on inconvenenient studies for promoters of man-made climate fears at the US senate website: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Jennifer
could he actually confirm the ‘scientists’ he refers to are that, and not weathermen, amateurs, documentary makers, etc.
Also, being a scientist does not mean you can make an informed opinion on any topic that is to do with science. I would no more expect you to be able to give an authoritative opinion on global warming science than I would expect a climatologist to give an authoritative opinion on insects.
Jennifer,
I read with interest your material on Global warming. Your arguments appear to rest on the dominance of water vapour on Infra Red (IR) absorption.
The matter that concerns me is that in the polar regions there is basically no water vapour, it is precipitated out as ice or snow. Ice is as you know completely transparent to IR.
Thus IR absorption in the polar regions is in the first place controlled by CO2 content – not by water vapour. This could account for the observed rise in polar temperatures. However there are also two positive feedback mechanisms:
1. Change in albedo due to ice melt.
2. As the temperature rises in the polar region the area covered by ice precipitate declines thus the amount of water vapour in the polar region increases.
This is a cube law forcing – even a small increase in the polar temperature will result in a large increase in the volume of water vapour on the surface of the globe. Water Vapour , is as you know the dominant absorber of IR.
Perhaps you could comment on this?
Regards,
Dale Butler
Over Christmas I did an informal, conversational survey of friends and relatives on the climate change issue. Opinions on the science varied, as we may hope and expect. There was unanimous scepticism about the media treatment of the subject. Please, ABC and SBS, in 2008 let’s have more balance, and fewer climate doom, gloom and disaster reports. Especially, no more knee-jerk shots of power station COOLING TOWERS giving off steam. No more repetitive shots of ice-bergs falling into the sea. No more floods in Bangladesh. No more meaningless shots of a glaring sun. We are not impressed. We are bored.
Well said Green Davey Gam Esq.
I notice also that the scientific fraternity dont go out of their way to have these false images corrected.
As for SJT’s comments above, Flannery is not a climatologist either but it hasnt stopped him from writing a book on the subject.
SJT made the comment in a previous thread that as a non-expert he relies on the views of those who are – very sensible ; no-one could disagree with that commonsense position.
I’m in exactly the same boat myself.
But the true believers often rely on more than just the fact that there IS expert opinion to support their belief. They also assert that the theory of AGW is in fact a consensus position.
Macquarie defines consensus as
1. general agreement or concord.
2. majority of opinion.
So I’m grateful to Morano insofar as the relative numbers and relevant expertise of those who are part of the consensus is important if we are to test the assertion that there truly is a scientific consensus.
Part of the problem for the AGW true believers is that ;
1. their position’s most vocal/visible/recognisable champions such as Gore and Flannery clearly aren’t experts in the field and;
2. even those with expert qualifications such as Gray and Christy are regularly smeared and sneered at because they speak up – doesn’t appear to be a particularly robust consensus if it can’t stand even a little criticism
OTOH
Sceptics have some explaining to do as well;
1. if there are significant numbers of experts who don’t accept the concensus and their number is growing , why are they largely silent?
It’s their integrity on the line – if AGW theory is shown to be BS in the future then claiming they always thought so but were too scared or whatever to speak up is going to sound pretty weak.
Bob Brown , Al Gore , Hollywood etc won’t be too concerned ; they’ll just move on to the next opportunity to further their low growth , anti-western , anti-industrialisation , higher regulation agendas.
I don’t expect anything else from them.
The scientists however will look like real dills.
2. AGW still represents the most cogent theory available at this time ; sure Svensmark may turn out to be right or some other less well understood driver or cycle may be discovered but at this stage anthropogenic CO2 appears to be the culprit.
WITHOUT for a second suggesting that investigation and public discussion of the cause and effect of global climate change should cease , IMO we should be debating mitigation more often and more rationally than is currently the case.
“Also, being a scientist does not mean you can make an informed opinion on any topic that is to do with science. I would no more expect you to be able to give an authoritative opinion on global warming science than I would expect a climatologist to give an authoritative opinion on insects.” (Posted by: SJT)
Oh, these are the new rules of the game, are they?
So let’s have a look at some other prominent players.
Al Gore – he’s not a climatologist as far as I know.
Malcolm Hill has already mentioned Flannery and there are many other self-styled experts like the Guardian’s George Monbiot.
But the high priests of the AGW faith must be the good folk at RealClimate.
Gavin Schmidt is a mathematician, Benestad is a physicist, Connolley is a mathematician, Rahmstorf is a physicist, Eric Steig is an isotope geochemist, Mann is a physicist and mathematician.
To perhaps throw some light on the first part of Jim’s question 1, and I am not a scientist, but an avid reader of anything that comes my way relating to climate changes, and the effects that man has or has not had upon them.
Climate scientists have been in something of a backwater for many decades until the 1950’s. Shortly thereafter, and especially from the late seventies on, considerable interest began focussing on their subject with particular attention to any negative effects that may occur, this was especially true during the Thatcher years in the UK as it gave weight to the furthering of nuclear power generation used as a lever against Miners and perceived threats of oil supply from the middle East. Suddenly there was money on the table for anything that could link fossil fuel use to climate change. The IPCC grew from such seeds. Climatologists were seeing a gravy boat of grants and favours, if you worked the other way – you starved, or suffered derision. Whilst science is a process of data collection, theorising, testing and questioning, politics spread a corrupting infection within. To be seen swimming against the tide could mean certain research funds evaporate (sorry, couldn’t resist). So who might the dills be?
In the public eye, the AGW believers are largely just that, with star gazing actors in supporting roles and Al Gore as Ringmaster, and some prominent scientists seeking attention through questionable practices. Why will Gore not debate the subject which he so loudly proclaims is happening – and caused by man? Certainly there is some evidence that man has, and continues to mess up in some areas, and on a grand scale, but the overwhelming belief that this species is able to control the thermostat of a Galaxy – we do not control the speed of the planets rotation, nor the degrees of radiation from the Sun or Stars – is indicative of the large headed conceit that this species has assumed over the millenia. Intelligent we may be, but in respect of understanding the natural order of grand scale cosmological effects upon our ecosystem and exactly how it react to them, we are just scratching the surface. It is right we should look at our actions in monitoring the use of Earth’s resources, but to grasp at one straw as if it were the sole lifeline to the future unquestioning and in total faith, is further indication of that which mankind has become master – ignorance.
Rather than see political fools juggle with emissions to the cost of lives in underdeveloped countries, and economic collapse in developed, we should be learning to adapt to change, and specifically to a cooler world which is a far more dangerous one than a warmer.
Look out Al, there’s a Polar Bear behind you! Oh no there isn’t. Oh yes there is.
Spoken like a true AGW zealot. You’ve forgotten or never learned that it only takes one to overturn a consensus.
Go back to school and this time take some math and physical science!
Post response clarification — to the poster better known as Error.
I thought that science by consensus was frowned upon here?
“Ian Lowe, head of the Australian Conservation Foundation, published a book wrongly claiming that there were only five climate change skeptics in the whole world,”
it depends on if you are talking about scientists who are specialists in that field, or not. A scientist who is not a specialist in that field is not really qualified to give any more than a personal opinion on the matter.
Isn’t that they way science works, or are we throwing out hundreds of years of scientific tradition now?
“Economist Dr. Arnold Kling, formerly of the Federal Reserve Board and Freddie Mac, expressed man-made climate skepticism in 2007. ”
Are we going to start listing the number of plumbers who are climate change sceptics too?
Jennifer – “Now Marc Morano has sent me an update including a few more names to add to the list of 400, and more information on a name already on the list. ”
And the list of peer reviewed papers with alternative theories to explain recent warming is growing as well?????
What was that creaking sound? Why it’s Marc Morano shifting the goalposts.
“U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007 ”
One minute it’s prominent scientists, the next it’s economists. You have to hand it to the man, he’s worth every cent.
“And the list of peer reviewed papers with alternative theories to explain recent warming is growing as well?????” (Ender)
Is there any thing wrong with a scientist qualified and experienced in the area saying “I don’t know”?
That’s the problem, chrisgo. Can Morano give us an actual list of scientists who are qualified and experienced in the area. The “400+” now includes economists, amateurs, documentary makers, TV weathermen.
Maybe if he gets his story straight, he can get back to us.
How many of the 400 are “economists, amateurs, documentary makers, TV weathermen.”and who are they?
They all looked pretty well credentialed to me.
SJT,
You really do not understand what empirical science is – simply to pose an hypothesis, take measurements, and see whether the hypothesis is confirmed by the data.
Global temperatures have been static (there is a slight northern hemispheric warming but a static southern one) while CO2 content of the atmosphere has been accelerating.
The AGW hypothesis, that increased CO2 in the atmosphere will result in an increase in the global temperature, is not confirmed by the measurements. Scientifically we say that AGW has been falsified.
This is the scientific method.
The science YOU support is simply pseudoscience dominated by the Socratic method of reasoning in which an initial assumption, the AGW hypothesis, is deemed to be true by consensus.
Re Dave Butler’s question:
1. Hortticultural greenhouses do not work on the principle of glass (vis. SiO2) absorbing infrared radiation but on a physical obstruction to the contained air equilibrating with the outside air after the sun’s radiation is reduced or absent.
2. No gas can trap heat.
3. CO2 as an independent gas phase in air, (implying gaseous immiscibility, a somewhat novel concept), does not exist.
4. Suggesting that infrared absorption at a molecular scale is untestable empirically – hence it is not a scientific postulate but a rhetorical one.
5. The earth’s thermal state is determined not only by it’s reaction to incoming solar radiation but also from the measured mega ampere electrical currents at the polar regions that come from the sun. These currents were initially proposed by Kristian Birkeland over a century ago, and their existence confirmed in our times. As we all know, electric currents passing through resistive media generate heat, so the increases in polar temperatures are more likely to be due to the proven Birkeland currents than a hypothesisied effect of CO2 in the atmosphere.
The most recent announcements made by NASA on the magnetic ropes between earth and the sun as well as the discovery of ionic fields surrounding clouds add to the idea that the earth’s climate is principally determined by it’s “electrical” interaction with the surrounding cell of solar plasma.
Climate changers are simply scientific Luddites!
(PS I have reported on the magnetic ropes and clouds in my last Henry Thornton article, The Hissink File, where links to the reports are given for those of you too lazy to check out inconvenient facts).
In other words CO2 has nothing at all to do with the thermal state of the earth – its concentration in the earth’s atmosphere is a result of, not a cause of temperature change.
Louis
you have neatly avoided the topic. 400 prominent scientists, the list grows, now it includes economists.
Louis
what is the topic about but an attempt to create the appearance of a consensus. Way to go, Morano.
I am heartily sick of this my dick is bigger than yours approach to “science” of GW.
What about considering what is being said/discussed or proposed on its merits.
Why does it have to come down to whose list has the most of XYZ. Who gives a toss whether it is being said by someone with a Phd in whatever.
Most professional people would produce several Phd’s worth of material in their working lives of original thought, design and analysis. Its called making a living and designing and building things.
I have read what most of the people on Mark Maranos list are saying to justify their position,and IMO it is just as credible and perhaps well supported as the material in the AR4.
Flannerys book is just as valuable in adding to the debate and understanding as William Kininmonths, where one is a paid up member and one isnt.
Mcleans work is very valuable addition to the understanding of how the IPCC works, or doesnt work, and uses their own data under FOI to reveal that what they say is not what they are doing.
The fact that Mclean hasnt got a Phd in whatever is absolutely irrelevant to the substance of his revelations about the IPCC.
SJT,
I’ve never been that impressed by the concept of a consensus/ a lot of names on a list. But I respect Marc Morano’s efforts to bust the notion that there is a consensus and am keen to support his efforts.
Dale,
Your comment suggest that the ‘polar regions’ are both warming … but they are not. The arctic is warming but the antarctic is not.
I listen to all the arguments about the various mechanisms/the physics but don’t end up particularly convinced by either side. But I will always post the ‘reasonable skeptics’ position … because they tend not to get that much of a run in the mainstream media.
My skeptism is mostly based on my understanding of the geological record and the fact that despite a very signifant rise in atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide there has been very little warming globally (except at the Arctic), fewer cyclones were I come from, and the rainfall record for Australia doesn’t show long term decline (though the media suggests it does).
“Mcleans work is very valuable addition to the understanding of how the IPCC works, or doesnt work, and uses their own data under FOI to reveal that what they say is not what they are doing.”
Why does Morano have to gild the lilley, but claiming he is a scientist when he isn’t?
SJT
Shifting the goal posts? Consensus? In science? That a growing number of scientists are voicing their opinions that AGW is Bulldust isn’t consensus since consensus is simply a political end determined by wheeling and dealing, including debate and discussion.
When I and other practioners of the scientific method point out that some enterprise is based on fallacious reasoning, that is not a consensus but a common recognition of falsity. None of us actually had prior discussions about the object of our criticism among us, but independently we all recognises nonesense. That you think this is consense damns your position further as an SL, (Scientific Luddite).
Who cares why Marc Marano gilds the lily.Who cares whether Mclean is a rated scientist, or not.
The important issue is whether Mcleans work,for example, is of value, and the answer is a resounding yes.
Isn’t it about time that some of you people grew up.
SJT
You will, of course, supply evidence for your assertion that Marc Marono claims to be a scientist; or is this interpretation better explained by an apparent confusion of the facts on your part?
Who knows? At least here we seem to have the impression that you don’t.
Morano is claiming Mclean is a PhD.
Malcolm, that wasn’t Morano’s claim. He is claiming McLean is a PhD scientist, and quite specifically he claims.
“U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007 ”
Can someone explain to me is his claim correct or not?
Now that list has grown, but it has grown an economist???????????
Skeptics vs alarmists? For me the question between battling consensusses (consensei?) boils down to –
Which one is more likely to insist you chuck your newborn into an active volcano?
See!
No contest.
Someday when (if) C3PO ever grows a spine, he will argue on the merits of the science.
Of course that day will be the end of the argument, because AGW has no scientific merit.
If this link doesn’t take you directly to picture # 2 click on over to the fellows standing just inside the rim of the volcanic Mount Bromo. They hold up baskets with which they hope to catch money, vegetables, and livestock, that the ignorant toss over in an attempt to “appease” the volcano.
What a perfect illustration of the IPCC.
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/2008-01/volcano-culture/john-stanmeyer-photography.html
How did the IPCC come up with cost benefit analysis projections without economists?
“List of Climate Change Skeptics Continues to Grow”
Well apparently not this lady!
http://timblair.net/ee/images/uploads/snowbat.jpg
I thought that we had passed the “tipping point,” which would switch our approach to adapting from stopping AGW. Scientists need to keep up the debate long enough so that politicians and alarmists will continue to be proven wrong by time.
Errol:
“It is quite telling that we need to be subject to these tedious lists of non-practitioners but their science arguments, if they ever had any, seem to be missing or bordering on the bizarre.”
Your analysis of the aforesaid arguments would be appreciated.
“Someday when (if) C3PO ever grows a spine, he will argue on the merits of the science.
Of course that day will be the end of the argument, because AGW has no scientific merit.”
That’s another attempt at a diversion from what is a failed and tacky attempt at propaganda. There is no list of more than 400 prominent scientists.
Nor is there a “consensus” of 2500 IPCC scientists.
That’s another topic, MDM, but thanks for conceding my point.
Just looking at the extent of Arctic ice cover for this month (courtesy Bremen University), which is apparently a December record. Compare it with the April, (end of winter map).
Don’t see any press reports on this! The Polar Bears can’t be drowning here! Maybe they are being hit and killed by ships sailing through the NW passage!
http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/Arctic.html
And I love my carbon dioxide car sticker, which can be ordered from this site. It really gingers up the “Global Warmers”.
Thanks for the link Sid!
Amazing! if not for the internet we would never know!
” a more rapid growth than previously in the record.”
Gotta them credit of their gumption. It’s a record because it there was so much lost in summer. ROFLMAO.
SJT sounds like Luke … could it be … no, surely not … and what about Mohammed Afridi?
And you still sound like a lazy, tired cynic, Davey.
SJT,
Lazy – guilty
Tired – guilty
Cynic – not guilty. I’m a sceptic about ‘consensus science’. I will continue to question it, and explore alternative possibilities, including the contribution of volcanoes, especially under the ocean, on water temperatures, and hence pressure systems, and hence climate.
Knowing your hasty nature, I must point out that I am sure volcanoes are not the only influence on climate. Fossil fuel burning may well contribute. The sun’s cycles too.
Have you read ‘Sophie’s World’, by Jostein Gaarder? It’s a good start.
“Following our breakdown of the expertise comprising the IPCC’s WGII, we’ve now done the same for WGIII, “Mitigation of Climate Change”.
“First, the numbers: Of 270 contributors, 66 were from the USA and UK. We haven’t been able to establish the expertise and discipline of 12 of those – yet. 14 contributors had expertise in physics, chemistry or engineering. 4 from other engineering disciplines. 2 were bio/geochemists. 5 were from forestry ecology, or soil science. 2 had expertise in law. There were 7 social scientists, and a whopping 20 economists.
“There were no obvious instances of administrative assistants or web designers being included on the list, unlike WGII. However, the 12 contributors we couldn’t locate don’t appear to possess a great deal of the academic credibility Andrew Dessler demands, and work for business or the US EPA – no surprises there. There appear to be fewer PhD candidates, and among the contributors who did not work in the private sector, most had academic positions. The best in the world though? It didn’t seem likely.
“The presence of 27 economists/social scientists again gives the lie to the claim that the IPCC is an institution made up entirely of climate scientists. WGIII explains their function as follows:
http://www.climate-resistance.org/2007/12/wgiii-but-is-it-science.html
Green Davey:
If you are a skeptic (in the classical sense):
a) If you are thinking about the underwater volcanoes North of Greenland, you may want to read:
http://www.earthscape.org/r1/hea01/hea01b.html
This explains how hard it is to detect the temperature effects.
b) If you don’t know about the Suess Effect, it’s useful:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suess_effect
The changing ratios of carbon isotopes, 12C and 13C, make it clear that the measured rise in CO2 comes from human activities.
c) Human activities release more than 100X CO2 compared to volcanoes:
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/volgas.html
[Well, they say 130X, but 100X is a nice round number, although since human CO2 is going up, whereas volcanoes seem to be fairly random, the ratio is probably going up.]
d) It’s also well worth reading another Oz website:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
It lists various rguments, with links to a page each, including scientific references. These may be worth examining:
1 [sun], 45 [solarcycle], 46 [hotsun], 39 [volcano].
Richard Tol is not amused.
Oh yeah, we’re up to three TV gardeners and ~45 TV weather readers.
Eli,
Where is the evidence for your claim of three TV gardeners? What are the 95% confidence intervals? Have you published this in a refereed journal? Are you a qualified horticulturalist? Hah!
A very cynical response, Davey.
John Mashey,
Thanks for a considered response. I will work through your references with interest. Have a good, peaceful, and productive New Year.
Jennifer, yes you are right the Arctic is warming more than the antartctic. The arctic is of course mostly surrounded by land, the antarctic is not. I suspect that this may be an effect due to the increased transpiration of the circumpolar forests due to increased CO2 and the incursion of these forests into the area previously inhabited by Tundra. I do not have the data to quantify this but I suspect that it is significant.
The possible presence of feedback loops like this concern me.
Dale.