The man-made global warming fear machine continues to collapse scientifically with new blockbuster peer-reviewed studies.
Climate Fears Debunked! – Arctic Warming Naturally Caused – Russian scientist urges ‘stock up on fur coats’ to face upcoming global cooling
January 3, 2008 – Round Up
1) Another new peer-reviewed study debunks man-made climate claims: see: Study finds natural causes for recent Arctic warming
Excerpt: A new study’s found a natural cause may account for much of the recent dramatic thawing of the Arctic region in addition to man-made global warming. New research published in the journal Nature indicates a natural and cyclical increase in the amount of energy in the atmosphere that moves from south to north around the Arctic Circle .
http://www.livenews.com.au/Articles/2008/01/03/Study_finds_natural_causes_for_recent_Arctic_warming
Note: This studies follows two other peer-reviewed studies on the Arctic in 2007: 1) A NASA study published in the peer-reviewed journal Geophysical Research Letters on October 4, 2007, found “unusual winds” in the Arctic blew “older thicker” ice to warmer southern waters. (LINK) & 2) A November 2007 peer-reviewed study conducted by a team of NASA and university experts found cyclical changes in ocean currents impacting the Arctic . (LINK) – 3) Also for a detailed fact sheet debunking Greenland (cooled since 1940’s), Antarctica (ice growing to record levels in 2007) and the North Pole’s ice conditions, please see: (LINK)
2) Russian scientist urges ‘stock up on fur coats’ to face upcoming global cooling
(By Dr. Oleg Sorokhtin, (also translated to spell Sorochtin) Merited Scientist of Russia and fellow of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, is staff researcher of the Oceanology Institute. – Also featured in new U.S. Senate Report on over 400 scientists who dispute man-made global warming claims. See: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb
Link to Full Article by Sorochtin below:
Excerpt: Stock up on fur coats and felt boots! This is my paradoxical advice to the warm world. Earth is now at the peak of one of its passing warm spells. It started in the 17th century when there was no industrial influence on the climate to speak of and no such thing as the hothouse effect. The current warming is evidently a natural process and utterly independent of hothouse gases. The real reasons for climate changes are uneven solar radiation, terrestrial precession (that is, axis gyration), instability of oceanic currents, regular salinity fluctuations of the Arctic Ocean surface waters, etc. There is another, principal reason—solar activity and luminosity. The greater they are the warmer is our climate.
Astrophysics knows two solar activity cycles, of 11 and 200 years. Both are caused by changes in the radius and area of the irradiating solar surface. The latest data, obtained by Habibullah Abdusamatov, head of the Pulkovo Observatory space research laboratory, say that Earth has passed the peak of its warmer period, and a fairly cold spell will set in quite soon, by 2012. Real cold will come when solar activity reaches its minimum, by 2041, and will last for 50-60 years or even longer. This is my point, which environmentalists hotly dispute as they cling to the hothouse theory. As we know, hothouse gases, in particular, nitrogen peroxide, warm up the atmosphere by keeping heat close to the ground. Advanced in the late 19th century by Svante A. Arrhenius, a Swedish physical chemist and Nobel Prize winner, this theory is taken for granted to this day and has not undergone any serious check.
A cold spell soon to replace global warming:
http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20080103/94768732.html
Dr. Oleg Sorokhtin, Merited Scientist of Russia and fellow of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, is staff researcher of the Oceanology Institute.
The opinions expressed in this article are the author’s and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Jennifer, While I am a skeptic, I was surprised to see / hear reports from the BOM yesterday saying 2007 was the warmest ever year for NSW (note the qualification) and also TV news reporting that 2007 was the 6th highest temperature ever, stressing the need for urgent action on climate change…
Any comments?
We’re freezing our tails off in the U.S. right now. If that global warming thing doesn’t work out for Al Gore, he can take up the global cooling cause and sell back that carbon he’s been trading.
Hey, Morano, hows that ‘400’ list going. You can drop Louis off the list, he doesn’t even understand basic physics.
“A new study’s found a natural cause may account for much of the recent dramatic thawing of the Arctic region in addition to man-made global warming. New research published in the journal Nature indicates a natural and cyclical increase in the amount of energy in the atmosphere that moves from south to north around the Arctic Circle.”
Yes, Jen, but the Livenews article you cited goes on:
“But scientists say that energy transfer, which comes with storms that head north because of ocean currents isn’t acting alone.
“Another upcoming study concludes that the combination of that natural energy transfer increase and man-made global warming serves as a one-two punch that’s pushing the Arctic over the edge with melting sea ice, ice sheets and glaciers.
“Scientists are trying to figure out why the Arctic is warming and melting faster than computer models predict.”
The issue here is that Arctic ice is thawing faster that scientists expect, even given acceptance of anthropogenic global warming and they are trying to find out why.
JP, I’ve just posted, as a new thread, the Annual Bureau of Meteorology Climate Summary for 2007 for Australia: http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/002659.html . This is what yesterday’s news reports will be quoting.
What the heck is Oleg talking about nitrogen peroxide for?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrogen_peroxide
Could that be a screwup in the language translator?
Ok, please tell me somebody, WHY would the global warming activists be lying? What DO they have to gain? That is an answer that is far more difficult to explain than WHY pro-biz and polluter interests want to discredit global warming claims — because the latter group stands to lose billions! Also, I’d like to see how many of those so-called scientists on the “400 list” are on the payroll of big chem, auto, oil and other major polluter trade groups and front groups!
James – “Could that be a screwup in the language translator?”
No after reading the entire article it is obvious that the author has no idea of how the atmosphere works or anything to do with the Enhanced Greenhouse Effect.
The fact that this appeared where it did seems to indicate that the people reading also did not have the knowledge to see what crap it is.
BTW I did not even need a link to RC – so I guess this post will go through OK
Rubbish article. Since when did ‘much of’ equal 25%. What he said was “We are not saying this is the only explanation,” says Graversen, “this could explain maybe 25% of the amplification of warming in the Arctic.” And it was only a regression, would you believe?
Paul – “A NASA study published in the peer-reviewed journal Geophysical Research Letters on October 4, 2007, found “unusual winds” in the Arctic blew “older thicker” ice to warmer southern waters.”
Unusual winds – what a coincidence. I wonder what caused these unusual winds????
Also:
“”In 2007, we had off-the-charts warming” of the Arctic Sea in the summer, said Mike Steele, an oceanographer with the Polar Science Center at the University of Washington.
Specifically, he said the Arctic Sea surface temperature was 3.5 degrees Celsius (6.3 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than the 100-year historical average and 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than the historical maximum. Two factors were at play in the heating: the sun and, to a lesser degree, warmer ocean currents, he said. In one area north of Russia, temperatures were 5 degrees Celsius (9 degrees Fahrenheit) above average. ”
http://www.news.com/8301-13580_3-9833022-39.html
Hmmm unusual wind and a pulse of warm water from the Pacific, also unusual. Perhaps something is happening to the climate???????
BTW A quote from the Polar Science Centre would be authoritative would it not? They may not employ mining engineers to do their climate science however their scientific work is by definition authoritative when regarding the Polar Climate.
Why would global warming activists lie? Because poitical, idealogical, religous or moral zealots allways lie – or at least luridly exaggerate whatever evidence they do have to suport “the cause”.
It’s also pretty naive to imagine that “big business” or “polluter interests” stand to lose billions. Many businesses are beneficiaries of AGW related subsidies. Even carbon emitting businesses will just pass the cost of carbon taxes on to consumers anyway.
How many of these 400 scientists work for Exxon – only a few.
“How many of these 400 scientists work for Exxon – only a few.”
Not only that but if you think about it, the so called “BIG oil” owns less than 10% (in reality probably ~ 4.5%) of the total world oil production.
The rest is state owned.
But even if this wasn’t so, do people think that just because you work for someone your research or your opinion is automatically invalid?
Besides, the greenies have an even bigger barrow to push, so why should we take what they say as gospel?
400 what? It’s not scientists. Try again.
The Arctic is yet another indication of the complexity of the climate system that we are a long way short of understanding and it can’t be controlled by attempting to manipulate atmospheric CO2.
Editor’s Summary
3 January 2008
Warming with altitude
Some of the most pronounced signs of climate change have been seen in the Arctic, for example, near-surface warming there has been almost twice the global average over the past few decades. The underlying causes of this ‘Arctic amplification’ remain uncertain, but examination of a temperature data set based on modelling and observations in the region during this period provides some clues. The key finding is evidence for atmospheric temperature amplification well above the surface. This is unlikely to be a due to reduced snow and ice cover during the greater part of the year, suggesting that factors such as changes in atmospheric heat transport may be involved in the recent Arctic warming.
Letter
: Vertical structure of recent Arctic warming
Rune G. Graversen, Thorsten Mauritsen, Michael Tjernström, Erland Källén & Gunilla Svensson
doi:10.1038/nature06502
There seems to be a lot ice in the Arctic. Can’t really see the northwest passage!? this is as of today.
http://iup.physik.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsr/amsre.html
SJT,
since you don’t seem understand physics at all, that is quite a remarkable statement you made above. Know anything about the laws of libel?
400? not scientists?
From what I have read about the short bio’s of the mebers of that list all seem to be qualified scientists. So we conclude that the warmeners here are, as Nigel Lawson said in the Swindle DVD, or at least paraphrasing him, that they are simply lieing to us.
SJT has not read the list because if he/she had, he/she would realise I am not on it. So that makes his/her comment above not something one would expect from someone in full command of all the facts.
Louis – “since you don’t seem understand physics at all, that is quite a remarkable statement you made above. Know anything about the laws of libel?”
Thats pretty rich coming from someone who subscribes to so many wacky psuedo-scientific ideas. Reduced to threatening law suits again are you Louis? If you can’t beat them get your lawyers to shut them up.
How is the abiotic thing going BTW? I see you have not replied to my latest trashing of one of your pet ideas. Still having trouble coming up with a refilling well?
Louis – “SJT has not read the list because if he/she had, he/she would realise I am not on it. So that makes his/her comment above not something one would expect from someone in full command of all the facts.”
Is this you or the evil robot Louis that is impersonating you????????
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport
“Planetology, School of Ocean Earth Sciences and Technology, University of Hawai’i at Manoa; Albrecht Glatzle, PhD, sc.agr., Agro-Biologist and Gerente ejecutivo, INTTAS, Paraguay; Fred Goldberg, PhD, Adj Professor, Royal Institute of Technology, Mechanical Engineering, Stockholm, Sweden;
Louis Hissink M.Sc. M.A.I.G., Editor AIG News and Consulting Geologist, Perth, Western Australia;
Andrei Illarionov, PhD, Senior Fellow, Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity, U.S.; founder and director of the Institute of Economic Analysis, Russia; Jon Jenkins, PhD, MD, computer modelling – virology, Sydney, NSW, Australia; ”
Why Ender,
Thank you, I hadn’t realised I was so notorious. I have erred! I am on the list, not only as one of the 100 but now one of the 400!
Mind you, you have shot yourself in the foot as I have never initiated a law suit (Your post previous to the one above), so I can only assume that the hysterical ranting from you and SJT here means than you (collectively) consider me as a serious threat to your dogma.
Still waiting for the empirical (read experimental) support for your Oil theory, by the way.
Given the denseness here, I opted to sign the list of 100, but I had no idea I was included on the list of 400, and would not until Ender corrected me.
Nonetheless, it’s an honour.
And keep an eye on Henry Thornton folks, because the editor there has asked I amplify some points. Pure science of course, physics included, which should amuse SJT who thinks I don’t have any credibility in that area.
Physics that is.
More wiggles!
http://motls.blogspot.com/2008/01/2007-warmest-year-on-record-coldest-in.html
Louis – “Thank you, I hadn’t realised I was so notorious. I have erred! I am on the list, not only as one of the 100 but now one of the 400!”
Thats alright Louis always a pleasure. Now this question rears it’s ugly head. If Louis really did not know that he was not on the list then how many of the others also do not know they are on the list?? OR were all the people on the list informed that they were there and Louis is just fibbing when he said he did not know.
Either way it is pretty bad. So what is it Louis? Were some the 400 put there without their knowledge or were you telling a bit of a fib????? I am sure we really need an answer here as most people don’t like fibbers that are caught out.
“Still waiting for the empirical (read experimental) support for your Oil theory, by the way.”
Do I really have to? I am still waiting for the oil wells that replenish, Oil without biomarkers and where oil has been found where abiotic oil theory predicted it would be. So far your petroleum geologist peers have found a couple of trillion barrels of oil where the biotic theory would predict it would be. So the current score is:
Biotic theory of oil formation ~2 trillion barrels
Abiotic theory of oil formation 0 barrels
Not convincing to a person of your beliefs however to anyone else, including your peers, it would be pretty conclusive.
NASA is also starting to get worried about cooling, not warming!
http://www.spaceandscience.net/id16.html
Ender
one of the more interesting aspect of this list is that more than a one has not realised he has gang pressed by Morano. Apparently there is more than one version of the list out there, and Pielke does not like to be associated with the likes of Morano.
“NASA is also starting to get worried about cooling, not warming!”
http://www.spaceandscience.net/id16.html
Before I get my head taken off, this is NOT a NASA announcement. However, it is one that should be taken under serious consideration.
“Today, the Space and Science Research Center, (SSRC) in Orlando, Florida announces that it has confirmed the recent web announcement of NASA solar physicists that there are substantial changes occurring in the sun’s surface. The SSRC has further researched these changes and has concluded they will bring about the next climate change to one of a long lasting cold era.”
space and science research centre? My kids already called themselves that when they were playing TMNT.
Mark,
Be careful about the SSRC. Smells like another hoax to me unless you can confirm the credentials of the principal.
SJT – “Apparently there is more than one version of the list out there, and Pielke does not like to be associated with the likes of Morano.”
I don’t blame him. I am still waiting for Louis’ answer – should be good.
SSRC: you have to be kidding me: http://spaceandscience.net/ looks impressive! until you realize that:
John L. Casey looks like a one-man-band apparently pushing consulting services based on some climate theory he has.
His address is 4700 Millenia Blvd #175 Orlando FL, and if you Google that, you will discover an amazing number of companies that seem to be located in that office suite.
That’s because the suite in this this impressive building isn’t even Casey’s own office, but is occupied by: http://www.intelligentoffice.com/list.html:
“Intelligent Office locates your business in one of the best buildings in town. You’ll have a prestigious business address for your mail, your stationery and your advertising, as well as an impressive place to meet your clients. Your address with us will have your company’s name, not ours, and if you work from home, this is a great way to protect your privacy.”
There is nothing obvious in Casey’s background to establish any particular expertise in climate science, no obvious presence in Google Scholar, and nothing before a recent press release. The info sounds like yet another “I’ve discovered cycles” thing, which happens all the time.
What the heck is Oleg talking about nitrogen peroxide for?
My bad. It turns out that nitrus oxide is a strong ghg comparable to methane. We don’t have that stuff here much since they instituted smog controls. It could still be a problem in Russia.
Sorry for doubting you Dr. O
“John L. Casey looks like a one-man-band apparently pushing consulting services based on some climate theory he has”
SO does that mean there isn’t a 200 year lag between deep solar minima as recorded by the European Aurora record and cross check with Egyption Nile flood records?
NASA says there is.
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/features.cfm?feature=1319
Thanks, James. Now that the hounds have done their little bit of defamatory vaudeville on Casey, perhaps the boys would like to discuss the facts and issues raised.
But failing that, it seems that the SSRC might be guilty of doing the same thing that numerous environmental groups do when they rent office space from organisations like The Total Environment Centre. But of course, there are two standards employed here. If it is a green group renting the space then it is all Kosher but if it is not then all sorts of sinister imputations can be made. Back under that rock boys, the slime mould is getting lonely.
Louis – Still waiting ……..
1) John L. Casey & SSRC
a) Is EITHER another “Carbon dioxide production by benthic bacteria..” scam, albeit on a much smaller scale (and if it is, I apologize in advance if that helps ruin somebody’s joke.)
b) OR an effort to create publicity for a new consulting business (the website is
2) I assumed readers of this blog were informed enough regarding sunspot cycles, solar irradiance, and resulting forcings to dismiss this, but if not: Casey’s “press release” isn’t even up to Rob Ferguson’s standards. Casey “confirms” 18-month-old research from NASA, and has comments that certainly sound like Casey being interviewed by his own sock puppets.
3) The NASA item referenced by Casey is about cycle 25; the one mentioned by James Mayeau is about a different 200-year cycle [which is usually called the de Vries or Suess Cycle, although Casey talks like he found it himself]. In neither case was NASA telling people to expect another Maunder Minimum within the next decade or two. [Personally, I’d be delighted if the Sun cooled back like that, but it wouldn’t help very much, given the numbers below.]
4) This is another instance of standard arguments from that fine Aussie website:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
1 sun
16 newice
41 solarcycle
or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation (see first chart especially; as usual, Wikipedia isn’t an authoritative reference, just a good start).
People are always finding cycles in time-series data … and some of those cycles are actually real.
But, even if we go back to a Maunder (please, please!), it doesn’t help much: see the last 2 paragraphs above. GHG’s: + 1.66 W/m^2 versus ~.2 W/m^2 for difference between Maunder and now. To get teh effect Casey describes, he eitehr has to have some amazing new physics (good! publish in Science or Nature) or he needs to have sunspot counts below zero. 🙂
Ender
You mean that Vietnam and the USSR do not produce any oil? Those production centres are dominated by abiotic oil sources.
But stop changing the topic and provide the experimental data proving hydrocarbons such as Saudi crude, can be spontaenously generated from biomass at depths and pressures typical at the base of sedimentary basins.
Until you do no further comment is needed from me on the matter.
Louis – “You mean that Vietnam and the USSR do not produce any oil? Those production centres are dominated by abiotic oil sources.”
So provide the evidence. That oil has no biomarkers??
“But stop changing the topic and provide the experimental data proving hydrocarbons such as Saudi crude”
I have provided the data. Is 2 trillion barrels of oil not enough? Science cannot recreate the entire oil making process and probably never will however that does not invalidate biotic oil. BTW have you provided experimental evidence for oil produce abiotically from carbon and hydrogen? Perhaps you should post this evidence or shut up about abiotic oil.
Finally you have not indicate whether you knew you were on the list. This is important as I would not like to think that you deliberately lied about it. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you did not lie therefore you really did not know that you were on the list.
So given that you did not know how many of the others did not know as well????
Using the doubt wedge tactics of the deniers this then means that the whole 400 list is in doubt and all 400 people need to be contacted to ensure that they know that they are on the list and that they really do not think AGW is happening or will be a problem.
Until this is done the 400 list is obviously just a load of crap.
“Into the valley of abject humiliation rode the 400.”
To all appearances Morano didn’t ask anybody’s permission before he put them on that list. Aside from all the non-scientists on it (e.g., 50 or so TV/internet forecast meteorologists), there are a fair number who amusingly enough qualified because they criticized the IPCC or Kyoto for being too weak. That Morano and the wingnut network dedicated to tearing down the last 500 years of scientific progress (Hi Jennifer!) are reduced to such a tactic says about all one needs to know about them.
BTW, Inhofe’s term is up next year and even if he chooses not to retire (a growing trend among Repug incumbents) there appears to be a chance of a credible challenger. In an ordinary year it would be too much to expect that even the most troglodytic of GOP incumbents could be knocked out of an OK U.S. Senate seat, but so far this is not looking like an ordinary year. Probably it would be too much to hope for permanent unemployment for Morano.
Ender
I have – many times – but I can’t change dogmatic thinking.
Incidentally I don’t believe in abiotic oil, I compelled to accept it from the experimental evidence.
As for Morano, his committee simply compiled a list of publicly known critics of anthropogenic global warming. Blooming hell, how further dumb can you lot become.
The IPCC is neither, as is frequently claimed, 2500 of the worlds best climate scientists, nor indeed climate scientists at all. This is precisely the misconception we have been challenging, following claims made by the likes of Andrew Dessler about the Inhofe 400 list. The composition of the IPCC, it turns out, is not so different. Tony Gilland points out in his review of Bjørn Lomborg’s ‘Cool It’, the IPCC expertise is spread across many chapters, with the result that most of the scientists involved will have read only a minimal proportion of any report. That’s to say, a reviewer or contributing author to WGI on glacial recession has not made any statement about his or her agreement in WGIII on what is the best way to approach the problem of climate change from a policy or economic perspective – or even on chapters of WGI to which he or she did not contribute. So the idea that the IPCC represents a scientific consensus on climate change and what to do about it is a complete misconception of the functioning of the IPCC. At best, each chapter from each working group represents the work of just tens of authors, across a range of disciplines and levels of expertise. Yet activists, politicians, and journalists will claim that de facto policy recommendations from WGIII have the support of the consensus of 2500 climate scientists.
People in Greenhouses Throwing Stones
http://www.climate-resistance.org/2008/01/people-in-greenhouses-throwing-stones.html
We promised to provide a breakdown of the IPCC’s WGI as we did for WGII and III. So here goes:
As before, we’ve limited ourselves to those contributors based in the US or USA . That gives us 303 authors to work with out of a total of 618. That’s nearly half the total – strange, for an institution which claims to represent scientists from all over the world.
It was very difficult to establish the discipline, background and level of expertise of scientists who work at the UK ‘s Hadley Centre and Meteorological Office, and NOAA and NASA in the USA , as they tend not to have personal web pages. 31 of the UK contributors work at the Hadley Centre, 43 of the US contributors work at the NOAA. Where we have been unable to locate these people properly (nearly always), we’ve given them the benefit of the doubt, and included them in the same category as scientists in climatology, meteorology, and oceanography. There were 215 scientists in this category. So there is certainly a higher proportion of people who could reasonably be called climate scientists in WGI compared with II and III. But it’s worth pointing out that this figure is also boosted by a whole bunch of people who work in climatology but who are modellers by training. That’s not to knock modelling – well, maybe a bit – but it does raise questions about what a climate scientist actually is, when you get to call yourself one even if you’ve spent most of your career modelling traffic flows or whatever. We’ll try to come up with some numbers for that at some point.
As for the other 88, 24 are atmospheric physicists, 27 are geophysicists or geologists. Arguably, these could also be lumped in with the so-called climate scientists. Ach, what the hell, let’s call it 266 climate scientists out of 303. Of the rest, we have four statisticians, eight mathematicians/physicists, eight engineers, two biologists/ecologists, and one each from history of science, computer science, and a lonely economist. There were also solos from an NGO, an agronomist, and a lawyer (who curiously seemed to double up as an oceanographer). Which leaves another eight whose expertise we can’t establish.
So, across WGI, II and III, we have a very generous 314 contributors among the 510 we sampled who can reasonably be described as scientific experts. Which scales up to 1539 out of the putative 2500. Some of our critics have argued that it was dishonest to look at WGII and III, and that the climate scientists are all in WGI. Of course WGII/III are not all climate scientists. This criticism misses the point that the IPCC is neither, as is frequently claimed, 2500 of the worlds best climate scientists, nor indeed climate scientists at all. This is precisely the misconception we have been challenging, following claims made by the likes of Andrew Dessler about the Inhofe 400 list. The composition of the IPCC, it turns out, is not so different.
Tony Gilland points out in his review of Bjørn Lomborg’s ‘Cool It’, the IPCC expertise is spread across many chapters, with the result that most of the scientists involved will have read only a minimal proportion of any report. That’s to say, a reviewer or contributing author to WGI on glacial recession has not made any statement about his or her agreement in WGIII on what is the best way to approach the problem of climate change from a policy or economic perspective – or even on chapters of WGI to which he or she did not contribute. So the idea that the IPCC represents a scientific consensus on climate change and what to do about it is a complete misconception of the functioning of the IPCC. At best, each chapter from each working group represents the work of just tens of authors, across a range of disciplines and levels of expertise. Yet activists, politicians, and journalists will claim that de facto policy recommendations from WGIII have the support of the consensus of 2500 climate scientists.
That ‘the consensus’ does not represent agreement among 2500 scientists might not be news to some people. But others are quite oblivious. We flagged up a few examples in our last post; here’s some more (courtesy of a commenter).
And here’s Robert F. Kennedy doing the same (thanks to another commenter)…
RFK: The science on global warming is settled. Twenty-five-hundred scientists in the IPPC [sic] report – the top meteorologists and climate scientists from around the world have announced the consensus that global warming exists, that we are causing it and that its impacts are going to be catastrophic. You don’t need that science though, all you need to do is walk outside. I just came back from the Ar’tic [sic]. The Ar’tic [sic] is melting. It is catastrophic. The Good news is that everything that we need to do to solve global warming are things which we ought to be doing anyway for the sake of America’s prosperity, for our national security…
The evidence of the IPCC needs to be treated for what it is – not as the last word on the science of climate change, but as a contribution to a political process. A political process that, despite the best efforts of the global warming fraternity (including the IPCC) to nip it in the bud with their claims that ‘the science is in’, has barely even started.
Anyway, where did the whole ‘2500 climate scientists of the IPCC’ figure come from in the first place? If this flyer from the IPCC itself is anything to go by, it refers to the expert reviewers.
So having taken a look at the authors, we’ll have a go at the reviewers next. The IPCC certainly seem pretty proud of them. One wonders how many of those ‘scientific expert reviewers’ will turn out to be social scientists and economists that Andrew Dessler et al make such a fuss about when they turn up in the Inhofe 400, not to mention, Heaven forfend, web officers, administrative assistants and activists . Intriguingly, many warmers have no time for the reviewers. Stoat, Desmogblog and Tim Lambert claim that anybody can be an expert reviewer, which is a handy argument when you want to cast doubt on the credentials of any pesky ‘denialist’ who happens to be one, but kind of backfires when you’re trying to defend ‘the consensus’.
Agreed,
Dear Jennifer,
Much has happened since the January press release you posted.
The following climate change declaration was issued during a news conference on July 1, 2008:
Summary Declaration of the Start
of the Next Global Climate Change
After an exhaustive review of a substantial body of climate research, and in conjunction with the obvious and compelling new evidence that exists, it is time that the world community acknowledges that the Earth has begun its next climate change. In an opinion echoed by many scientists around the world, the Space and Science Research Center (SSRC), today declares that the world’s climate warming of past decades has now come to an end. A new climate era has already started that is bringing predominantly colder global temperatures for many years into the future. In some years this new climate will create dangerously cold weather with significant ill-effects world wide. Global warming is over – a new cold climate has begun.
Space and Science Research Center
Orlando, Florida, USA
July 1, 2008
You and your readers are cordially invited to read the associated press release from the news conference by going to the web site for the Space and Science Research Center at http://www.spaceandscience.net. At the site are other releases and a significant amount of information on myself, other scientists who have joined with me and much more about the next climate change.
I need your help and your readers’ help in spreading the word so all our citizens can be better prepared for the future.
Best Regards,
John L. Casey
Director