What is worse than consensus science?
Andrew Bolt has done a great public service. In commenting on how the ABC is going to air 'The Great Global Warming Swindle', he has put together a good list of the many scientists who doubt that global warming is significantly caused by man.

Not surprisingly, the moonbat leftoids that frequent the payroll at the ABC are besides themselves with angst. It seems a shock to them that anyone would consider even showing both sides of the issue.

You would think that the moonbats, after reading Andrew's article, would admit that the thousands of climate scientists who doubt man-made global warming mean there was no consensus and the question was not settled scientifically. But no! Instead, the 'reality based' community pretend that because many scientific organisations support the hypothesis of man-made global warming, there was a consensus and the question settled.

Here is the rub. When the man-made global warming alarmists get three times as many signatures from climate scientists than Andrew has listed, perhaps then we can think the debate is over. Until then, claiming the debate is over just shows them to be dishonest and gives us even more reason to doubt their claims.

The list Andrew has compiled is below for those who are interested....

1. Scientists who doubt there’s a scientific “consensus” that we face dangerous man-made global warming.

Prof John Christy, IPCC lead author and head of Alabama’s Earth System Science Centre: “I’ve often heard it said that there is a consensus of thousands of scientists (who say) humans are causing a catastrophic change to the climate system. Well, I am one scientist, and there are many, that simply think that is not true.”

Prof Charles Wax, Mississippi state climatologist: “There isn’t a consensus among scientists.”

Dr Roy Spencer, formerly NASA’s senior climate scientist: “The only consensus I’m aware of is that it’s warmed in the last century.”

Prof emeritus Joel Kauffman, University of the Sciences in Philadelphia: “(M)any professors of climate science realise that carbon dioxide generated by human activity has caused little or no global warming.”

2. IPCC scientists who doubt even the IPCC, said to represent 2500 scientists who all believe in dangerous man-made warming.

Prof Yuri Izrael, IPCC vice-chairman: “There is no serious threat to the climate.”

Richard Lindzen, former IPCC lead author and meteorology professor at MIT: “There is no substantive basis for predictions of sizeable global warming due to observed increases in minor greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane, and chlorofluorocarbons.”

Dr Vincent Gray, IPCC reviewer: “The continued fairly unchanging warm weather since 1998 shows no signs of increasing, and is probably influenced by changes in the sun.”

Dr Christopher Landsea, former IPCC author and hurricane expert: “It is beyond me why my (IPCC) colleagues would utilise the media to push an unsupported agenda that recent hurricane activity has been due to global warming . . . I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound.”

3. Petitions of scientists who doubt the faith.

A 2006 letter to Canada’s Prime Minister signed by 60 experts in climate-related fields: “ ‘Climate change is real’ is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified.”

The Oregon Petition of Dr Frederick Seitz, US National Academy of Sciences past president, with the verified signatures of 17,800 scientists and technicians, including 2600 climate scientists: “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere.”

The 2005 Leipzig Petition of Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental science at Virginia University, and signed by about 80 prominent scientists and academics: “(W)e cannot subscribe to the politically inspired world view that envisages climate catastrophes and calls for hasty actions.”

4. Experts who once believed but now doubt.

Prof Nir Shaviv, Hebrew University astrophysicist: “Solar activity can explain a large part of the 20th-century global warming.”

Dr David Bellamy, famed green activist: “Global warming is largely a natural phenomenon.”

Dr Reid Bryson, top climatologist and founding chairman of Wisconsin University’s meteorology department: Temperatures are rising “because we’re coming out of the little ice age, not because we’re putting more carbon dioxide into the air”.

Prof Tim Patterson, Carleton University paleo-climatologist: “The temperatures match very closely with the solar cycles.”

Prof Emeritus Jan Veizer, Ottawa University environmental geochemist: “The past record strongly favours the solar/cosmic alternative (to human gases) as the principal climate driver.”

5. Local doubters.

Bob Carter, research professor at James Cook University: “That 20th century warming - the most recent of many previous warm phases of similar or greater magnitude - was dangerous or human-caused, or even that the warming has continued after 1998, all yet remain to be demonstrated.”

William Kininmonth, former National Climate Centre head: “(A)larmist predictions have no sound basis.”

Dr David Evans, former plant modeller and climate accountant at the Australian Greenhouse Office: “(N)ew evidence has weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause. I am now sceptical.”

Ian Plimer, professor of mining geology at Adelaide University: Blaming humans is “pseudo-science”.

6. Interesting doubters.
Prof Antonio Zichichi, World Federation of Scientists president: Plausible “man is not to blame”.

Prof Edward Wegman, who led an inquiry for a US Congressional committee to check IPCC statistics: “The assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade in a millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year in a millennium cannot be supported.”

The late Roger Revelle, the professor Al Gore says first warned him of warming: The science is “too uncertain to justify drastic action”.

Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of Russia’s Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory: “Solar irradiance began to drop in the 1990s, and a minimum will be reached by approximately 2040. It will cause a steep cooling of the climate on earth in 15 to 20 years.”

There’s dozens more, but I’ve run out of space. Now count: How many has the ABC let speak? Why so few?

Labels: global warming

- posted by Alan Grey @ Saturday, May 26, 2007 0 comments

 
Global Warming Arguments
One of the major arguments between the global warming supporters and skeptics is about whether the temperature change of the earth is being mostly caused by human caused CO2 emissions or by Solar cycles. Much is made of the fact that the carbon dioxide levels come after the temperature increases, not before.

Curiously enough, in reading up on the recent attempt by global warming scientists to restrict free speech, I found this response by Carl Wunsch, who complains he was duped into being a part of the film. His response seems to be mostly a complaint that he was taken out of context, but there is a gem in there that is worth noting.

In the part of the "Swindle" film where I am describing the fact that the ocean tends to expel carbon dioxide where it is warm, and to absorb it where it is cold, my intent was to explain that warming the ocean could be dangerous---because it is such a gigantic reservoir of carbon.

So, when the Earth warms up, carbon dioxide is expelled from the oceans. This matches the data and explains why carbon dioxide atmospheric concentration increases after the temperature increases. This also matches the theory that solar cycles drive climate change, especially since Mars, jupiter and other planets are all experiencing similar temperature increases. Thanks for the insight Carl.

Also, a well-informed poster has left a rather long comment on my post about how the global warming on Mars seems to match quite well the pattern of global warming here on Earth. I'll assume the commentator is the author of this article, otherwise he has simply plagiarised, word for word apart from a few additions/replacements/deletions.

At first read, it may sound intimidating and authoritative, but once again, investigation shows things are not so clear cut. I don't want to go into a blow by blow with the commentators post (as that would be way too much effort and boring...and I am boring enough as it is).

Just remember that there is no scientific consensus on global warming, and anyone who says there is, is dishonest. The first reason not to trust them. The other thing to remember is to ask for the studies which predicted the observed results (for instance, predicting the ratio of carbon 13 to carbon 12). Often, the claims are just an ad hoc addition, not a prediction, which is a much weaker line of evidence. Additionally, remember that whilst observations are fairly solid, the hypothesis explaining why that observed phenomena happened is often up for debate (e.g. the commentator tries to claim that the ratio change of carbon 13/carbon 12 is due to human activity, but this claim is disputed in the scientific literature. Or if you are really mathy, you can try and use the numbers and work out the possible effect of human activity on the ratio and notice how ridiculously large the margin's of error become when you factor in the large unknowns of natural carbon exchange)

Finally, even accepting that the Carbon dioxide increases are man-made, there are other explanations for why the temperature is increasing, and so the extent or significance of the man-made impact is not easily known.

Bluster, claims of heresy, silencing the opposition. These aren't the tools of a strong scientific argument, they are the tools of an authoritarian religion.

Labels: global warming

- posted by Alan Grey @ Friday, April 27, 2007 0 comments

 
Global Warming Thought Police
Tim Blair reports on some scientists trying to block the DVD release of the BBC4 documentary 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' (GGWS), a film criticising many of the global warming priests claims and features many respected scientists opinions. Yes. There is a debate in the scientific community. Anyone who tells you differently is lying. As the Guardian article Tim links to shows, it is the free speech crushing scientists who are lying and misleading the public.

Myles Allen, a climate scientist at the University of Oxford who signed the letter, said the programme "took a very cavalier attitude to science. There are important issues around climate change that the public should be discussing, but all this programme did was rehash debates that were had and finished in the scientific community 15 years ago."

Not only dishonest, but stupid too. The very fact that climate scientists are involved in the GGWS necessarily means that the debate is not finished in the scientific community. Is this the sort of person you think we should trust with difficult concepts like climate prediction?

The free speech crushing scientists (but they 'support' open scientific enquiry and academic freedom...hmmm..just like democrats 'support' the troops - a pattern emerges) claim that the GGWS claims are 'distorted' and 'misleading'. Pot. Kettle. Black. Of course, you don't see them complaining that 'An Inconvenient Truth' has many distorted, misleading and exaggerated claims. Other scientists yes...these free speech, thought controlling scientists no.

In other propaganda news, notice the original article in the guardian refers to the documentary as a programme and a film, but never a documentary. Global warming is referred to as the 'consensus' (See previous comments on liars). Opponents of global warming are 'known climate skeptics'. How is one a 'climate skeptic' I wonder?

Guy: Wow...it's cold today.
Climate Skeptic: Actually, there is no climate at all, so we can't really say it's cold can we?
Guy: Can I borrow your jacket?

It is easy to see where the Guardian writers and free speech crushing scientists. They are obviously believers in the great gaia global warming religion of doom. Repent now. Avoid using toiler paper and believe!

Labels: global warming

- posted by Alan Grey @ Friday, April 27, 2007 0 comments

 
Shock! Global Warming Indulgences a Sham
Carbon Credits are all a sham. I'm Shocked! Shocked!

The Financial Times investigated it and found that it is pretty much all a bunch of frauds and cons....Yay for Al Gore helping the common man's exploitation by big business. Ah, the poetic irony.

The FT investigation found:

■ Widespread instances of people and organisations buying worthless credits that do not yield any reductions in carbon emissions.

■ Industrial companies profiting from doing very little – or from gaining carbon credits on the basis of efficiency gains from which they have already benefited substantially.

■ Brokers providing services of questionable or no value.

■ A shortage of verification, making it difficult for buyers to assess the true value of carbon credits.

■ Companies and individuals being charged over the odds for the private purchase of European Union carbon permits that have plummeted in value because they do not result in emissions cuts.

Way to go Al. Your religion is certainly the myth of the day.

Labels: global warming

- posted by Alan Grey @ Friday, April 27, 2007 0 comments