A climate denial cacophony

Man, I gotta give credit to Dr. Journet. He is very persistent!

So, let's ignore the "commentators (who) are neither climate scientists nor even scientists", because they "do not have access to the same evidence available to the rest of us."

In other words, unless you are a scientist, shut the **** up about global warming; you don't know what you are talking about.

This is an age old tactic used to marginilize your opponents. I get the same line of bull from my opponents whenever I criticize this country's aggressive foreign policy, and the proper role of the military.

I will play nice with Dr. Journet. Disregard the hack commentators.

Perhaps he could explain why so many of his fellow climate scientists have recently criticized the traditional rank and file theory of catastrophic climate change?

@Vandeven: Dr. Journet came to the table with actual facts and figures and not hyperbole. If you feel that he has marginalized his opponents, there may be a strong case for them To Be marginalized. Not all opinions are equal, and if conservative commentators are making unsubstantiated claims, there is no reason why we should give them equal merit.

Thank you Dr. Journet for a well written article. I believe the key to your article is drawing attention to those that come to the table with views "consistent with their own preconceived conclusions." If more people looked at the actual evidence (before opening their mouths), they'd be less likely to make inflammatory and misinformed statements.

In responding to my column, Vandeven writes: "So, let's ignore the "commentators (who) are neither climate scientists nor even scientists", because they "do not have access to the same evidence available to the rest of us."" Unfortunately, and maybe here lies a more general problem, Vandeven seems to have missed the meaning of my paragraph by only 180 degrees. What I wrote was: "it is difficult to imagine that they do not have access to the same evidence available to the rest of us." This means they DO have access to the same information -- as does Vandeven.

In particular, it might be worth visiting the NASA site which provides climate data:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs...

Of course, one can simply look at the data and claim they must be false - but that requires living in a dream world.

The problem is asserting conclusions for whatever personal, political, or philosophical reasons and then not only rejecting data that are inconsistent with that conclusion,and then fabricating and circulating fake data as though they actually exist. Apparently Vandeven is a follower of the 'reject the real data and make up your own data' school of scientific analysis.

My point very simply was that Hannity, Palin, Limbaugh, and Beck seem to think it is perfectly legitimate to develop an argument on the basis of data they just made up. This is ok if we want to live in a dream world where fairies and goblins exist, but if we want to live in the real world where the interpretation of actual data leads us to rational conclusions, we need to have the intellectual integrity simply to reject fabricated data. The fake data that these commentators purvey may be soothing to Vandeven and the conclusions to which Vandeven wants to come, but the data simply are false. If this were a medical situation, and Vandeven wished to reject the expert medical diagnosis, that would be Vandeven's right. It might lead to Vandeven's early demise -- which would be unfortunate -- but would not threaten the rest of us. The problem is repeating lies and the false conclusions that they suggest when these have implications for the rest of us and future generations.

Vandeven then claims that many "climate scientists have recently criticized the traditional rank and file theory of catastrophic climate change." As I reported, the 2009 study revealed that only 97% of climate scientists accepted the IPCC conclusions. Clearly that leaves 3% who do not. If I were diagnosed with cancer and 97 out of 100 oncologists confirmed it, while 3 suggested maybe not, I'd probably feel that prudence, and a desire to rather be safe than sorry should lead me to go with the 97. Again, apparently Vandeven would go with the oddball 3.

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10...

700 Peer-Reviewed Reports Casting Doubt on Man-Made Global Warming.

Apparently Vandeven is a follower of the 'reject the real data and make up your own data' school of scientific analysis.

-- Posted by Alan Journet on Thu, Apr 22, 2010, at 1:54 PM

He's apparently in good company:

Highlights of the Updated 2008/2009 Senate Minority Report featuring over 700 international scientists dissenting from man-made climate fears:

"I am a skeptic...Global warming has become a new religion." - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.

"Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly....As a scientist I remain skeptical...The main basis of the claim that man's release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system." - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called "among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years."

Warming fears are the "worst scientific scandal in the history...When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists." - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

"The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn't listen to others. It doesn't have open minds... I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists." - Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.

"So far, real measurements give no ground for concern about a catastrophic future warming." - Scientist Dr. Jarl R. Ahlbeck, a chemical engineer at Abo Akademi University in Finland, author of 200 scientific publications and former Greenpeace member.

"Anyone who claims that the debate is over and the conclusions are firm has a fundamentally unscientific approach to one of the most momentous issues of our time." - Solar physicist Dr. Pal Brekke, senior advisor to the Norwegian Space Centre in Oslo. Brekke has published more than 40 peer-reviewed scientific articles on the sun and solar interaction with the Earth.

"The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity." - Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico

"It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don't buy into anthropogenic global warming." - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.

"Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will." -- . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.

"After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri's asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it's hard to remain quiet." - Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.

"The Kyoto theorists have put the cart before the horse. It is global warming that triggers higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not the other way round...A large number of critical documents submitted at the 1995 U.N. conference in Madrid vanished without a trace. As a result, the discussion was one-sided and heavily biased, and the U.N. declared global warming to be a scientific fact," Andrei Kapitsa, a Russian geographer and Antarctic ice core researcher.

"I am convinced that the current alarm over carbon dioxide is mistaken...Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science." - Award Winning Physicist Dr. Will Happer, Professor at the Department of Physics at Princeton University and Former Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy, who has published over 200 scientific papers, and is a fellow of the American Physical Society, The American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the National Academy of Sciences.

"Nature's regulatory instrument is water vapor: more carbon dioxide leads to less moisture in the air, keeping the overall GHG content in accord with the necessary balance conditions." -- Prominent Hungarian Physicist and environmental researcher Dr. Mikl--s Zágoni reversed his view of man-made warming and is now a skeptic. Zágoni was once Hungary's most outspoken supporter of the Kyoto Protocol.

"For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?" - Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.

"Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp...Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact." - Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.

"The quantity of CO2 we produce is insignificant in terms of the natural circulation between air, water and soil... I am doing a detailed assessment of the UN IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science." - South Afican Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150 refereed publications.

"Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined." - Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.

"All those urging action to curb global warming need to take off the blinkers and give some thought to what we should do if we are facing global cooling instead." - Geophysicist Dr. Phil Chapman, an astronautical engineer and former NASA astronaut, served as staff physicist at MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology)

"Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense...The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning." - Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.

"CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another....Every scientist knows this, but it doesn't pay to say so...Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver's seat and developing nations walking barefoot." - Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.

"The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds." - Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata.

"Whatever the weather, it's not being caused by global warming. If anything, the climate may be starting into a cooling period." Atmospheric scientist Dr. Art V. Douglas, former Chair of the Atmospheric Sciences Department at Creighton University in Omaha, Nebraska, and is the author of numerous papers for peer-reviewed publications.

"But there is no falsifiable scientific basis whatever to assert this warming is caused by human-produced greenhouse gasses because current physical theory is too grossly inadequate to establish any cause at all." - Chemist Dr. Patrick Frank, who has authored more than 50 peer-reviewed articles.

"The 'global warming scare' is being used as a political tool to increase government control over American lives, incomes and decision making. It has no place in the Society's activities." - Award-Winning NASA Astronaut/Geologist and Moonwalker Jack Schmitt who flew on the Apollo 17 mission and formerly of the Norwegian Geological Survey and for the U.S. Geological Survey.

"Earth has cooled since 1998 in defiance of the predictions by the UN-IPCC....The global temperature for 2007 was the coldest in a decade and the coldest of the millennium...which is why 'global warming' is now called 'climate change.'" - Climatologist Dr. Richard Keen of the Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences at the University of Colorado.

From: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?F...

Concerning the 2009 survey, where would I find those results? Google can't seem to find it.

Dr. Journet,

I would expect that 'Iron and Steel Journal' and 'The Electricity Journal' would both be relevant, since they repesent two industries likely to be impacted severely by proposed solutions. I'm not sure what relevance 'Irrigation and Drainage Journal' may have, but then again, much of the Climate Change argument deals with drought and rainfall issues. It is likely that scientists involved in that arena may be regular contribitors to such journals.

There may be some padding, however, since Popular Technology is merely trying to gather relevant data together into a single 'clearinghouse' of skeptical reports. When I first encountered the link, it reported only 450 peer-reviewed entries. It appears they are continually scouring the journals for addendum. They also seem to be pretty good about posting critical and amendend entries, based on my limited perusal of the list.

Since many of the reports appear to deal with singlular aspects of the data-gathering process, or with the accuracy or methodology of the computer models used in Climate Change predictions, the sources for them are likely to be found in a variety of locations that are the particular milieu of the scientists or researchers involved. Thus, a water-resources scientist may well submit a report critical of climate-science conclusions in a journal with which he/she is familiar and, perhaps, a regular contributor.

One of my principle complaints with the Climate Scientists arguements has been their willingness to reject out-of-hand reports filed by researchers who may find themselves in the employment of industry, as though only government-funded science is 'pure science'. Like it or not, government is also a business and, as such, governments frequently have an agenda of their own.

Vandeven 2010 wrote:

"So what is the solution."

The solution to what? The debate is about whether or not global climate change is man-made and what, if anything, we are to do about it.

Most of us have no problem with reasonable efforts to clean the air and the water, nor do we oppose to shifting our focus towards renewable resources and alternative energies. However, many of us oppose mandates that impose undue burden on citizens and industry, if the results of those mandates are questonable.

Currently, there remains some debate as to the role of Carbon Dioxide in warming. Skeptics point out that there does not seem to be a linear correlation between increasing CO2 levels and increasing temperatures. Several of the skeptics reports point to the 'feedback' aspect of CO2 increases, which indicate that the world is more self-regulating than the computer models would have one believe.

Climatologists appear intolerant of dissent, which is something no science should ever fear. Whenever science becomes content that it has all the answers, it stagnates. We used to celebrate the free thinker, the challenger, the questioner in science, because that is how science advances.

Naturally, some skeptics are just nay-sayers, and some are simply wrong, but that does not mean that all skeptics should be dismissed as 'ostriches' or 'zealots'.

Nor does being correct about the problem ensure that the solution offered is the correct one.

"Just because something is possibly possible it does not follow that it is necessarily necessary." - Thomas E. Colvin -

Dr. Jounet,

There has never been a time in the history of this planet that the climate has not been changing. The cold-hardiness maps drawn in the early 1900s would likely appear vastly different from maps drawn in the 1800s, had they been able to be drawn. There is really nothing magical about the climate of 1960 that makes it so vastly superior to the climate of 2050.

Nor do the people buy into the doomsaying and the alarmism. While it may draw attention in the short term, I believe it becomes counterproductive in the long term. When Al Gore claimed that the 2005 hurricane season was typical of what was to be expected because of global warming, he ran the risk of being exposed as a fraud if ever-increasing incidence of hurricanes did not follow. It did not, and Mr. Gore has now become a joke, even among those who believe in global warming, or global climate change. Changing the criteria by which we name storms so that we have more 'named storms' didn't help either. That was recognized as a fraud, and a failure since even with the broader criteria there were fewer of them.

Thus, as we now see more snow and more ice in the winter, no increase in hurricanes and storms, and little evidence that we can put our hands on, we as a people are inclined to believe that the scientific community has cried 'Wolf' once too often. Few of us travel to the Himilayan Glaciers or to the Polar Ice Caps, so we have to take the word of the 'experts' that they are melting at increasing rates. Every false alarm weakens their position. Rightly or wrongly, the alarmism has harmed the credibility of the scientific community. If Al Gore was spreading falsehoods, the community should have spoken out against him. Their failure to do so has made them a party to his folly. That he has enriched himself in the process only makes he, and they, more suspect to the public eye.

Even among those who accept warming, and its consequences, we are not sold on the solutions. We've bought the compact fluorescent tubes, only to find that they do not do what is promised, they increase the likelihood of fires, and they contain dangerous materials and must be disposed of at cost. For what, we ask? We've seen huge, ugly wind generators dotting the horizon in the fields and plains of America, sitting idle more often than not, and we wonder: If this be the hope of the future, is it worth sacrificing the present? We watch every evening as the Sun sets and wonder how anyone can make the argument that Solar-generators hold the key to our future. We need power 24/7, not just when the sun shines and the wind blows, if we are to see a brighter future.

Nor are we ready to sacrifice our livelihoods for the promise of a future no better than the present. If the best science can offer is that, by reducing our GDP to that of the '30s we can enjoy the climate of the '60s two hundred years from now, you can surely see why many of us are not willing to jump on that train.

The claims of a dying Earth are not evident to the naked eye. You say you see images of relatives sitting around the bed of a critically ill patient. We see images of a patient up and dancing, and a group of physicians telling us he is too ill to do so. Unless and until we can see signs of that doom, we are more likely to dance with him than mourn his impending demise.

The one feature that has allowed mankind to survive and thrive in nearly every climate and region is our adaptability. Other species rise and fall with the changing Earth, yet we have marched onward and upward through ice ages & heat waves, from the Equator to the Arctic Circle. To many of us, there is no problem so great that the challenge cannot be met when the time comes.

Suddenly, it seems, science has given up on man's ability to thrive and survive and decided that we must repent and abandond our ways in favour of one of limited progression, limited achievement, and limited impact. You can surely understand that many are not willing to surrender that which has been the driving force ever since man learned that he had the power to shape his world to make it better for his progeny.

Civilizations were not built by doomsayers and those who demanded a halt to progress. Many of man's greatest achievements have been found at his darkest moments.