"Few challenges facing America and the world are more urgent than combating climate change. The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear."
— PRESIDENT-ELECT BARACK OBAMA, NOVEMBER 19 , 2008
With all due respect Mr. President, that is not true.
We, the undersigned scientists, maintain that the case for alarm regarding climate change is grossly overstated. Surface temperature changes over the past century have been episodic and modest and there has been no net global warming for over a decade now.1,2 After controlling for population growth and property values, there has been no increase in damages from severe weather-related events.3 The computer models forecasting rapid temperature change abjectly fail to explain recent climate behavior.4 Mr. President, your characterization of the scientific facts regarding climate change and the degree of certainty informing the scientific debate is simply incorrect.
- Yun Akusofu, Ph.D University Of Alaska
- Arthur G. Anderson, Ph.D, Director Of Research, IBM (retired)
- Charles R. Anderson, Ph.D Anderson Materials Evaluation
- J. Scott Armstrong, Ph.D, University Of Pennsylvania
- Robert Ashworth, Clearstack LLC
- Ismail Baht, Ph.D, University Of Kashmir
- Colin Barton Csiro (retired)
- David J. Bellamy, OBE, The British Natural Association
- John Blaylock, Los Alamos National Laboratory (retired)
- Edward F. Blick, Ph.D, University Of Oklahoma (emeritus)
- Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, Ph.D, University Of Hull
- Bob Breck Ams, Broadcaster Of The Year 2008
- John Brignell, University Of Southampton (emeritus)
- Mark Campbell, Ph.D, U.S. Naval Academy
- Robert M. Carter, Ph.D, James Cook University
- Ian Clark, Ph.D, Professor, Earth Sciences University Of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada
- Roger Cohen, Ph.D Fellow, American Physical Society
- Paul Copper, Ph.D, Laurentian University (emeritus)
- Piers Corbyn, MS, Weather Action
- Richard S. Courtney, Ph.D, Reviewer, Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change
- Uberto Crescenti, Ph.D Past-President, Italian Geological Society
- Susan Crockford, Ph.D University Of Victoria
- Joseph S. D'aleo, Fellow, American Meteorological Society
- James Demeo, Ph.D, University Of Kansas (retired)
- David Deming, Ph.D, University Of Oklahoma
- Diane Douglas, Ph.D, Paleoclimatologist
- David Douglass, Ph.D, University Of Rochester
- Robert H. Essenhigh, E.G. Bailey Emeritus, Professor Of Energy Conversion The Ohio State University
- Christopher Essex, Ph.D, University Of Western Ontario
- John Ferguson, Ph.D, University Of Newcastle
- Upon Tyne (retired)
- Eduardo Ferreyra, Argentinian Foundation For A Scientific Ecology
- Michael Fox, Ph.D, American Nuclear Society
- Gordon Fulks, Ph.D, Gordon Fulks And Associates
- Lee Gerhard, Ph.D, State Geologist, Kansas (retired)
- Gerhard Gerlich, Ph.D, Technische Universitat Braunschweig
- Ivar Giaever, Ph.D, Nobel Laureate, Physics
- Albrecht Glatzle, Ph.D, Scientific Direc tor, Inttas (Paraguay)
- Wayne Goodfellow, Ph.D, University Of Ottawa
- James Goodridge, California State Climatologist (retired)
- Laurence Gould, Ph.D, University Of Hartford
- Vincent Gray, Ph.D, New Zealand, Climate Coalition
- William M. Gray, Ph.D, Colorado State University
- Kenneth E. Green, D.En v., American Enterprise Institute
- Kesten Green, Ph.D, Monash University
- Will Happer, Ph.D, Princeton University
- Howard C. Hayden, Ph.D, University Of Connecticut (emeritus)
- Ben Herman, Ph.D, University Of Arizona (emeritus)
- Martin Hertzberg, Ph.D, U.S. Navy (retired)
- Doug Hoffman, Ph.D, Author, The Resilient Earth
- Bernd Huettner, Ph.D
- Ole Humlum, Ph.D, University Of Oslo
- A. Neil Hutton, Past President, Canadian Society Of Petroleum Geologists
- Craig D. Idso, Ph.D, Center For The Study Of Carbon Dioxide And Global Change
- Sherwood B. Idso, Ph.D, U.S. Department Of Agriculture (retired)
- Kiminori Itoh, Ph.D, Yokohama National University
- Steve Japar, Ph.D, Reviewer, Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change
- Sten Kaijser, Ph.D, Uppsala University (emeritus)
- Wibjorn Karlen, Ph.D, University Of Stockholm20(emeritus)
- Joel Kauffman, Ph.D, University Of The Sciences, Philadelphia (emeritus)
- David Kear, Ph.D, Former Director-General , Nz Dept. Scientific And Industrial Research
- Richard Keen, Ph.D, University Of Colorado
- Dr. Kelvin Kemm, Ph.D, Lifetime Achievers Award, National Science And Technology Forum, South Africa
- Madhav Khandekar, Ph.D, Former Editor, Climate Research
- Robert S. Knox, Ph.D, University Of Rochester (emeritus)
- James P. Koermer, Ph.D, Plymouth State University
- Gerhard Kramm, Ph.D, University Of Alaska Fairbanks
- Wayne Kraus, Ph.D, Kraus Consulting
- Olav M. Kvalheim, Ph.D, Univ. Of Bergen
- Roar Larson, Ph.D, Norwegia n University Of Science And Technology
- James F. Lea, Ph.D
- Douglas Leahy, Ph.D, Meteorologist
- Peter R.Leavitt, Certified Consulting Meteorologist
- David R. Legates, Ph.D, University of Delaware
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D, Massachusetts Institute Of Technology
- Harry F. Lins, Ph.D. Co-Chair, IPCC Hydrology and Water Resources Working Group
- Anthony R. Lupo, Ph.D, University Of Missouri
- Howard Maccabee, Ph.D, MD Clinical Faculty, Stanford Medical School
- Horst Malberg, Ph.D, Free University of Berlin
- Bjorn Malmgren, Ph.D, Goteburg University (emeritus)
- Jennifer Marohasy, Ph.D, Australian Environment Foundation
- James A Marusek, U.S. Navy (retired)
- Ross Mckitrick, Ph.D, University Of Guelph
- Patrick J. Michaels, Ph.D, University Of Virginia
- Timothy R. Minnich, MS, Minnich And Scotto, Inc.
- Asmunn Moene, Ph.D, Former Head, Forecasting Center, Meteorological Institute, Norway
- Michael Monce, Ph.D, Connecticut College
- Dick Morgan, Ph.D, Exeter University (emeritus)
- Nils-axel Morner, Ph.D, Stockholm University (emeritus)
- David Nowell, D.I.C., Former Chairman, Nato Meteorology Canada
- Cliff Ollier, D.Sc., University Of Western Au stralia
- Garth W. Paltridge, Ph.D, University Of Tasmania
- Alfred Peckare k, Ph.D, St. Cloud State University
- Dr. Robert A. Perkins, P.E. University Of Alaska
- Ian Pilmer, Ph.D, University Of Melbourne (emeritus)
- Brian R. Pratt, Ph.D, University Of Saskatchewan
- John Reinhard, Ph.D, Ore Pharm aceuticals
- Peter Ridd, Ph.D, James Cook University
- Curt Rose, Ph.D, Bishop's University (emeritus)
- Peter Salonius, M.Sc., Canadian Forest Service
- Gary Sharp, Ph.D, Center For Climate/Ocean Resources Study
- Thomas P. Sheahan, Ph.D, Western Technologies, Inc.
- Alan Simmons, Author, The Resilient Earth
- Roy N. Spencer, Ph.D, University Of Alabama-Huntsville
- Arlin Super, Ph.D, Retired Research Meteorologist, U.S. Dept. Of Reclamation
- George H. Taylor,MS, Applied Climate Services
- Eduardo P. Tonni, Ph.D, Museo De La Plata (Argentina)
- Ralf D. Tscheuschner, Ph.D
- Dr. Anton Uriarte,Ph.D, Universidad Del Pais Vasco
- Brian Valentine, Ph.D, U.S. Department Of Energy
- Gosta Walin, Ph.D, University Of Gothenburg (emeritus)
- Gerd-Rainer Weber,Ph.D, Reviewer, Intergovernmenal Panel On Climate Change
- Forese-Carlo Wezel, Ph.D, Urbino University
- Edward T. Wimberley, Ph.D, Florida Gulf Coast University
- Antonio Zichichi,Ph.D President, World Federation Of Scientists
Footnotes
1. Swanson, K.L., and A. A. Tsonis. Geophysical Research Letters, in press: DOI:10.1029/2008GL037022.
2. Brohan, P., et al. Journal of Geophysical Research, 2006: DOI: 10.1029/2005JD006548. Updates at http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature.
3. Pielke, R. A. Jr., et al. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 2005: DOI: 10.1175/BAMS-86-10-1481.
4. Douglass, D. H., et al. International Journal of Climatology, 2007: DOI: 10.1002/joc.1651.
12 comments:
Here you can find a PDF version of this ad that was displayed in various newspaper:
http://www.cato.org/special/climatechange/cato_climate.pdf
I personally did not get my hands on any of those newspaper but I used the PDF and printed it and hung it on my wall. It finally proves that Mr. Gore and "scientists" like him are wrong and need to stop scaring people. Media should also realize this and respond to this along with Mr. Obama. But that seems a bit unreal.
Take care, Elli
Here and I was trying to figure out where this broadside came from. Thank you, Elli, for explaining that it's ad copy from the Cato institute.
I enjoy (in a sick, sad way) looking at the "scientists" who sign these things. Almost all of them are people who have no scientific training that will help them understand life, or ecology, or how small changes can trigger bigger changes.
Toronto Condos, you won't live long enough to discover that Gore has it more right than you will ever want to know. I just pray that you don't have children or grandchildren.
Scientists, my #$@!, eh? Economists as scientists? I think not. The guy who spent years working for Ford Motor Company and now "consults"? I think not. But most people are too lazy or busy to check out who these signatories are -- or what they get out of signing.
Mr. Nemko, thanks for tagging this with "climate change deniers," etc., as it deserves.
I believe that the list includes many reputable scientists. And the fact that the Cato Institute, a reputable think tank, paid to have the letter published as an ad in the NY Times doesn't diminish the contention of this post: that Obama is being unfair to the American people in claiming that there is consensus among scientists that we should spend big to attempt to stop climate change. A growing number of climate scientists are expressing doubt about the wisdom of that. I tagged it with the term "denier" so that people who unfairly characterize them that way (evoking comparisons with Holocaust deniers--the only other group dubbed with that term) would see the list of scientists.
I disagree with the poster who considers all of these people to be only "scientists" rather than scientists.
Many of these folks are retired, however, and many are pretty far afield from what they were originally trained in. Some are folks with howlingly obvious industry ties on the list, and there's also the question of whether or not they actually meant to sign off on the ad. There have been a number of cases where signatories to ads like this one found out they'd signed only after the ad went to press.
The pro-co2 campaign has done some remarkable things in its effort to try and create alternate consensus. (And I do mean pro-CO2.)
An outfit called Greening Earth, funded by the coal industry in large measure, paid for a mailing in '97. The mailing targeted *every* science department's staff, grad students included, with a mailing that included an article and a response card. The article was from an outfit called the "Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine" and it argued that climate change was hooey; it was not peer reviewed but it looked like it was from a journal with peer review. The response card was asking people to agree with the article. I was in a pharm department at the time, and got one. Our department had no one qualified to second-guess a peer reviewed climate change paper, but plenty of people qualified to note that the "reprint" was in fact just a well-printed handbill.
I know some folks were taken in - there were very senior (ie, almost emeritus) faculty who were genuintely puzzled and some who though they were seeing a real paper. Any signature these people got, regardless of specialty, regardless of familiarity with the literature or understanding of the handbill or the funding for the mailing, they count as a win.
The mailer was designed to do one thing well: create an appearance of division not through division but through confusion.
Outstanding, these folks have a brass set - they're still flogging it:
http://www.petitionproject.org/
Take a look at their PDF - it is intended to look quite professional and mimics the style of a journal article.
Then take a look at the OISM website, and really drill around.
(http://www.oism.org/)
Kooks, or the last adherents to the Truth?
I vote kook.
But then again, I'm currently reading "The Physics of Christianity" for grins - not because I think it's author has in fact used first principles to prove a Trinitarian God, but because I think it's absolute, entertaining kookery to watch him take a shot at it.
Perhaps the most interesting thing going on in the OISM handbill is its close. At its end, it says
- global climate change is happening
- global climate change will be a good thing.
- humans play a small enough role in it that we should get back in our sport utes and start burning stuff up again! Wheeeee!
"We are living in an increasingly lush environment of plants and animals as a result of this CO2 increase. Our children will therefore enjoy an Earth with far more plant and animal life than that with which we now are blessed."
deep solar minimum
For 2008 there were no sunspots observed on 266 of the year's 366 days (73%).
Sunspot counts for 2009 have dropped even lower. As of March 31st, there were no sunspots on 78 of the year's 90 days (87%)
It adds up to one inescapable conclusion: "We're experiencing a very deep solar minimum," says solar physicist Dean Pesnell of the Goddard Space Flight Center.
"This is the quietest sun we've seen in almost a century," agrees sunspot expert David Hathaway of the Marshall Space Flight Center.
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/01apr_deepsolarminimum.htm
A 50-year low in solar wind pressure:
A 55-year low in solar radio emissions:
A 12-year low in solar “irradiance”:
Industry ties are not much more troubling than ties to government and nonprofit funding agencies. Today, the only people who get govt and nonprofit grants are TrueBelievers in the wisdom of spending big to attempt to stop climate change.
And many of these scientists are highly regarded, for example, MIT Climate scientist Richard Lindzen.
Richard Lindzen can clearly persuade himself of anything; when the evidence is grayer, he's no doubt persuasive to many:
In 2001, Newsweek journalist Fred Guterl reported, after an interview with Lindzen
He'll even expound on how weakly lung cancer is linked to cigarette smoking. He speaks in full, impeccably logical paragraphs, and he punctuates his measured cadences with thoughtful drags on a cigarette.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/78772/output/print
Science fail there. I agree with many that second-hand smoke has been oversold; actually sucking on lung rockets, however, is thoroughly associated with dramatically elevated lung cancer risk. (2000 percent in male smokers, according to the NIH.)
Thought problem: does anthropogenic carbon dioxide as a forcing factor in global climate change need to be as thoroughly proven as the risks of smoking have been, or the hazards associated with leaded fuels, before you would be interested in adopting public policy to remediate it? (Because by then, it would be a policy of remediation; any mediation-oriented policy would be impossible.)
Does it concern you that even at that level of evidence, there would still be well-trained scientists arguing that in fact, we were not seeing human-induced climate change?
As a non-scientist, all I can say is "who the hell knows?". What interests me is the way non-warmists (the ones who do not support the new orthodoxy) tend to be portrayed by warmists as uneducated, unqualified, unreasonable ... and often are spoken to and about with haughty invective. But I'm yet to hear a non-warmist speak insultingly back the other way or use the kinds of emotive language the warmists use in propogating their theories. (I cite "Anonymous" above who says 'Scientists my
Who's the true scientists here?
And in case you're wondering I believe there is such a thing as global warming and we are experiencing massive climate change, living as close as I do to the recent horror bushfires that ripped the guts out of our state in Australia. I'm simply amazed at how people villify each other over things which are basically just theories intended to make sense of evidence and information they've been collecting.
"I believe that the list includes many reputable scientists. And the fact that the Cato Institute, a reputable think tank"
Can you explain how you assess which scientists are reputable, and in particular, which ones are are actually reputable, current *climate scientists*?
I.e., people who regularly publish climate science research in peer-reviewed journals, whose results stand up over time.
In Oakland, you live within an hour's drive of 2 of the world's best universities for climate science (Stanford & UCB). Do you take advantage of the frequent public lectures there to hear and talk to working climate scientists? Can you compare the CATO list with such people?
Would it shake your opinion of CATO if the list turned out to be not so good?
I see both sides are enaged in invective. Ex: search for "climate change fraud" and see how many are using that in what context. another good one is "global warming scam."
Scam, fraud, clueless, not really a scientist - all being tossed around on both sides.
I think the question of what quality of evidence is required is an important one.
There was tremendous opposition to getting lead out of gasoline, and at the time it was introduced the public health community tried to block it, and lost. Cigarettes have been known to be unhealthy for decades (the earliest studies go to the late 30s, the cancer studies to the late 50s) but a successful holding action was fought against their regulation.
In both cases, public health lost out to the quick buck for decades. And in both cases, legions of apparently well-qualified experts appeared to testify - even after company execs in internal documents admitted the truth of the situation.
Because America was slow to embrace two concepts (e.g., unleaded gas) does not mean we should embrace the idea of massive spending to attempt to cool the earth. Think of how many initiatives we DID take that turned out to be boondoggles: ethanol/biofuel, Alar, margarine is better than butter, fish oil to prevent heart attacks, etc., etc., etc.
The burden of proof is far greater re climate change because the likely costs and pain caused to the public (especially the poor) will be orders of magnitude greater than on nearly any initiative in the history of humankind.
And re the list of scientists, of course, I have not vetted the list but note, for example, that the list includes Richard Lindzen, the Alfred Sloan Professor of Climate Scientist at MIT and at least one Nobel Laureate in physics. There certainly is not the consensus Obama claims, especially in light of the fact that the average global temperature has not increased at all in 12 years despite a massive increase in the amount of hydrocarbon emission. And the amount of climate variation in recent years has been BELOW the average.
Post a Comment