formerly known as global warming alarmism until it became apparent a few years back that the globe had in fact stopped warming, and the alarmists decided that the term “climate change” was a more effective way of describing what the rest of us call “weather.”
First, in the scientific literature it has been consistently called global climate change since, though global average temperatures are rising, climate change effects different regions differently and climatic factors other than temperature are included (ex/ rainfall).
Second, climate ≠ weather.
A sizable minority of scientists has for years been disputing the basic science behind climate change alarmism (you can find a list of 400 leading “skeptics” here),
The list used there was compiled by Dennis Avery at the Heartland Institute/Hudson Institute. He did not consult with most of the scientists before including their names on his list and determined for himself that he felt their research supported some part of his position. After the list was published several of the scientist have sought to have their names removed from the list to no avail. Others were entirely unaware of their inclusion. Kevin DeGrandia (desmogblog) emailed 122 of the scientists on the list and quickly received 45 responses outraged that they were included on the list. Here are a few of their responses,
I am horrified to find my name on such a list. I have spent the last 20 years arguing the opposite.
Dr. David Sugden. Professor of Geography, University of Edinburgh
I have NO doubts ..the recent changes in global climate ARE man-induced. I insist that you immediately remove my name from this list since I did not give you permission to put it there.
Dr. Gregory Cutter, Professor, Department of Ocean, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Old Dominion University
I don’t believe any of my work can be used to support any of the statements listed in the article.
Dr. Robert Whittaker, Professor of Biogeography, University of Oxford
Please remove my name. What you have done is totally unethical!!
Dr. Svante Bjorck, Geo Biosphere Science Centre, Lund University
I’m outraged that they’ve included me as an “author” of this report. I do not share the views expressed in the summary.
Dr. John Clague, Shrum Research Professor, Department of Earth Sciences, Simon Fraser University
The bulk of the listed scientists are either from unrelated fields, do not discount the science of global climate change(but the hyperbole of some less informed advocates), or disagree entirely with what their names have been attached to without their permission. This listing is blatently dishonest.
Climate is always changing, they pointed out, and there’s no such thing as an “ideal” temperature for the planet.
No, but there are ideal climates for particular organisms. Radical changes in climate have resulted in radical changes in the survival of adapted organisms.
A recent survey exposed the extent of bias among news programs on the three main U.S. networks: just one-fifth of stories about climate change featured opinions that dissented
Which represents proportionally more dissent than is present in the scientific community, particularly the climate science community. How much TV time should be alloted to disputing the link between cigarette smoking and cancer?
In February of this year a raft of data from the leading monitoring centers showed that average global temperatures had fallen by around 0.65º C, effectively canceling out the recent 30-year warming trend
One year or 5 does not establish or “cancel out” a trend. There are many factors at play determining climate, CO2 is one, La Niña/El Niño is another.
Dozens of studies have shown that the production of most biofuels causes more harm to the environment than the fuels themselves save, while the turning over of agricultural land from food production to growing crops for fuel is driving up food prices around the world.
Turning food crops into fuel is a boondoggle, but other biofuels show much promise. Both mixed prairie grasses and algae show much higher yields, greater efficiencies, and do not require displacing food crops.
BTW high food prices have more to do with subsidies paid to keep productive farm land fallow than misguided corn to fuel programs.
British judge ruled that An Inconvenient Truth contained nine factual errors
The judge also said that the film was “broadly accurate,” idnetified “four main scientific hypotheses, each of which is very well supported by research published in respected, peer-reviewed journals and accords with the latest conclusions of the IPCC,” and agreed “That climate change is mainly attributable to man-made emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide (‘greenhouse gases’).”
The 9 errors were 9 overstatements. These were largely confined to stating global warming as the cause of an event when it was more likely a cause of that event (ex/ the snows of Kilamanjaro melting).
A recent ABC News/Washington Post poll found that precisely zero per cent of Americans — yes, zero, that’s not a typo — rated global warming as the most important issue in the upcoming presidential election.
Might that have something to do with the near unanimity of opinion on the subject by the remaining candidates?
Some more results from that same question from that ABC/WaPo poll,
Morals/Family
values 2
Abortion 1
Foreign policy 1
Environment *
Federal budget
deficit *
Housing/Mortgages *
Social Security *
Taxes *
Guns/Gun control *
Global warming 0
Iran/Situation
in Iran 0
None/Nothing *
Social Security, taxes, gun control, Iran, and the budget deficit also got nothing. Does that mean that Americans do not care about these issues, or that they are 2nd, 3rd or 4th place issues behind the war in Iraq or some other concern?
[commenter responses]
So PRA – did you actually read any of the linked SCIENTIFIC articles? Are you aware of how science works? Let me give you a hint – it’s got nothing to do with “consensus”, although there’s anything but consensus about global warming, and even less about anthropogenic global warming.
I have and I have worked closely with climate modelers. Consensus does not determine how any particular experiment will work out. Consensus by the people studying a particular phenomenon is an indicator of what the current data suggests. There is a broad consensus withing the general scientific community and broad and deep consensus among climate scientists that the global climate is warming and that anthropogenic factors are at least partly responsible. I will reiterate a challenge I have made dozens of times:
I will produce 10 articles (published in a peer reviewed scientific journal since 2000) to your one that support the hypothesis of anthropogenically caused global climate change for any one you find that refutes it. I have yet to be sent a single one.
One article with a definitive refutation would be sufficient to change my opinion, but none has as yet been published.
Oh, and here’s a paper, with lots of evidence predicting climate out 30 years – it’s cooling. Lots of real science to back that to. Argue with him. This is a PDF link.
http://www.warwickhughes.com/agri/Solar_Arch_NY_Mar2_08.pdf
that is well responded to here.
To claim that the vast majority of scientist and a greater majority of climate scientists are perpetrating a hoax is just silly as is the name calling, stick to the evidence. If the evidence were as strong and widespread as some here would like to believe it should have been published in a reputable journal by now. If you have the data to prove that global climate change is not happening or that there is not anthropogenic causation, publish and do it in a peer reviewed journal.
