My documentary is longer than yours -- I win!

[RAGNAR]

Didn't we discuss the skepticalscience.com site already?

As usual with the pages you copy from this site, the stuff under "What the science says . . ." misnomer is irrelevant.

You can't counter a 31K scientists counter to your 400 scientists assertion, by reference to yet another survey. It's a profoundly irrational approach. Since we've seen this site do this and the like any number of times, it's time for them to go.

And one more time with the reason I even brought up the 31K petition: Science is not a function of consensus. The validity of a given scientific assertion is not affected in any way be the number of people who accept it, reject it, whatever. It doesn't matter if we're talking about a group of convicts or a group of scientists, whether we're talking about some obscure philosophic point, hardcore applied science or theoretical science. Truth is not open to vote.

And for the love of God, try to remember that eloquent summation of this point offered by Brit Hume:

Scientific consensus is what you get when you don't have scientific fact.

This is made as plain as anything can be made by the history of science, of philosophy, and a basic education that didn't go off course because of the gargoyles we've entrusted the core ideas of our culture to/with whatever the right word is.

[erps]

The scientific arguments that global climate change is both real and anthropogenic can be found at:
IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

A related article that the IPCC change the way they do business. Conflicts of interests and glaring errors? Oh my.

The scientists involved in producing the periodic United Nations reports on climate change need to be more open to alternative views and more transparent about their own possible conflicts of interest, an independent review panel said Monday.

Those were among numerous recommendations made by the panel appointed last March to assess how a few glaring errors — including a prediction that the Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035 — made it into the last such United Nations report, released in 2007.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/31/wo...s.html?_r=1&hp

[radioguy]

Agree 100% with the above. The IPCC is screwed up. You can go online and read the chapter comments by the reviewers. The "experts" that review the chapters say things like "wow I have no idea what this means." No lie.

It's actually pretty funny too. The IPCC presents itself as having the consensus opinion of thousands of scientists, when in reality very few actually supported their point of view. I'm going to quote a section from The Climate Conspiracy.

Lawrence Solomon reported an expert breakdown by Australian analyst John McLean of the contributors to the IPCC report. I will summarize it below.

First, he noticed that the great majority of the 3,750 scientists were merely reviewers. Further, the reviewers each only reviewed a small portion of the report. And he found that far from endorsing the IPCC's conclusions, many of the reviewers turned thumbs down on the IPCC sections that they read and only a handful actually endorsed the IPCC's claims that man-made global warming represents a threat to the planet.

Reviewers for the report are there to give suggestions. They can suggest changes such as rewording a poorly written passage, or they may find the data to be inconclusive or find that drawn conclusions are unfound.

In approximately 25% of the reviewer's suggestions, the editors rejected the reviewer's opinion, which allows us to see that there is far from a consensus on the IPCC report. Moreover, he found that the great majority of the reviewers commented only on chapters that dealt with historical or technical issues. These chapters did not support the IPCC's conclusions on man-made climate change.

The chapter that does deal with anthropogenic climate change is Chapter 9, "Understanding and Attributing Climate Change." Chapter 9 had 53 authors and it received comments from 55 individual reviewers. Of the 55 individual reviewers, four reviewers endorsed the entire chapter, and three reviewers endorsed a portion of the chapter.

The reviewers who endorsed the chapter were not necessarily experts in the field. For example, reviewer David Sexton stated, "Section # 9.6 I think reads pretty well for the bits I understand." This certainly does not sound like a knowledgeable person.

The 53 authors of Chapter 9 and the seven agreeable reviewers represent a total of 60 people, leading McLean to conclude, "There is only evidence that about 60 people explicitly supported the claim made by the IPCC that global warming represents a threat to the planet.” 60 people hardly represent a consensus opinion.

Keep in mind that science is not a democratic process. Scientists do not vote to see which theories are accepted or rejected. Scientific theories stand on their own merits, and the existence or non-existence of a consensus in no way makes any hypothesis or theory more or less valid. Science isn’t a popularity contest. Getting funding is, however.

Those are facts, buddy!

[radioguy]

Originally Posted by knothead

(You can click on the Basic tab if it makes it clearer for you.

Your quote of "95% of climate scientists" is a sham. The poll is very, very few people, and it is DWARFED by the 31000 that signed the NIPCC poll. Read the below to see why the poll you are quoting is a complete crock. The questions are complete ****, and the 95% is actually 75 people out of 77. That's it! You are quoting 75 people and acting like it's the whole world!

The Scientific Consensus on Global Warming « The Climate Conspiracy

A topic that usually comes up in the great anthropogenic global warming debate is whether or not there is a consensus among scientists that human produced greenhouse gases were the primary driving force behind the most recent warming episode we experienced (1975 - 1998).(I think it's hilarious that when we discuss global warming we have to put the years in brackets, because it's been missing for quite a while now!)

The alarmist's argument:

97% of climate scientists actively publishing climate papers endorse the position that human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures. (2009 poll)

The skeptic's argument:

The Petition Project features over 31,000 scientists signing the petition stating "there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases will, in the forseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate.Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide may produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth." (Petition Project)

So let's look at both of these arguments.

The Alarmists
We will start with the argument the alarmists use.They quote a 2009 poll in which 10,257 Earth scientists were invited to participate in an internet based poll which asked two questions:

1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?

2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

Question 1 is ridiculous. I'm pretty sure basically everyone will agree that we experienced warming as we came out of the Little Ice Age (although 3 climatologists in their poll disagreed - I'd love to know why.)

The answers to question 2 were the main result that was discussed in the poll.I feel question two is very poorly worded.Does significant mean "an important contributing factor" or does it mean "the driving force"?Does significant mean that it contributes to the majority of climate change, or does it mean that it contributes a (minimally) quantifiable amount?I think that CO2 contributes to climate change, but I think we greatly exaggerate the amount. How would I answer that question?

Of the 10,257 people that were invited to participate, only 3,146 answered the poll.The vast majority of respondents were from the U.S., with the rest being from Canada and other countries.About 90% of respondents had PhDs, which is approximately 2,830.The rest had M.S. (masters) and B.S. (bachelors) degrees.

According to the poll, 97.4% of climate scientists (97.4% sounds impressive until you see that it means 75 people out of 77) who are actively publishing papers agree that CO2 is a significant contributing factor to changing mean global temperature.For most alarmists, this is all they need to read.They see this result, and they run with it.They think that this means that 97.4% of climate scientists agree that we are on a crash course to hell, all the worlds ice is going to melt, the polar bears will die, everyone will get malaria and HIV, and we will lose most of our land because of rising sea levels.

But it's not that simple.Do these 75 (97.4%) climate scientists think that we are undergoing catastrophic warming as shown in the IPCC reports?Or do they believe that the warming is marginally greater than that of natural variation?Do they think that CO2 is the sole factor contributing to warming?Or do they think that CO2 has contributed to a minor (but quantifiable) amount of warming?Do they think that our current warming is unmatched in the last 1,000 years?Or do they think prior times were warmer than this?Do they think that dendrochronology is a junk science?(As Dr. Ed Cook implied here.) Or do they think that it is an appropriate way to look at paleoclimate?Do they think solar irradiance was a major input or not?

The problem is the poll question is too simple.We can not infer the answers to any of the above questions from the poll.It operates on the principle that if you ask a vague enough question then you can prove whatever you want.This poll is as clever as a carnival fortune teller.

Let's look at what the climate scientist Keith Briffa thinks, and then we can further evaluate if there is really a scientific consensus. (I apologize for this long, poorly formatted email but this is how Dr. Keith Briffa wrote it.I didn't want to alter anything.You can access the original here.If you don't know who Keith Briffa is, he is one of the climate scientists involved with the ClimateGate scandal.There is a great article that speculates that he may be the whistleblower that leaked all of the ClimateGate emails and documents.)

From: Keith Briffa
To: "Folland, Chris" , 'Phil Jones' , "Michael E. Mann"
Subject: RE: IPCC revisions
Date: Wed Sep 22 16:19:06 1999


Hi everyone

Let me say that I don't mind what you put in the policy makers summary if there is a general concensus. However some general discussion would be valuable . First , like Phil , I think that the supposed separation of the tree-ring reconstruction from the others on the grounds that it is not a true "multi-proxy" series is hard to justify. What is true is that these particular tree-ring data best represent SUMMER temperatures mostly at the northern boreal forest regions. By virtue of this , they also definately share significant variance with Northern Hemisphere land and land and marine ANNUAL temperatures - but at decadal and multidecadal timescales - simply by virtue of the fact that these series correlated with the former at these timescales. The multi proxy series (Mann et al . Jones et al) supposedly represent annual and summer seasons respectively, and both contain large proportions of tree-ring input. The latest tree-ring density curve ( i.e. our data thathave been processed to retain low frequency information) shows more similarity to the other two series- as do a number of other lower resolution data ( Bradley et al, Peck et al ., and new Crowley series- see our recent Science piece) whether this represents 'TRUTH' however is a difficult problem. I know Mike thinks his series is the 'best' and he might be right - but he may also be too dismissive of other data and possibly over confident in his (or should I say his use of other's). After all, the early ( pre-instrumental) data are much less reliable as indicators of global temperature than is apparent in modern calibrations that include them and when we don't know the precise role of particular proxies in the earlier portions of reconstruction it remains problematic to assign genuine confidence limits at multidecadal and longer timescales. I still contend that multiple regression against the recent very trendy global mean seriesis potentially dangerous. You could calibrate the proxies to any number of seasons , regardless of their true optimum response . Not for a moment am I saying that the tree-ring , or any other proxy data, are better than Mike's series - indeed I am saying that the various reconstructions are not independent but that they likely contribute more information about reality together than they do alone. I do believe, that it should not be taken as read that Mike's series (or Jone's et al. for that matter) isTHE CORRECT ONE. I prefer a Figure that shows a multitude of reconstructions (e.g similar to that in my Science piece). Incidently, arguing that any particular series is probably better on the basis of what we now about glaciers or solar output is flaky indeed. Glacier mass balance is driven by the difference mainly in winter accumulation and summer ablation , filtered in a complex non-linear way to give variously lagged tongue advance/retreat .Simple inference on the precidence of modern day snout positions does not translate easily into absolute (or relative) temperature levels now or in the past. Similarly, I don't see that we are able to substantiate the veracity of different temperature reconstructions through reference to Solar forcing theories without making assumptions on the effectiveness of (seasonally specific ) long-term insolation changes in different parts of the globe and thecontribution of solar forcing to the observed 20th century warming .

There is still a potential problemwith non-linear responses in the very recent period of some biological proxies ( or perhaps a fertilisation through high CO2 or nitrate input) . I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards 'apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data' but in reality the situation is not quite so simple. We don't have a lot of proxies that come right up to date and those that do (at least a significant number of tree proxies ) some unexpected changes in response that do not match the recent warming. I do not think it wise that this issuebe ignored in the chapter.For the record, I do believe that the proxy data do show unusually warm conditions in recent decades. I am not sure that this unusual warming is so clear in the summer responsive data. I believe that the recent warmth was probably matched about 1000 years ago. I do not believe that global mean annual temperatures have simply cooled progressively over thousands of years as Mike appears to and I contend that that there is strong evidence for major changes in climate over the Holocene (not Milankovich) that require explanation and that could represent part of the current or future background variability of our climate. I think the Venice meeting will be a good place to air these isssues.Finally I appologise for this rather self-indulgent ramble, but I thought I may as well voice these points to you . I too would be happy to go through the recent draft of the chapter when it becomes available.

cheers to all
Keith

In that very telling email we see at least four things: 1. that Dr. Briffa believes the Medieval Warm Period was as warm or warmer than it is today (which means our current warming is not unique, which means he believes natural variation is more than enough to account for our current warming), 2. that he is under pressure to manipulate his data to present a nice and tidy story of global warming, 3. that he does not agree with Dr. Michael Mann on which tree ring reconstructions are the best ones (note the lack of a consensus about certain data within the ClimateGate team), and 4. he believes that Mann has misrepresented the data before (about it cooling progressively over a thousand years.)

So how would he have answered the poll question?I believe he would have said that he thinks CO2 is a significant factor that contributes to changing global mean temperatures and therefore would be included in the 97.4%.But I don't think that he believes we are on a crash course to hell caused by global warming.So would it really be right for an alarmist to claim that he is part of a scientific consensus that believes in what they believe?

Next, we have to look at the poll's definition of a climate scientist, which is as follows: "respondents that listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change."How many of those did they have that agreed? 75.If we look at just the U.S., that is about 1.5 climatologists per state!The "consensus" is just 75 climatologists!

It gets worse. At first glance we would be tempted to believe those 75 people are all climatologists, but we would be wrong.It is impossible to know who responded to the poll, but we can cast doubt on some of the responders qualifications by looking at some of the biggest players in the climatology game.

Let's start with Dr. Rajendra Pachauri.He is the head of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - they compile data that presents a picture of global warming and use it to try to convince the world's legislators that we are on a crash course to hell.)By the above definition he would be considered a climatologist.But his PhD is in Railroad Engineering.

We also know about Dr. Michael Mann from Penn State.He is the climate "scientist" that is infamous for publishing his hockey stick tree ring graphs that have been thourougly debunked multiple times.He's notorious for using horrible program code to present his data in widely distorted ways, he has bullied journal editors into not accepting skeptical climatology papers, and he has corrupted the peer review process.By the above definition he would be considered a climatologist, but his PhD is in Geology / Geophysics.

And we have Gavin Schmidt, who founded the CRU propaganda site RealClimate, credited as a climatologist.But his PhD is in Applied Mathematics.And we also have Dr. Edward Cook who has a PhD in Watershed Management.You gotta love what Dr. Cook thinks about his own field of study!

(Note: in no way am I down-playing Applied Mathematics, Geology, or Railroad Engineering, nor am I saying that they are unqualified to discuss climate change, but they technically aren't climatologists.I am merely pointing this out to demonstrate that the poll's definition of a climatologist is flawed.)

This leads us to the next problem with the poll.There is no way to audit the poll's results.We can't go through their data and see the names of the people who claim to be climatologists.We can't verify their credentials.We don't know if they actually exist.We don't know what kinds of papers they've published, which journals they've been in, if any, or anything else.

Lastly, an alarmist arguing that the are correct because a "scientific consensus" agrees with them is a logical fallacy known as an appeal to authority, in which it is argued that a statement is correct because the statement is made by a person or source that is commonly regarded as authoritative.

So, we have shown that the poll's questions were rather vague, that their definition of climatologist was rather vague, that we can't audit who responded to the poll, and that there is pressure put on climatologists to present a tidy picture of global warming (thanks ClimateGate!).

I'll leave it up to you to decide if you think that the poll shows that there is a consensus among climatologists about anthropogenic global warming.Personally, I feel that the poll was worthless and the questions were too vague to get anything useful from.Even most skeptics think CO2 has contributed to the recent warming period, just in very, very small amounts.

The Skeptics

The Petition Project is a petition that consists of (currently) 31,478 signatures all of which support this very concrete statement:

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases will, in the forseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate.Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide may produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

The statement behind this petition is strengthened by the NIPCC (Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change) report.The NIPCC report is an 880 page book that demonstrates overwhelming scientific support for the position that the warming of the twentieth century was moderate and not unprecedented, that its impact on human health and wildlife was positive, and that carbon dioxide probably is not the driving factor behind climate change.The report is available for download here.

Of those 31,478 signatures from the petition, 9,029 are PhDs, 7,153 M.S.s, 2,585 M.D.s or D.V.M.s, and 12,711 B.S.s.These are staggering numbers.This petition has 10 times the number of people than the alarmist poll had.This petition has three times more PhDs than the alarmists poll had.

Reader Frank Evans has noted the following: "I would add that the OISM Petition signers were each painstakingly verified. The M.D. and D.V.M. signers were also required to have earned a degree in one of the hard sciences. All petition signers were required to be U.S. citizens or U.S. legal residents; if the Petition had been opened to scientists worldwide, the numbers would have been far higher."

This petition is powerful because it backs a very specific statement, as quoted above.It is not vague, and it makes it very clear what the people who signed it believe.This is the opposite of the alarmist poll, because the poll was rather vague in asking what people felt about the anthropogenic contributions of greenhouse gases.

Also, this petition is powerful because people had to voluntarily go out of their way to sign it.They had to contact the Petition Project, fill out a form, and mail it in.For the alarmist poll, the population was contacted by the pollers and they were able to (much more easily) fill out a form on the internet without having to even leave their office.

Some criticisms of the petition project are the population that make up the signatures.Critics say that some of the people who have signed are not qualified to give their opinion on climate science.But at the same time they would let a railroad engineer head the IPCC.Let's look at a breakdown of the educational backgrounds of the signees and see why each educational background is important to understanding climate change.

1. Atmospheric, environmental, and Earth sciences includes 3,803 scientists trained in specialties directly related to the physical environment of the Earth and the past and current phenomena that affect that environment.

2. Computer and mathematical sciences includes 935 scientists trained in computer and mathematical methods. Since the human-caused global warming hypothesis rests entirely upon mathematical computer projections and not upon experimental observations, these sciences are especially important in evaluating this hypothesis.

3. Physics and aerospace sciences include 5,810 scientists trained in the fundamental physical and molecular properties of gases, liquids, and solids, which are essential to understanding the physical properties of the atmosphere and Earth.

4. Chemistry includes 4,818 scientists trained in the molecular interactions and behaviors of the substances of which the atmosphere and Earth are composed.

5. Biology and agriculture includes 2,964 scientists trained in the functional and environmental requirements of living things on the Earth.

6. Medicine includes 3,046 scientists trained in the functional and environmental requirements of human beings on the Earth.

7. Engineering and general science includes 10,102 scientists trained primarily in the many engineering specialties required to maintain modern civilization and the prosperity required for all human actions, including environmental programs.

The outline below gives a more detailed analysis of the signers’ educations.The numbers in parenthesis are the number of signatures in that particular area of study.The subjects in bold are the broad categories, and beneath them are a breakdown of the categories.Atmosphere, Earth, and Environment (3,803)1. Atmosphere (578)a) Atmospheric Science (113)b) Climatology (39)c) Meteorology (341)d) Astronomy (59)e) Astrophysics (26)2. Earth (2,240)a) Earth Science (94)b) Geochemistry (63)c) Geology (1,684)d) Geophysics (341)e) Geoscience (36)f) Hydrology (22)3. Environment (985)a) Environmental Engineering (486)b) Environmental Science (253)c) Forestry (163)d) Oceanography (83)Computers and Math (935)1. Computer Science (242)2. Math (693)a) Mathematics (581)b) Statistics (112)Physics and Aerospace (5,810)1. Physics (5,223)a) Physics (2,365)b) Nuclear Engineering (223)c) Mechanical Engineering (2,635)2. Aerospace Engineering (587)Chemistry (4,818)1. Chemistry (3,126)2. Chemical Engineering (1,692)Biochemistry, Biology, and Agriculture (2,964)1. Biochemistry (744)a) Biochemistry (676)b) Biophysics (68)2. Biology (1,437)a) Biology (1,048)b) Ecology (76)c) Entomology (59)d) Zoology (149)e) Animal Science (105)3. Agriculture (783)a) Agricultural Science (296)b) Agricultural Engineering (114)c) Plant Science (292)d) Food Science (81)Medicine (3,046)1. Medical Science (719)2. Medicine (2,327)General Engineering and General Science (10,102)1. General Engineering (9,833)a) Engineering (7,280)b) Electrical Engineering (2,169)c) Metallurgy (384)2. General Science (269)

Again, the numbers are staggering.There are 3,803 signees that specialize in atmosphere, earth, and environmental science.Compare that to the 75 that the alarmist poll had.Yikes

The Conclusion

I've presented all the facts and you are free to draw your own conclusions.This should give you plenty to think about the next time you hear an alarmist cry that the "consensus among scientists is that humans are causing global warming."Just remember that their consensus was 75 anonymous people who may have not even been climatologists, and remember that the questions from that poll were so vague that even skeptics could possibly answer "yes" to it.

Update

In open letter to the United Nations Secretary-General, Ban Ki Moon, 141 Scientists state that the science behind anthropogenic global warming is anything but "settled".See it here.This link has a list of 500 peer reviewed papers which support skepticism of "man-made" global warming or the environmental or economic effects of. See it here.A great article about many professionals who had to hide their skeptical views in order to keep receiving funding.See it here.

His Excellency Ban Ki Moon

Secretary-General, United Nations

New York, NY

United States of America

8 December 2009

Dear Secretary-General,

Climate change science is in a period of ‘negative discovery’ - the more we learn about this exceptionally complex and rapidly evolving field the more we realize how little we know. Truly, the science is NOT settled.

Therefore, there is no sound reason to impose expensive and restrictive public policy decisions on the peoples of the Earth without first providing convincing evidence that human activities are causing dangerous climate change beyond that resulting from natural causes. Before any precipitate action is taken, we must have solid observational data demonstrating that recent changes in climate differ substantially from changes observed in the past and are well in excess of normal variations caused by solar cycles, ocean currents, changes in the Earth's orbital parameters and other natural phenomena.

We the undersigned, being qualified in climate-related scientific disciplines, challenge the UNFCCC and supporters of the United Nations Climate Change Conference to produce convincing OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE for their claims of dangerous human-caused global warming and other changes in climate. Projections of possible future scenarios from unproven computer models of climate are not acceptable substitutes for real world data obtained through unbiased and rigorous scientific investigation.

Specifically, we challenge supporters of the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused climate change to demonstrate that:
Variations in global climate in the last hundred years are significantly outside the natural range experienced in previous centuries;
Humanity’s emissions of carbon dioxide and other ‘greenhouse gases’ (GHG) are having a dangerous impact on global climate;
Computer-based models can meaningfully replicate the impact of all of the natural factors that may significantly influence climate;
Sea levels are rising dangerously at a rate that has accelerated with increasing human GHG emissions, thereby threatening small islands and coastal communities;
The incidence of malaria is increasing due to recent climate changes;
Human society and natural ecosystems cannot adapt to foreseeable climate change as they have done in the past;
Worldwide glacier retreat, and sea ice melting in Polar Regions , is unusual and related to increases in human GHG emissions;
Polar bears and other Arctic and Antarctic wildlife are unable to adapt to anticipated local climate change effects, independent of the causes of those changes;
Hurricanes, other tropical cyclones and associated extreme weather events are increasing in severity and frequency;
Data recorded by ground-based stations are a reliable indicator of surface temperature trends.


It is not the responsibility of ‘climate realist’ scientists to prove that dangerous human-caused climate change is not happening. Rather, it is those who propose that it is, and promote the allocation of massive investments to solve the supposed ‘problem’, who have the obligation to convincingly demonstrate that recent climate change is not of mostly natural origin and, if we do nothing, catastrophic change will ensue. To date, this they have utterly failed to do so.

Signed by:
Habibullo I. Abdussamatov, Dr. Sci., mathematician and astrophysicist, Head of the Russian-Ukrainian Astrometria project on the board of the Russian segment of the ISS, Head of Space Research Laboratory at the Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences, St. Petersburg, Russia
Göran Ahlgren, docent organisk kemi, general secretary of the Stockholm Initiative, Professor of Organic Chemistry, Stockholm, Sweden
Syun-Ichi Akasofu, PhD, Professor of Physics, Emeritus and Founding Director, International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Alaska, U.S.A.
J.R. Alexander, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Civil Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa; Member, UN Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, 1994-2000, Pretoria, South Africa.
Jock Allison, PhD, ONZM, formerly Ministry of Agriculture Regional Research Director, Dunedin, New Zealand
Bjarne Andresen, PhD, dr. scient, physicist, published and presents on the impossibility of a "global temperature", Professor, The Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
Timothy F. Ball, PhD, environmental consultant and former climatology professor, University of Winnipeg, Member, Science Advisory Board, ICSC, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
Douglas W. Barr, BS (Meteorology, University of Chicago), BS and MS (Civil Engineering, University of Minnesota), Barr Engineering Co. (environmental issues and water resources), Minnesota, U.S.A.
Romuald Bartnik, PhD (Organic Chemistry), Professor Emeritus, Former chairman of the Department of Organic and Applied Chemistry, climate work in cooperation with Department of Hydrology and Geological Museum, University of Lodz, Lodz, Poland
Colin Barton, B.Sc., PhD, Earth Science, Principal research scientist (retd), Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Joe Bastardi, BSc, (Meteorology, Pennsylvania State), meteorologist, State College, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.
Ernst-Georg Beck, Dipl. Biol. (University of Freiburg), Biologist, Freiburg, Germany
David Bellamy, OBE, English botanist, author, broadcaster, environmental campaigner, Hon. Professor of Botany (Geography), University of Nottingham, Hon. Prof. Faculty of Engineering and Physical Systems, Central Queensland University, Hon. Prof. of Adult and Continuing Education, University of Durham, United Nations Environment Program Global 500 Award Winner, Dutch Order of The Golden Ark, Bishop Auckland County, Durham, U.K.
M. I. Bhat, Professor & Head, Department of Geology & Geophysics, University of Kashmir, Srinagar, Jammu & Kashmir, India
Ian R. Bock, BSc, PhD, DSc, Biological sciences (retired), Ringkobing, Denmark
Sonja A. Boehmer-Christiansen, PhD, Reader Emeritus, Dept. of Geography, Hull University, Editor - Energy&Environment, Multi-Science (www.multi-science.co.uk), Hull, United Kingdom
Atholl Sutherland Brown, PhD (Geology, Princeton University), Regional Geology, Tectonics and Mineral Deposits, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
Stephen C. Brown, PhD (Environmental Science, State University of New York), District Agriculture Agent, Assistant Professor, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Ground Penetrating Radar Glacier research, Palmer, Alaska, U.S.A.
James Buckee, D.Phil. (Oxon), focus on stellar atmospheres, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Dan Carruthers, M.Sc., Arctic Animal Behavioural Ecologist, wildlife biology consultant specializing in animal ecology in Arctic and Subarctic regions, Alberta, Canada
Robert M. Carter, PhD, Professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia
Dr. Arthur V. Chadwick, PhD, Geologist, dendrochronology (analyzing tree rings to determine past climate) lecturing, Southwestern Adventist University, Keene, Texas, U.S.A.
George V. Chilingar, PhD, Member, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow President, Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, U.S.A. Section, Emeritus Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, U.S.A.
Ian D. Clark, PhD, Professor (isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology), Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Charles A. Clough, BS (Mathematics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology), MS (Atmospheric Science, Texas Tech University), former (to 2006) Chief of the US Army Atmospheric Effects Team at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland; now residing in Bel Air, Maryland, U.S.A.
Paul Copper, BSc, MSc, PhD, DIC, FRSC, Professor Emeritus, Department of Earth Sciences, Laurentian University Sudbury, Ontario, Canada
Piers Corbyn, MSc (Physics (Imperial College London)), ARCS, FRAS, FRMetS, astrophysicist (Queen Mary College, London), consultant, founder WeatherAction long range forecasters, London, United Kingdom
Allan Cortese, meteorological researcher and spotter for the National Weather Service, retired computer professional, Billerica, Massachusetts, U.S.A.
Richard S. Courtney, PhD, energy and environmental consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, Falmouth, Cornwall, United Kingdom
Susan Crockford, PhD (Zoology/Evolutionary Biology/Archaeozoology), Adjunct Professor (Anthropology/Faculty of Graduate Studies), University of Victoria, Victoria, British Colombia, Canada
(Claude Culross, PhD (Organic Chemistry), retired, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, U.S.A.
Joseph D’Aleo, BS, MS (Meteorology, University of Wisconsin), Doctoral Studies (NYU), Executive Director - ICECAP (International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project), Fellow of the AMS, College Professor Climatology/Meteorology, First Director of Meteorology The Weather Channel, Hudson, New Hampshire, U.S.A.
Chris R. de Freitas, PhD, Climate Scientist, School of Environment, The University of Auckland, New Zealand
Willem de Lange, MSc (Hons), DPhil (Computer and Earth Sciences), Senior Lecturer in Earth and Ocean Sciences, Waikato University, Hamilton, New Zealand
James DeMeo, PhD (University of Kansas 1986, Earth/Climate Science), now in Private Research, Ashland, Oregon, U.S.A.
David Deming, PhD (Geophysics), Associate Professor, College of Arts and Sciences, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma, U.S.A.
James E Dent; B.Sc., FCIWEM, C.Met, FRMetS, C.Env., Independent Consultant, Member of WMO OPACHE Group on Flood Warning, Hadleigh, Suffolk, England
Robert W. Durrenberger, PhD, former Arizona State Climatologist and President of the American Association of State Climatologists, Professor Emeritus of Geography, Arizona State University; Sun City, Arizona, U.S.A.
Don J. Easterbrook, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Geology, Western Washington, University, Bellingham, Washington, U.S.A.
Per Engene, MSc, Biologist, Bø i Telemark, Norway, Co-author The Climate. Science and Politics (2009)
Robert H. Essenhigh, PhD, E.G. Bailey Professor of Energy Conversion, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, U.S.A.
David Evans, PhD (EE), MSc (Stat), MSc (EE), MA (Math), BE (EE), BSc, mathematician, carbon accountant and modeler, computer and electrical engineer and head of 'Science Speak', Scientific Advisory Panel member - Australian Climate Science Coalition, Perth, Western Australia, Australia
Sören Floderus, PhD (Physical Geography (Uppsala University)), coastal-environment specialization, Copenhagen, Denmark
Louis Fowler, BS (Mathematics), MA (Physics), 33 years in environmental measurements (Ambient Air Quality Measurements), Austin, Texas, U.S.A.
Stewart Franks, PhD, Professor, Hydroclimatologist, University of Newcastle, Australia
Gordon Fulks, PhD (Physics, University of Chicago), cosmic radiation, solar wind, electromagnetic and geophysical phenomena, Corbett, Oregon, U.S.A.
R. W. Gauldie, PhD, Research Professor, Hawai'i Institute of Geophysics and Planetology, School of Ocean Earth Sciences and Technology, University of Hawai'i at Manoa (Retired), U.S.A.
David G. Gee, Professor of Geology (Emeritus), Department of Earth Sciences, Uppsala University, Villavagen 16, Uppsala, Sweden
Lee C. Gerhard, PhD, Senior Scientist Emeritus, University of Kansas, past director and state geologist, Kansas Geological Survey, U.S.A.
Gerhard Gerlich, Dr.rer.nat. (Mathematical Physics: Magnetohydrodynamics) habil. (Real Measure Manifolds), Professor, Institut für Mathematische Physik, Technische Universität Carolo-Wilhelmina zu Braunschweig, Braunschweig, Germany, Co-author of “Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics”, Int.J.Mod.Phys.,2009
Albrecht Glatzle, PhD, ScAgr, Agro-Biologist and Gerente ejecutivo, Tropical pasture research and land use management, Director científico de INTTAS, Loma Plata, Paraguay
Fred Goldberg, PhD, Adj Professor, Royal Institute of Technology (Mech, Eng.), Secretary General KTH International Climate Seminar 2006 and Climate analyst and member of NIPCC, Lidingö, Sweden
Wayne Goodfellow, PhD (Earth Science), Ocean Evolution, Paleoenvironments, Adjunct Professor, Senior Research Scientist, University of Ottawa, Geological Survey of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Thomas B. Gray, MS, Meteorology, Retired, USAF, Yachats, Oregon, U.S.A.
Vincent Gray, PhD, New Zealand Climate Coalition, expert reviewer for the IPCC, author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of Climate Change 2001, Wellington, New Zealand
William M. Gray, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University, Head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Fort Collins, Colorado, U.S.A.
Kenneth P. Green, M.Sc. (Biology, University of San Diego) and a Doctorate in Environmental Science and Engineering from the University of California at Los Angeles, Resident Scholar, American Enterprise Institute, Washington, DC, U.S.A.
Charles B. Hammons, PhD (Applied Mathematics), systems/software engineering, modeling & simulation, design, Consultant, Coyle, Oklahoma, U.S.A.
William Happer, PhD, Cyrus Fogg Bracket Professor of Physics (research focus is interaction of light and matter, a key mechanism for global warming and cooling), Princeton University; Former Director, Office of Energy Research (now Office of Science), US Department of Energy (supervised climate change research), Member - National Academy of Sciences of the USA, American Academy of Arts and Sciences, American Philosophical Society; Princeton, NJ, USA.
Howard Hayden, PhD, Emeritus Professor (Physics), University of Connecticut, The Energy Advocate, Connecticut, U.S.A.
Ross Hays, Atmospheric Scientist, NASA Columbia Scientific Balloon Facility, Palestine, Texas, U.S.A.
James A. Heimbach, Jr., BA Physics (Franklin and Marshall College), Master's and PhD in Meteorology (Oklahoma University), Prof. Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences (University of North Carolina at Asheville), Springvale, Maine, U.S.A.
Ole Humlum, PhD, Professor, Department of Physical Geography, Institute of Geosciences, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
Craig D. Idso, PhD, Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Tempe, Arizona, U.S.A.
Sherwood B. Idso, PhD, President, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Tempe, Arizona, U.S.A.
Terri Jackson, MSc MPhil., Director, Independent Climate Research Group, Northern Ireland and London (Founder of the Energy Group at the Institute of Physics, London), U.K.
Albert F. Jacobs, Geol.Drs., P. Geol., Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Zbigniew Jaworowski, PhD, DSc, professor of natural sciences, Senior Science Adviser of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, researcher on ice core CO2 records, Warsaw, Poland.
Terrell Johnson, B.S. (Zoology), M.S. (Wildlife & Range Resources, Air & Water Quality), Principal Environmental Engineer, Certified Wildlife Biologist, Green River, Wyoming, U.S.A.
Bill Kappel, BS (Physical Science-Geology), BS (Meteorology), Storm Analysis, Climatology, Operation Forecasting, Vice President/Senior Meteorologist, Applied Weather Associates, LLC, University of Colorado, Colorado Springs, U.S.A.
Wibjörn Karlén, MSc (quaternary sciences), PhD (physical geography), Professor emeritus, Stockholm University, Department of Social and Economic Geography, Geografiska Annaler Ser. A, Uppsala, Sweden
Olavi Kärner, Ph.D., Extraordinary Research Associate; Dept. of Atmospheric Physics, Tartu Observatory, Toravere, Estonia
David Kear, PhD, FRSNZ, CMG, geologist, former Director-General of NZ Dept. of Scientific & Industrial Research, Whakatane, Bay of Plenty, New Zealand
Madhav L. Khandekar, PhD, consultant meteorologist, (former) Research Scientist, Environment Canada, Editor "Climate Research” (03-05), Editorial Board Member "Natural Hazards, IPCC Expert Reviewer 2007, Unionville, Ontario, Canada
Leonid F. Khilyuk, PhD, Science Secretary, Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, Professor of Engineering, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, U.S.A.
William Kininmonth MSc, MAdmin, former head of Australia’s National Climate Centre and a consultant to the World Meteorological organization’s Commission for Climatology, Kew, Victoria, Australia
Gary Kubat, BS (Atmospheric Science), MS (Atmospheric Science), professional meteorologist last 18 years, O'Fallon, Illinois, U.S.A.
Roar Larsen, Dr.ing.(PhD), Chief Scientist, SINTEF (Trondheim, Norway), Adjunct Professor, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway
Douglas Leahey, PhD, meteorologist and air-quality consultant, President - Friends of Science, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Jay Lehr, BEng (Princeton), PhD (environmental science and ground water hydrology), Science Director, The Heartland Institute, Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.
Edward Liebsch, BS (Earth Science & Chemistry), MS (Meteorology, Pennsylvania State University), Senior Air Quality Scientist, HDR Inc., Maple Grove, MN, U.S.A.
Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology, Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.
Peter Link, BS, MS, PhD (Geology, Climatology), Geol/Paleoclimatology, retired, Active in Geol-paleoclimatology, Tulsa University and Industry, Evergreen, Colorado, U.S.A.
Anthony R. Lupo, Ph.D., Professor of Atmospheric Science, Department of Soil, Environmental, and Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri, U.S.A.
Horst Malberg, PhD, former director of Institute of Meteorology, Free University of Berlin, Germany
Björn Malmgren, PhD, Professor Emeritus in Marine Geology, Paleoclimate Science, Goteborg University, retired, Norrtälje, Sweden
Fred Michel, PhD, Director, Institute of Environmental Sciences, Associate Professor of Earth Sciences, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Ferenc Mark Miskolczi, PhD, atmospheric physicist, formerly of NASA's Langley Research Center, Hampton, Virginia, U.S.A.
Asmunn Moene, PhD, MSc (Meteorology), former head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, Oslo, Norway
Cdr. M. R. Morgan, PhD, FRMetS, climate consultant, former Director in marine meteorology policy and planning in DND Canada, NATO and World Meteorological Organization and later a research scientist in global climatology at Exeter University, UK, now residing in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, Canada
Nils-Axel Mörner, PhD (Sea Level Changes and Climate), Emeritus Professor of Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden
Robert Neff, M.S. (Meteorology, St Louis University), Weather Officer, USAF; Contractor support to NASA Meteorology Satellites, Retired, Camp Springs, Maryland, U.S.A.
John Nicol, PhD, Physics, (Retired) James Cook University, Chairman - Australian Climate Science Coalition, Brisbane, Australia
Ingemar Nordin, PhD, professor in philosophy of science (including a focus on "Climate research, philosophical and sociological aspects of a politicised research area"), Linköpings University, Sweden.
David Nowell, M.Sc., Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, former chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
James J. O'Brien, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Meteorology and Oceanography, Florida State University, Florida, U.S.A.
Peter Oliver, BSc (Geology), BSc (Hons, Geochemistry & Geophysics), MSc (Geochemistry), PhD (Geology), specialized in NZ quaternary glaciations, Geochemistry and Paleomagnetism, previously research scientist for the NZ Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, Upper Hutt, New Zealand
Cliff Ollier, D.Sc., Professor Emeritus (School of Earth and Environment), Research Fellow, University of Western Australia, Nedlands, W.A., Australia
Garth W. Paltridge, BSc Hons (Qld), MSc, PhD (Melb), DSc (Qld), Emeritus Professor, Honorary Research Fellow and former Director of the Institute of Antarctic and Southern Ocean Studies, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Visiting Fellow, RSBS, ANU, Canberra, ACT, Australia
R. Timothy Patterson, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University, Chair - International Climate Science Coalition, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Alfred H. Pekarek, PhD, Associate Professor of Geology, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Department, St. Cloud State University, St. Cloud, Minnesota, U.S.A.
Ian Plimer, PhD, Professor of Mining Geology, The University of Adelaide; Emeritus Professor of Earth Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Australia
Daniel Joseph Pounder, BS (Meteorology, University of Oklahoma), MS (Atmospheric Sciences, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign); Weather Forecasting, Meteorologist, WILL AM/FM/TV, the public broadcasting station of the University of Illinois, Urbana, U.S.A.
Brian Pratt, PhD, Professor of Geology (Sedimentology), University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada
Harry N.A. Priem, PhD, Professor (retired) Utrecht University, isotope and planetary geology, Past-President Royal Netherlands Society of Geology and Mining, former President of the Royal Geological and Mining Society of the Netherlands, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Tom Quirk, MSc (Melbourne), D Phil, MA (Oxford), SMP (Harvard), Member of the Scientific Advisory Panel of the Australian Climate Science Coalition, Member Board Institute of Public Affairs, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
George A. Reilly, PhD (Geology), Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Robert G. Roper, PhD, DSc (University of Adelaide, South Australia), Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia, U.S.A.
Arthur Rorsch, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Molecular Genetics, Leiden University, retired member board Netherlands Organization Applied Research TNO, Leiden, The Netherlands
Curt Rose, BA, MA (University of Western Ontario), MA, PhD (Clark University), Professor Emeritus, Department of Environmental Studies and Geography, Bishop's University, Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada
Rob Scagel, MSc (forest microclimate specialist), Principal Consultant - Pacific Phytometric Consultants, Surrey, British Columbia, Canada
Clive Schaupmeyer, B.Sc., M.Sc., Professional Agrologist (awarded an Alberta "Distinguished Agrologist"), 40 years of weather and climate studies with respect to crops, Coaldale, Alberta, Canada
Bruce Schwoegler, BS (Meteorology and Naval Science, University of Wisconsin-Madison), Chief Technology Officer, MySky Communications Inc, meteorologist, science writer and principal/co-founder of MySky, Lakeville, Massachusetts, U.S.A.
John Shade, BS (Physics), MS (Atmospheric Physics), MS (Applied Statistics), Industrial Statistics Consultant, GDP, Dunfermline, Scotland, United Kingdom
Gary Sharp, PhD, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, California, U.S.A.
Thomas P. Sheahen, PhD (Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology), specialist in renewable energy, research and publication (Applied Optics) in modeling and measurement of absorption of infrared radiation by atmospheric CO2, Oakland, Maryland, U.S.A.
Paavo Siitam, M.Sc., agronomist and chemist, Cobourg, Ontario, Canada
L. Graham Smith, PhD, Associate Professor of Geography, specialising in Resource Management, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada.
Roy W. Spencer, PhD, climatologist, Principal Research Scientist, Earth System Science Center, The University of Alabama, Huntsville, Alabama, U.S.A.
Walter Starck, PhD (Biological Oceanography), marine biologist (specialization in coral reefs and fisheries), author, photographer, Townsville, Australia
Peter Stilbs, TeknD, Professor of Physical Chemistry, Research Leader, School of Chemical Science and Engineering, Royal Institute of Technology (KTH), member of American Chemical Society and life member of American Physical Society, Chair of "Global Warming - Scientific Controversies in Climate Variability", International seminar meeting at KTH, 2006, Stockholm, Sweden
Arlin Super, PhD (Meteorology), former Professor of Meteorology at Montana State University, retired Research Meteorologist, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Saint Cloud, Minnesota, U.S.A.
George H. Taylor, B.A. (Mathematics, U.C. Santa Barbara), M.S. (Meteorology, University of Utah), Certified Consulting Meteorologist, Applied Climate Services, LLC, Former State Climatologist (Oregon), President, American Association of State Climatologists (1998-2000), Corvallis, Oregon, U.S.A.
Mitchell Taylor, PhD, Biologist (Polar Bear Specialist), Wildlife Research Section, Department of Environment, Igloolik, Nunavut, Canada
Hendrik Tennekes, PhD, former director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute, Arnhem, The Netherlands
Frank Tipler, PhD, Professor of Mathematical Physics, astrophysics, Tulane University, New Orleans, Louisiana, U.S.A.
Edward M. Tomlinson, MS (Meteorology), Ph.D. (Meteorology, University of Utah), President, Applied Weather Associates, LLC (leader in extreme rainfall storm analyses), 21 years US Air Force in meteorology (Air Weather Service), Monument, Colorado, U.S.A.
Ralf D. Tscheuschner, Dr.rer.nat. (Theoretical physics: Quantum Theory), Freelance Lecturer and Researcher in Physics and Applied Informatics, Hamburg, Germany. Co-author of “Falsification of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics, Int.J.Mod.Phys. 2009
Gerrit J. van der Lingen, PhD (Utrecht University), geologist and paleoclimatologist, climate change consultant, Geoscience Research and Investigations, Christchurch, New Zealand
A.J. (Tom) van Loon, PhD, Professor of Geology (Quaternary Geology), Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznan, Poland; former President of the European Association of Science Editors
Gösta Walin, PhD in Theoretical physics, Professor emeritus in oceanography, Earth Science Center, Göteborg University, Göteborg, Sweden
Neil Waterhouse, PhD (Physics, Thermal, Precise Temperature Measurement), retired, National Research Council, Bell Northern Research, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Anthony Watts, 25-year broadcast meteorology veteran and currently chief meteorologist for KPAY-AM radio. In 1987, he founded ItWorks, which supplies custom weather stations, Internet servers, weather graphics content, and broadcast video equipment. In 2007, Watts founded SurfaceStations.org, a Web site devoted to photographing and documenting the quality of weather stations across the U.S., U.S.A.
Charles L. Wax, PhD (physical geography: climatology, LSU), State Climatologist – Mississippi, past President of the American Association of State Climatologists, Professor, Department of Geosciences, Mississippi State University, U.S.A.
James Weeg, BS (Geology), MS (Environmental Science), Professional Geologist/hydrologist, Advent Environmental Inc, Mt. Pleasant, South Carolina, U.S.A.
Forese-Carlo Wezel, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Stratigraphy (global and Mediterranean geology, mass biotic extinctions and paleoclimatology), University of Urbino, Urbino, Italy
Boris Winterhalter, PhD, senior marine researcher (retired), Geological Survey of Finland, former adjunct professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
David E. Wojick, PhD, PE, energy and environmental consultant, Technical Advisory Board member - Climate Science Coalition of America, Star Tannery, Virginia, U.S.A.
Raphael Wust, PhD, Adj Sen. Lecturer, Marine Geology/Sedimentology, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia
Stan Zlochen, BS (Atmospheric Science), MS (Atmospheric Science), USAF (retired), Omaha, Nebraska, U.S.A.
Dr. Bob Zybach, PhD (Oregon State University (OSU), Environmental Sciences Program), MAIS (OSU, Forest Ecology, Cultural Anthropology, Historical Archaeology), BS (OSU College of Forestry), President, NW Maps Co., Program Manager, Oregon Websites and Watersheds Project, Inc., Cottage Grove, Oregon, U.S.A.

[RAGNAR]

Here's another known documentary that's packed with contemporary scientists disputing the IPCC's claims, the methods behind many of these claims, and more proof that nothing like most scientists accept the GW theory:

CBC - Global Warming Doomsday Called Off

(Note the source. CBC is neither a pinnacle of journalistic objectivity nor a centrist organization.)

Dr David Legates (~):

[The IPCC chapter that did away with that pesky Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age] makes you believe that . . . in particular . . . that the Climate View is held by many. In fact, it's really held by few.

So much for this alleged consensus, something that wouldn't mean anything even if it were there. (You can't tally institutions as proof of consensus in the scientific community and claim to have any clue as to what's going on in that marvelous union of government and academia.)

The new history was largely authored by Michael Mann, one of the ClimateGate culprits. How did he do it?

He set aside empirical evidence, apparently, in favor of ~"computer simulations of the temperature series over the last 140 years compared to old tree data." This retelling did away with both the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, correlating, finally, alarming increases in the planet's temperature to industrialization.

(There have to be serious limitations to using ice cores and the like to establish temperature history, but climate models used for GW assessment are notoriously corrupt.)

For those of you who don't understand that this is all the proof you need to let go of the IPCC, all involved with this fiasco directly, and all this nonsense has been used to first substantiate, then bombard honest, trusting people with, you need to raise your standards by entire orders of magnitude. It's that simple. (I've omitted all sorts of other trends that one would have to consider; things like the UN's overall make up and thrust, for example, the types of people that go into government nowadays, what they're taught in the Humanities, etc.)

So a good deal of the criticisms tossed at several points made by Lord Monckton are, to be sarcastically generous about it, "questionable". (I love the strawman that has Monckton channeling Delphi-like, as if he has no access to scientists, papers, and the easily mastered methods needed to pierce through 101-level gimmicks. Should he be taken on faith? Did anyone ask anyone to do so? Is he an authority? By the standard used to deface him on this Forum, no one is an authority on anything.)

[radioguy]

How much do you want to bet that knothead (what an appropriate name) fails to read any of our posts, and comes back posting some ridiculous thing, etc? I just can't fathom being so incapable of reasoning and thinking. I truly believe that there is a weird trend in our world where it's "cool" to be stupid. It's "cool" to believe in the most ridiculous things possible. Global warming, acupuncture, alternative medicines, etc. SIGH.

[knothead]

Originally Posted by RAGNAR

Didn't we discuss the skepticalscience.com site already?

We may have, I don't remember. But the fact that you dismiss something really isn't my main criterion for considering it.

As usual with the pages you copy from this site, the stuff under "What the science says . . ." misnomer is irrelevant.

In your opinion.

You can't counter a 31K scientists counter to your 400 scientists assertion, by reference to yet another survey. (it seems that I can. Just google, copy and paste) It's a profoundly irrational approach.(I have come to the conclusion that you are correct sir and I suggest that we both abandon our efforts.) Since we've seen this site do this and the like any number of times, it's time for them(all) to go.(I agree. You quote and reference scientists and intellectuals to make your point and I do the same. They all are people like you and me that are motivated by the same things that motivate all people. And in the same order of priority. So it comes down to "how greedy is this guy. Or how desperate is this guy" While you may disagree, I feel that man, on an individual level is not inherently evil. However, all men, whether conservative or liberal. Religious or secular. Capitalist or commie have one thing in common. Human nature. Follow the money. You can buy anyone. You can coerce anyone. No ideology has a monopoly on corruption.)

And one more time with the reason I even brought up the 31K petition: Science is not a function of consensus. (I understand why you brought it up. I'm not a moron. In spite of the local consensus. ) The validity of a given scientific assertion is not affected in any way be the number of people who accept it, reject it, whatever. It doesn't matter if we're talking about a group of convicts or a group of scientists, whether we're talking about some obscure philosophic point, hardcore applied science or theoretical science. Truth is not open to vote.(Yeah, you've said the same thing a number of times in different ways and with different words. I get it. The problem is you are absolutely convinced that your truth is the only truth. I got news for you. Everybody in the world has their own truth. Everyone in the world has their own religion. Yeah, even you.)

And for the love of God, try to remember that eloquent summation of this point offered by Brit Hume:(Hey, I really like Brit. When he's not there on Sunday mornings I miss him. I have no idea what his thoughts about agw are and I don't really care. He's not a member here afaik. He could have been talking about any scientific field of study but again, I don't really care. There are a lot of people who I respect that have different opinions on different subjects than I do. If everyone agreed about everything all the time, life would be boring. )



This is made as plain as anything can be made by the history of science, of philosophy, and a basic education that didn't go off course because of the gargoyles we've entrusted the core ideas of our culture to/with whatever the right word is.

This is the last post that I will make in any of the gw threads. (I've read them radioboy. But my only response to you is that I you wouldn't say that crap if you knew me. That just took more of my time than you deserve.) Not only have I come to the conclusion that it's pointless, frustrating and time consuming. It leads to a lot of vitriol and may end up hurting the cause that you are trying to further. Because we are all susceptible to succumbing to our emotions and being hurtful or insensitive in our correspondence.
I made my point as well as I could and I have actually learned a lot because of the challenges posed in the discussion. I haven't changed my position. In fact it has been reinforced. Though it's cost me a little bit more of my dwindling supply of hope.
I bet that man will still be arguing about this stuff when I am long dead.

Here is a link to the ""film that started it all". While you may consider it to be propaganda. It's no more so than the stuff we've been resorting to. And at least it is comprised of some impressive videography.
Bye now.

YouTube - HOME (English with subtitles)

[SlowButSteady]

And the peer-reviewed publications produced by the folks on your list can be found where, exactly?

[RAGNAR]

Originally Posted by knothead

We may have, I don't remember. But the fact that you dismiss something really isn't my main criterion for considering it.

If you had bothered to consider what I had written, you'd realize that I don't expect you or anyone to accept anything I say. What I hope for when I type is that standard methods of reasoning will be used to consider my points. Sadly, you haven't done this. Instead, you've reduced all this to a massive piss-off; probably without meaning to.

In your opinion.

Sure.

The problem, if that's what we're going to call it, is that my opinion(s) is founded on basic reasoning. You can't just walk away from 101-level discourse and claim to have either the capacity to analyze rationally or intellectual honesty.

(it seems that I can. Just google, copy and paste)

Equivocation of what's physically possible and what's allowed by the rules of reason we've had for millennia.

(I have come to the conclusion that you are correct sir and I suggest that we both abandon our efforts.)

Unfortunately, your reasoning record is such that even when we agree it means next to nothing. (I'm ignoring the pithiness, as it's beneath you and, well, not earned by either of us.)

(I agree. You quote and reference scientists and intellectuals to make your point and I do the same.

You can't agree then disagree on the same point; not in any acknowledged dimension, anyway.

And I don't quote scientists to prove anything in the manner you do.

They all are people like you and me that are motivated by the same things that motivate all people. And in the same order of priority. So it comes down to "how greedy is this guy. Or how desperate is this guy"

The beauty of thinking via reason is that none of this matters to the argument. In the end, all that can matter is what they've substantiated. To focus on anything else is, to be generous about it, silly.

While you may disagree, I feel that man, on an individual level is not inherently evil.

That's good to know, as your track record here indicates a different metaphysical outlook, one more in synch with religion and Greenhood.

However, all men, whether conservative or liberal. Religious or secular. Capitalist or commie have one thing in common. Human nature. Follow the money. You can buy anyone. You can coerce anyone. No ideology has a monopoly on corruption.)

And there's the proof that you may very well think all men are evil. History is packed with acts of braveness and individual character that simply defy this convenient, tyrants' rationalization. I'd bet you know people that wouldn't cave in to nonsense like this. (Would you cave in to that sort of temptation, knothead?)

(I understand why you brought it up. I'm not a moron. In spite of the local consensus. )

I never said you were. But the content of your posts strongly suggested that you didn't keep that fact in mind. Had you, perhaps you could've sparred us all some time.

(Yeah, you've said the same thing a number of times in different ways and with different words. I get it.

Splendid!

The problem is you are absolutely convinced that your truth is the only truth.

To the extent that I use easily mastered rules of reason, my truth, as you need to put it, is the only truth. Same goes for anyone that relies on these rules. There is an objective, knowable reality out there, something we more or less concede the moment we open our mouths and utter any communication at all.

I got news for you. Everybody in the world has their own truth.

We can live our lives as if that were an option -- freewill. That's miles from it actually being an option or possible, let alone sustainable.

Everyone in the world has their own religion.

I have legions of acquaintances that defy this convenient generalization.

Yeah, even you.)

Not if you're using the word "religion" correctly, I don't.

:

(Hey, I really like Brit. When he's not there on Sunday mornings I miss him. I have no idea what his thoughts about agw are and I don't really care.

Too bad none of this has anything to do with that quote.

He's not a member here afaik.

That wouldn't be the only way to know his views.

He could have been talking about any scientific field of study but again, I don't really care.

One of the beauties of the quote is that it's a standalone. However, it was originally expressed in the GW context.

There are a lot of people who I respect that have different opinions on different subjects than I do.

Same here.

If everyone agreed about everything all the time, life would be boring. )

That's good and fine. But we live in times where life and death disagreements usually pivot on gross ignorance of fundamentals that were taken for granted not too long ago. What's resulting from our turning away from that standard isn't the sort of excitement I want for Man.

I bet that man will still be arguing about this stuff when I am long dead.

Let's hope you don't go soon, and that we all live to see people unburdened by this latest and remarkably effective version of the Sky Is Falling mentality.

***

[RAGNAR]

Originally Posted by SlowButSteady

And the peer-reviewed publications produced by the folks on your list can be found where, exactly?

That's so abysmally cheap and flippant, that it's telling of dishonest motive.