U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007

[Mikey Gribble]

I came across this article today. I still haven't gotten all the way through it, but it is really good so far. Here it is if you're interested. Starting this made me think of Gilbert Grape saying "match in the gas tank... boom boom". I really don't want this to be an argument. Everybody knows that nobody is changing their minds on the topic, so let's leave it at that and if you have something to say debate the merits of the article.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb

 

[Jeff Snyder]

[FONT=times new roman,times]The voices of many of these hundreds of scientists serve as a direct challenge to the often media-hyped “consensus” that the debate is “settled.”[/FONT]

[FONT=times new roman,times]
That's not a bad thing... I think the some media and celebrities have of more of a detriment than anything else. In such cases, the messenger is doing harm to the message. However, that does not necessarily mean that the message itself is incorrect. Exaggerated? Likely. Correct at its most basic level? Most likely.

It's worth noting that the report only addresses "man-made global warming", so it's an article about folks who dispute anthropogenic forcing. It does not indicate those scientists dispute global warming itself. Just as some anthropogenic global warming folks likely fudge their research to support the trend, I think there are also plenty of scientists against the idea of anthropogenic forcing who are doing so only to get their 10 minutes of fame. Interestingly, the most fervent "deniers" that I can think of in Oklahoma are not meteorologists or atmospheric scientists (I'm thinking of a Senator, a mathematician, etc). [/FONT]

 

[Chris Hayes]

My biggest problem with the global warming proponents is talking about how it's going to be the end of mankind. It's not. Other problems include when they say "the debate is over." Then we have essentially no pressure being put on China when they're rapidly becoming the biggest CO2 emitter in the world.

 

[Craig Maire II]

I do believe that this country as well as the rest of the world should all work towards cutting our fossil fuel emissions etc. but I also don't believe in catastrophic "man-made" global warming and never have. I still can't believe that Al Gore actually got a Nobel Peace Prize for his "anti-global warming" work!

 

[Glen Romine]

I'm not sure where the linked articles came up with their numbers, I only see ~106. While it's nice to see opinions from folks like Gary England, I don't really see him as a prominent climate scientist. Maybe folks like him were counted in coming up with the 400 number, which suggests someone else with an agenda at work.... Here is a more legitimate list of anti-IPCC folks:

http://www.nrsp.com/articles/07.12.13-open letter signatories-independent experts.html

Anyhow, as was suggested in previous threads on similar topics, this type of discourse is 'typical' in the sciences, however rarely is made so public. The scientific process requires challenging the assumptions upon which results are dependent. The earth system is extremely complicated, one I have little understanding of in a holistic sense. I also have little doubt that most of those scientists who are on board with the IPCC assessment fully believe in the work they are doing and are not simply playing the subject as a 'funding opportunity'.

Unfortunately, politics have become so infused with the science on this topic because of the implications for policy decisions that the scientific process has been compromised. Namely, supporters of anthropogenic warming have been forced to play their hand before all of the details have been completely ironed out (the process can be extremely slow). Now, instead of just complaining about it, the skeptics of these ideas need to publish their arguments (as long as they are scientifically sound, they get published) and the assumptions they used, followed by the other side working to counter their arguments, and back and forth until all of the possible aspects of the problem are on the table. Currently, it would seem that not all of the pieces are on the table yet. This has some scientists steamed since their ideas haven't been run through the mill before a 'consensus' decision was released. I can see how this would be viewed as offensive by some, but they need to publish complete arguments, not just offer sound bytes and complain about how they can't get their work published. Properly support their argument with sound science, and it will be.

 

[Chris Hayes]

The politics of global warming is why I hate the topic. Scientists are always clammering to get more gov't grants, and to do so they are told to tow a certain line for that money. 'If you say global warming is manmade, we'll give you a 500,000 dollar earmark in the next spending bill.' I just feel that there is stuff going on behind the scenes of the manmade global warming movement that are not in the best interests of the people. And, until I see the people who are most prominent in the movement change their ways, ie stop flying in private jets, driving suvs, own smaller houses, ect, my mind is set.

 

[Joe Zemek]

The politics of global warming is why I hate the topic. Scientists are always clammering to get more gov't grants, and to do so they are told to tow a certain line for that money. 'If you say global warming is manmade, we'll give you a 500,000 dollar earmark in the next spending bill.' I just feel that there is stuff going on behind the scenes of the manmade global warming movement that are not in the best interests of the people.

Except that there is far more money opposing anthropogenic warming than backing it. If there's anything sketchy going on that's not in the interest of humanity/the planet, it's much more likely to be on the side that is heavily invested in the status quo. And there are plenty of scientists on that side of the equation, such as the many geologists who are skeptical on this issue and coincidentally employed in the petroleum industry.

And, until I see the people who are most prominent in the movement change their ways, ie stop flying in private jets, driving suvs, own smaller houses, ect, my mind is set.

I also think that the talkers should walk the walk, but in the end, this issue is separate from the data. The wealthy will generally continue to do things the way they do now until specific consumption options become illegal, very unfashionable, or obsolete, because they are minimally affected by resource prices. What they will be doing is investing in greener alternatives that will make the money in the future.

 

[Mike Smith]

Except that there is far more money opposing anthropogenic warming than backing it.

I'd like to see evidence of that contention other than Gore and Hansen endlessly repeating it. Please post.

I also think that the talkers should walk the walk, but in the end, this issue is separate from the data.

I like Glenn Reynold's comment on this: "I'll believe [AGW] is a crisis when the people who are telling me its a crisis start acting like its a crisis."

 

[Jerry Prsha]

I came across this article today. I still haven't gotten all the way through it, but it is really good so far. Here it is if you're interested. Starting this made me think of Gilbert Grape saying "match in the gas tank... boom boom". I really don't want this to be an argument. Everybody knows that nobody is changing their minds on the topic, so let's leave it at that and if you have something to say debate the merits of the article.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb

I can't help but think that they came up with what, 400 scientists against... But we should ignore the thousands for?

The truth is always somewhere in the middle and not having a conscience doesn't help the planet either...

 

[David Wolfson]

Haven't we had this thread -- say about 50 +-45 times before?

Let me just suggest that most of the skeptics will melt away (as it were) or say, "I didn't mean that...." when anthropogenic forcing is proven to six-sigma validity. By that time the summer polar ice cap may be gone, the Amazon rainforest is burnt up, and more than an aged, drooling Senator Imhofe is in deep doo-doo.

In case it's not obvious, I'm in a baaad mood at the moment

 

[Stephen Levine]

I feel so frustrated with this discussion. Nearly all the reputable scientists have declared that CO2 has drastically increased in the atmosphere and that human fossil fuel burning is what is responsible.
This reminds me of the smoke screening that the tobacco companies did for years, hiring scientists to prove that cigarette smoke does not cause cancer.
Meantime, how many people including non-smokers had to suffer as a result of this insanity.
If there is a reasonable likihood that we are definitely speeding up what might have otherwise been a very far in the future natural processes of climate change by our oil and coal habit, why not take care of the issue now?
We have technology right here and right now to handle this problem: From Willie Nelson's Bio Fuels project, to Solar Array Mirror Power Plants, to a company that has proven that it can recycle anything and turn it to high grade "sweet" oil, to solar panels made with chips, to wind energy, and so forth, the only thing lacking is the political maturity to get this into motion and help our planet, our economy and our integrity-as well as National Security all at once.
The current Administration is taking our tax dollars and supporting the oil companies. Why not focus on very real technologies that will address what at least the vast maturity of scientists are saying?

 

[Mikey Gribble]

We have discussed global warming at least 30 or 40 times, but it is a continually evolving issue with new information coming out regularly (such as this article), so in effect this really isn't the same discussion. Most of the discussions are unique, at least in the begining, before they get derailed and merge into the typical arguments. Hopefully we can avoid the "typical argument" in this thread.

 

[fplowman]

The current Administration is taking our tax dollars and supporting the oil companies. Why not focus on very real technologies that will address what at least the vast maturity of scientists are saying?

Global warming isnt going to stop the current or past or future administrations from taxing us for the oil companies. That will continue.

What it will do is need your additional contribution to stop Global warming.

Are you willing to pay say an extra 50 cents - 1 dollar more per gallon towards a fuel "sin" tax so to speak?

How about a green tax taken out of your paycheck from your employer at a tune of $50 per paycheck? Or an extra $ 20 on your water, sewer and trash bill each month? I mean we all have to stop global warming and your contribution here and there lets say to a tune of maybe $1200 a year will save our planet. Sounds like a big thumbs up to me...

I dont know about others but the deflating dollar along with some new tax burden will put the final nail into my economic coffin. Im stretched by funding every boondoggle politicians can come up with.

 

[Damon Poole]

It's About Time!

My problem with this whole thing, is that meteorologists and climatologists are being overshadowed by environmentalists, ignorant politicians, and gullable members of the media who know very little if anything about the atmospheric or climatological science involved. It's about time the Senate published this list of dissenters. It's not climatologists or meteorologists who are saying "The Debate is Over" or "The Science Is Settled." It's environmentalists and politicians who are spreading this kind of nonsense.

We do not need a political solution, we need sound meteorologically and climatologically based education, and common sense technological adaptation. These are the keys to properly responding to Global Warming.

Damon Poole

 

[Joe Zemek]

I'd like to see evidence of that contention other than Gore and Hansen endlessly repeating it. Please post.

Every industry that profits from oil has an interest in the continued use of oil, and industry members do whatever they can to keep doing as they do now. They spend plenty of money on research with the specific goal of disproving AGW, which they see as costing more money. They also spend lobbyist money to promote their oil-based agendas and obstruct any agenda they do not like. These are billions of dollars at stake. Exxon appears to be number one but Shell, Texaco, etc. are all actively spending in what they see as an investment in their future profit. They are decidedly more interested in that than the integrity of the science.

There is no industry comparably financially invested in proving AGW. There is no solar giant or windpower giant out there competing with the oil giants for political influence. They are oppressed Davids against the favored Goliaths.

As far as the research money goes, the reasoning has a huge flaw. Is AGW not a legitimate issue for research? Because if it is, then it deserves research dollars. However, if the science being done is not tainted by exterior economic interest--which is clearly one-sided against AGW--then generally speaking there is no projected outcome, only aggregate hypothetical posits. Conversely, a general oppposition to funding more AGW research--which is often called for by "skeptics" whose true motive is always economic--suggests an attitude that the science is settled on that side, which would involve a degree of hypocrisy (not that there isn't plenty to go around in this overheated issue).

If the contention is that grant money is given (by whom??) only to scientists that intend to prove AGW, that would be an issue, but I seriously doubt that contention and would need to see evidence of that. What's the motivation of so doing that would favor such scientists? Who stands to benefit on an economic level approaching that of oil-based industries?