Growing Number of Scientists Convert to Skeptics After Reviewing New Research

[Roland99]

Get a load of this ... load:


May 15, 2007
Posted by Marc Morano – [e-mail] - 9:14 PM ET

Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics
Growing Number of Scientists Convert to Skeptics After Reviewing New Research

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=927b9303-802a-23ad-494b-dccb00b51a12&Region_id=&Issue_id=

Following the U.S. Senate's vote today on a global warming measure (see today's AP article: Senate Defeats Climate Change Measure,) it is an opportune time to examine the recent and quite remarkable momentum shift taking place in climate science. Many former believers in catastrophic man-made global warming have recently reversed themselves and are now climate skeptics. The names included below are just a sampling of the prominent scientists who have spoken out recently to oppose former Vice President Al Gore, the United Nations, and the media driven “consensus” on man-made global warming.

The list below is just the tip of the iceberg. A more detailed and comprehensive sampling of scientists who have only recently spoken out against climate hysteria will be forthcoming in a soon to be released U.S. Senate report. Please stay tuned to this website, as this new government report is set to redefine the current climate debate.

In the meantime, please review the list of scientists below and ask yourself why the media is missing one of the biggest stories in climate of 2007. Feel free to distribute the partial list of scientists who recently converted to skeptics to your local schools and universities. The voices of rank and file scientists opposing climate doomsayers can serve as a counter to the alarmism that children are being exposed to on a daily basis. (See Washington Post April 16, 2007 article about kids fearing of a “climactic Armageddon” )

The media's climate fear factor seemingly grows louder even as the latest science grows less and less alarming by the day. (See Der Spiegel May 7, 2007 article: Not the End of the World as We Know It ) It is also worth noting that the proponents of climate fears are increasingly attempting to suppress dissent by skeptics. (See UPI May 10, 2007 article: U.N. official says it's 'completely immoral' to doubt global warming fears )

It goes on to list a geophysicist, geologist, mathmetician/engineer, astrophysicist, etc.

To me, the big keyword is the name above the title:

The Inhofe EPW Press Blog.


:eyes:

[Vinnie From Indy]

1. Energy companies are using the Tobacco Industry Playbook

Simply muddy the debate with lies and drag it out for decades. It should be interesting to see what lunacy will be thrown out as a red herring by the energy industry to explain the submergence of Florida and other low lying areas in the next few decades.

[genie_weenie]

2. I thought most republicians ignored scientists

after all evolution is only a theory. Why are they using them to support their position on this?

[sheerjoy]

3. It just proves

that scientists can learn, too.

[atreides1]

4. Yes

And they can also be bought, just like politicians.

[sheerjoy]

6. Naw. n/t

[nam78_two]

32. At least 5 or 6 of them at any rate.nt

[Richard Steele]

7. Is that what it proves?

Fascinating. Please tell me more.

[kwolf68]

16. Please educate us smart one

What is it they learned? Please tell me. Since you obviously know everything then you can explain to me WHY human based carbon loading is having NO effect on the atmosphere.

I’ll give you a quickie on what I know. Firstly, I think it patently absurd to take this position you advocate.

Carbon-Dioxide loading has affected global temperatures in earth’s geologic past. This is a fact. Now, in the past carbon emissions were usually caused by tectonic activity such as volcanic eruptions. It is pretty well understood that the earth experienced a period of global hypoxia (limited oxygen, excess carbon dioxide) between about 230 and 260 million years ago. Since you are all knowing, you will realize that around 250 million years ago the most massive extinction event in Earth’s history took place (the Permian).

It took thousands, maybe millions of years for the deleterious effects of increased carbon and warming to come to fruition.

While, I recognize and we all should recognize that the earth is currently undergoing a natural warming period (essentially still coming out of the Pleistocene glaciations), the cold hard reality is the RATE is anomalous to every single thing that has happened in earth’s past.

If you understand uniformatism, you will then recognize that something is actually different today than 250 million years ago. All the geologic process are working the same. The only difference is the carbon load we are putting into the atmosphere.

Now, I can’t tell you exactly how much of this warming is humanity’s fault, but I can pretty much guarantee you that some of it is.

[sheerjoy]

20. They learned

that the Word of God is truth.

Bless your heart.

[kwolf68]

22. Oh I get it now

You're a parody poster.

[sheerjoy]

27. Whatevahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

that is... if ye be a parody, I posted to ya.

Pass a hug around.

[kwolf68]

30. Run along back to the Falwell thread

and try to convince us why he created a great ministry.

[sheerjoy]

31. Heheheheh

THANKS for noticing... but, um... I shant "run along". I'll be around when ya need me again.

Be blessed of the Lord.

Yer a good man, Charlie Brown.

[kwolf68]

37. This is good stuff

I really don't need you, but I must admit you're entertaining.

[sheerjoy]

40. Then....

just be blessed and entertained. Tomorrow is another day. Other winds will blow, other rivers will be crossed....

Life: it's fun. Enjoy. Tomorrow it may be gone.

[kwolf68]

42. I will be entertained

that is for sure. however, tomorrow will always be here with or with me (or you). The earth still has several hundred millions years left.

[sheerjoy]

46. Perhaps...but be guaranteed....

you nor I will be here THAT much longer.

And...if we let * stay in control... so many more will be gone tomorrow....

[sheerjoy]

47. Heheheh make that

NOT be here that much longer... hehehe

[Richard Steele]

49. Quit annoying the grownups and go disable yer profile or sumthin..

Oh, wait.....:eyes:

[sheerjoy]

51. No no

YOU being annoyed makes it fun now... who knew? Hahhaah

Lord bless ya, child.

[SidDithers]

26. Science is advanced in peer-reviewed journals...

not Republican Senator press releases.

If the named scientists have research that contradicts the hundreds of peer-reviewed articles published in support of the idea of man-made global warming, then they should publish them and see what kind of response they get.

Sid

[kwolf68]

29. Totally agree

...science is not really science until it is peer-reviewed. I anxiously await the results.

[slackmaster]

35. SidDithers wins the prize

:toast:

[unpossibles]

5. "just the tip of the iceberg"

how ironic. Gee, I wonder how long it will take to release the full iceberg of a list, and how melted it will be by the time it's released.

This is just the kind of thing the conservobots will latch onto. I wonder how they manage their mental gymnastics in order to use a small amount of science to justify hating science. Oh that's right - they manage because Al Gore is attached to it.

[Marie26]

8. And our taxes paid

for this disinformation. Great. Inohofe should get a blog on his own time.

[gollygee]

9. Republican anti-Gore piece

paid for by our tax dollars. It is completely politically motivated.

[Marie26]

17. And to brainwash students.

This is the worst part, IMO. The blog urges readers to "distribute the partial list of scientists who recently converted to skeptics to your local schools and universities. The voices of rank and file scientists opposing climate doomsayers can serve as a counter to the alarmism that children are being exposed to on a daily basis." In other words, these kids are too worried about global warming. Use this fake information to lie to them & brainwash them. Your tax dollars at work!

[FVZA_Colonel]

54. It's like they can't discuss Global Warming at all without trashing Al Gore.

It's as if they believe that if they can destroy him, they can destroy Global Warming.

[Atman]

10. The INHOFE PRESS BLOG? Gosh...what does Fox News have to say about this?

:eyes:

.

[wtmusic]

53. I'd like to hear the "other side of the story" too!

:silly:

[Cerridwen]

11. They are lying in the report and at the website at which it's posted

So far, 2 of the articles used to support the "scientists are starting to deny global warming" spin - are inaccurate if you actually read the articles themselves. To whit:

Geophysicist Dr. Claude Allegre, a top geophysicist and French Socialist who has authored more than 100 scientific articles and written 11 books and received numerous scientific awards including the Goldschmidt Medal from the Geochemical Society of the United States, converted from climate alarmist to skeptic in 2006. (emphasis added)

In the English translation of the article posted at L'Express article, Dr. Allegre does not appear to be "skeptical" of human contribution to global warming so much as he is critical of a politically driven agenda in which only the human piece of the equation is being addressed rather than taking into account all the causes of global warming.

Next,

Astrophysicist Dr. Nir Shaviv, one of Israel's top young award winning scientists, recanted his belief that manmade emissions were driving climate change. (emphasis added)

Dr. Nir Shaviv, was never interviewed by the author of the article cited in the senate report. He also denies much the author wrote as to Dr. Shaviv's conclusions here on his blog.

These two articles are written by Lawrence Solomon and are posted at The National Post website which has an entire "deniers series" of articles written by...............Lawrence Solomon.

So, the senate report which is a political report for "policy makers" rather than a scientific report has quoted at least two articles written by a "reporter" who has applied his own spin to scientific reports which he's apparently not read and who quotes scientists he's never interviewed.

Wanna bet the same thing's true of the other "proof" and articles cited?

edit formating and post subject

[Roland99]

13. And where does the energy lobby funding come into play....

[Cerridwen]

14. Didn't find funding - I found articles in which the scientists' words

were taken out of context to support a political agenda. :(

Another example

Mathematician & engineer Dr. David Evans... I am now skeptical" (emphasis added)

At this link it can be seen that he, too, is critical of the politicizing of science and that the strong focus on CO2 will cause us to miss other causes of global warming that will come back to "bite us in the butt".

The scientist themselves are being quoted out of context and having their words spun out of all recognition.

Look to the politicians who've done so for the energy lobby funding.

edit: punctuation and now I'm off to work. I hope people will ready the articles cited and see what the scientists really said.

[Roland99]

18. Seems he is only skeptical that carbon emissions are behind the warming, not that it's not humans.

So, yeah, Inhofe *is* twisting this guy's writing!

[nam78_two]

33. kick.nt

[Immad2]

12. From Sen. Inhofe - The Flat Earth Society's Commander in Chief

[kwolf68]

15. Someone help me

Someone please help me.

All of a sudden these folks are ‘now skeptical’ based on some newfound research. Can ANYONE tell me exactly what this new research is? I couldn’t find the specific data.

[Roland99]

19. See the link in post #14.

[kwolf68]

21. Thanks

The problem there is this guy doesn't like how the science has been politicized, but his skepticism is being used for politics.

[Roland99]

24. I don't think he's saying humans aren't behind the carbon increases but, rather...

that evidence (such as Antartic ice cores showing temp history) is that carbon emissions are not the key factor in global warming right now. Saying, iow, that the crux of Gore's argument (global CO2 emissions) is now being shown as not the main cause. That's not to say we can't ignore carbon emissions nor does it say anything about human involvement. He seems to be specific in his wording so as not to cast doubt or confirm human involvement. At least in that particular article.

[kwolf68]

25. Sure

But why discount the correlation between excess carbon and warming? He ignores that. The atmosphere isn't just an endless sink for certain compounds and elements and any changes in that atmosphere will affect life on earth (as it has in the past).

Whether we remove C02 or add it, something happens, oftentimes not good. It is a fact we are putting excess C02 into the atmosphere...is he, and others like him, to suggest there will be NO ramifications to this?

I would believe it a bad thing to increase the PPM of atmospheric carbon-dioxide even if there was NO data to suggest the rate of warming is perilous.

[Roland99]

28. Well, from what I got out of that article is that correlation is not causation.

That, in the past, temperature increases preceded carbon increases by 800 years.

3. As more ice core data was collected, the temporal resolution was improved. By 2004 or so we knew from the ice core data that in the warming events of the last million years the temperature increases generally started about 800 years *before* the rises in atmospheric carbon started. Causality does not run in the direction I had assumed in 1999 -- it runs the opposite way. Presumably temperature rises cause a delayed rise in atmospheric carbon because it takes several hundred years to warm the oceans enough for the oceans to give off more of their carbon.

But, what he *doesn't* cover is how has humankind intervened to cause CO2 to increase before its time and how is that affecting our climate?

He mentions the ice decrease at Kilimanjaro due to desertification in East Africa. Ok, well, what's causing that desertification? Tectonic movements? How many major earthquakes has that part of Africa had over the last few decades and how much has that affected the landscape? That seemed like it was chasing a wild goose.

[kwolf68]

34. i see that now

But there is a direct correlation of carbon to temperature at the Paleocene/Eocene boundry, and while it's been some time since I did my research on the permian extinctions I don't recall any istotopic ratios from then that would have lead me to believe warming preceeded hypoxia. A little search on the Paleocene/Eocene thermal max would contradict his suggestion. This event can give us a light into what possibly is happening today, at least from a general perspective.

[Roland99]

44. Well, I think it is safe to say Inhofe has cherry-picked some articles and then

twisted and spun words from those articles.

[Johonny]

23. too bad

the "growing" list isn't publishing.

For humor sake I give you:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/fun-with-correlations/

[zalinda]

36. Isn't it better to be wrong

and try to save the planet. I don't understand what harm is done if we try to leave a smaller foot print on this big ball we call home.

zalinda

[kwolf68]

38. Devils advocate

... If they can convince us warming is not caused by carbon loading, then it is BUSINESS as usual. Business hates regulation on the externalities, and consumers want the cheapest stuff they can get.

If business and consumers are told that your way of life (rampant consumption, greed, and waste) is bad for the world at large, then some habits will have to change, some prices will have to go up, and some businesses will have to get back into the business of innovation.

They don't need to prove global warming 'wrong', only create doubt and retard any meaningful policy changes.

That is why we must stay ahead on the science front until REAL data comes out to dispute our contentions.

[Cha]

39. How conven--i--ent!

in-HO-fe cherry picks his scientists to go along with corporate dogma.

What do these scientists say about EVOLUTION? Hmmmmmmmmmm?

[debbierlus]

41. Gore's Book Out on Monday - Preemptive Propaganda

Nothing more.

[kwolf68]

43. True

They had a propaganda storm right after he got that movie award.

[karlrschneider]

45. Haven't checked out the guys he mentioned but there's only 1 American

in the list...an 86 year old weatherman.
:eyes:

[Az]

48. Thats not how science works (reference to the Project Stephen)

If a growing number of scientists are starting to turn skeptical then they should submit studies showing the evidence and tests that overturn the current position (which is that global warming is being accelerated by humans) for peer review. If the studies prove to be convincing then the peer reviews will not be able to dismiss them. Short of that its just opinions and they carry no weight in the scientific process.

The scientific community does not work by a democratic process. A group of scientists having one opinion that differs with the current accepted theory does not change the theory. This is a common tactic used by the Creationists in their assault on Evolution. To this extent they created a list of 200 "scientists" that supported the Creationist view. It was their thought that this would create doubt and undermine Evolution.

Typically the scientific community does not respond to such ploys as it is simply not part of their process. Such things are a PR game and they are not about PR. They are about Science. But in this case they decided to do something about it. To this extent they put out a call to all scientists that supported the theory of evolution and happened to be named Stephen (in honor of recently departed Zoologist Stephen J Gould) to sing a petition stating they supported the theory of evolution.

Their goal was just to collect 200 scientists named Stephen that supported Evolution. To their amusement they quickly accumulated over 700 scientists named Stephen that supported the theory of evolution.

But that is not science. That is opinion. And opinions without evidence and tests are just that.

See this is the game. The solutions to global warming are going to impact the profit margin of numerous corporations. Corporations only motivation is profit. Any CEO or Corporate officer that does not throw all other considerations to the side will find themselves quickly replaced. Thus they are constrained by laws of business and profit.

Meanwhile we humans look to other issues concerning our lives. Morality, longevity, connectivity, and a host of other issues that no Corporations has to concern itself with. The battle between these views, Corporate vs Social, are adjudicated by our government. And the Corporations are clearly winning that battle. But we still have influence. And that influence can cost them money.

To this end they flood our society with counter messages that shatter any cohesive sense of what is going on. If science shows that the earth is being destroyed by the actions of Corporations then the Corporations merely turn to this unscientific tactic of siting some scientists that have opinions that differ with the current scientific theory. Because the general public is not made up of scientists this conflict seems to be indicative of uncertainty about the scientific theory. But in truth there is no evidence offered in any peer review that is overturning the current theory about global warming. This is just PR and not Science. Just because it is wearing a lab coat does not mean it is anything more than an opinion.

[Roland99]

50. Nice post!

[karynnj]

52. If they replay his debate with Senator Kerry, catch it

Inhofe made some of the stupidest comments ever hear in the Senate. He said Kerry and others were wrong about the no peer reviewed stdies saying that there was no global climate change or that humans didn't cause it. Instead he had two peer reviewed studies - one giving a lower estimate on hurricanes, the other on hurricane wind sheer! He finaly did tell Kerry he didn't have one saying exactly what Kerry asked, but Gore talked about hurricanes in his movie. He also tried to discredit Hansen because years ago he got a Heinz award.

Kerry called him the leader of the flat earth caucus. Boxer commented that she was glad that Kerry got to debate him because she usually had to, and this was a rest for her!

[ORDagnabbit]

55. Awesome debunking... keep it up.. smash this crap before it gains ground.