Small Coalition of US Scientists Still Believe Global Warming Not Man-Made
From the beginning of the second paragraph onwards, my very opinionated voice will disappear from this article. I do not want to put any emphasis or spin on what I’m going to write. These are facts and their opinions, and they are what they are - incontrovertible in and of themselves.
In a world that has all but determined global warming is our fault, there are a few hold outs. A small group of US scientists are among them, who point to large pools of data and evidence that do not support such a conclusion.
To these scientists, experts in their field, global warming is nothing but a natural phenomenon. The International Journal of Climatology, a publication of Britain’s Royal Meteorological Society, will soon see a paper written by these scientists. It will endeavor to portray what they believe to be the real story.
“The observed pattern of warming, comparing surface and atmospheric temperature trends, doesn’t show the characteristic fingerprint associated with greenhouse warming,” wrote lead author David Douglas, a climate expert from the University of Rochester, in New York (state). “The inescapable conclusion is that human contribution is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming.”
According to another author of the paper, John Christi from the University of Alabama, satellite data “and independent balloon data agree that the atmospheric warming trends do not exceed those of the surface,” while greenhouse models “demand that atmospheric trend values be two to three times greater.”
The authors add that the data from their satellite observations “suggest that greenhouse models ignore negative feedback produced by clouds and by water vapor, that diminish the warming effects” of human co2 emissions.
Fred Singer, third author of the paper and a climatologist at the University of Virginia, looks to the evidence to see that the global warming “trend is simply part of a natural cycle of climate warming and cooling that has been seen in ice cores, deep sea sediments and stalagmites . . . and published in hundreds of papers in peer reviewed journals.”
The authors of the paper admit that they do not know how these cyclical climate patterns take place, but suggest that they “are most likely caused by variations in the solar wind and associated magnetic fields that affect the flux of cosmic rays incident on cloudiness, and thereby control the amount of sunlight reaching the earth’s surface and thus the climate.”
Singer also points to other evidence, further putting a murky haze over global warming. Between 1900 and 1940 temperatures rose, obviously well before humanity began to burn the large amounts of hydrocarbons that it does today. But then during the next 35 years these emissions decreased, as oil and coal use increased.
The paper sheds light on many of the uncertainties in the case for a man-made global warming. And the only way to effectively do this is to have based their conclusions in fact, exactly what they have done. Whether other scientists, more deeply ingrained in the man-made opinion, will knock them down is just reason to wait and see.
AP via PhysOrg - Small group of US experts insist global warming not man-made
Hi Joshua,
Perhaps you should contemplate WHY repeat WHY there ARE any dissenting scientists to the alarming scenarios put-out by the IPCC, and to a few other shot-gun alarmists, such as U.N.S.G. Bank Si Moon, or James Hansen of GISS (NASA), to name but a few.
Bear in mind that such dissenters have to face broad hostility, in being treated as pariahs, so WHY should they do it?
It is somewhat in the same way that dissenters to the invasion of Iraq were also cruelly treated when they tried to explain to the world that there was NO EVIDENCE, ZILCH, of any W.O.M in Iraq.
Also, when you say; a “small coalition of USA scientists” have a contrary view, (and you being Australian), you must be aware that the USA does not comprise the whole of the world! For instance, in a couple of islands off the East Coast of Australia; New Zealand; they have a population greater in sheep than people, but they have more dissenting scientists than you list in your USA-centric article. One of them, for example, is the internationally popular “greeny” professor David Bellamy, an earlier CO2 activist, who has since comprehended the actual evidence and recanted. And, just taking this relatively SMALL, but very intelligent country, perhaps, for further enlightenment on reality, you should visit: http://www.climatescience.org.nz/
For instance, if you are RC, you might know that the current Pope is a VERY SERIOUS sort of guy, and he is quoted in brief:
The German-born Pontiff said that “…while some [global warming] concerns may be valid it was vital that the international community based its policies on science rather than the dogma of the environmentalist movement.”
Might I remind you that proper science is not a matter of voting on OPINIONS, by the majority in an existing dogma or paradigm. (Repeat OPINIONS….there is actually NO MEASURABLE EVIDENCE, per CO2 warming, but only very slim conjecture)
For example, Lord Kelvin eventually proved by scientific calculation that the Earth is very old, contrary to the view of the scientific and religious community at the time. There are MANY other examples of paradigm shift!
Cheers, Black Wallaby
After all the recent hype and hysteria from IPCC, media, politicians (including Al Gore and the UN SG), it is refreshing to see some serious scientists express a less shrill opinion of what is actually happening. It does take courage to stand up against the multibillion dollar “disastrous anthropogenic global warming industry”, so hats off to this “small coalition of scientists”.
There are, of course, hundreds of other climate scientists both in and outside the USA, who do not believe we are facing disaster because of man-made global warming. Many of these have gone on record, despite the abuse they often get from the “believers” and the media.
So it is really not only a “small coalition of USA scientists” but a rather significant minority in the scientific community who believe that the current warming trend is neither alarming nor man made.
To some earlier comments:
Nilbud wrote:
“In Europe we use the word “stooge” where you yanks use expert. It was confusing me for a bit. When you see where the paychecks are coming from it all becomes clear.”
The comment by nilbud is interesting. I live in Europe, as well, but have to admit I have not yet heard the IPCC authors referred to as “stooges”, if that is what is inferred. More commonly one hears of any dissenting scientist being labeled as a “stooge” by those that favor the AGW status quo party line.
I would agree with the comment by JayD:
“There are a number of very bright climatologists and meteorologists out there who believe that this centurys warming trend is neither critical nor man made.”
“For their audacity to take on the status quo, they have been censured, excoriated and labeled as lackeys for the oil companies.“
It is clear that the multibillion dollar paradigm does not like to be challenged.
Max
Hi Joshua,
Perhaps you should contemplate WHY there ARE ANY dissenting scientists to the alarming scenarios put-out by the IPCC, and to a few other shot-gun alarmists, such as the U.N.S.G. Bank Si Moon, or James Hansen of GISS (NASA), to name but a few.
Bear in mind that such dissenters have to face broad hostility, in being treated as pariahs, so WHY should they do it?
It is somewhat in the same way that dissenters to the invasion of Iraq were also badly treated when they tried to explain to the world that there was NO EVIDENCE, of any W.O.M in Iraq.
Also, when you say; a “small coalition of USA scientists” I have a contrary view, (and you being Australian), you must be aware that the USA does not comprise the whole of the world! For instance, in a couple of islands off the East Coast of Australia; New Zealand; they have a population greater in sheep than people, but they have more dissenting scientists than you list in your USA-centric article. One of them, for example, is the internationally popular “greeny” professor David Bellamy, an earlier CO2 activist, who has since comprehended the actual evidence and recanted. And, just taking this relatively SMALL, but very intelligent country, perhaps, for further enlightenment on reality, you should visit: http://www.climatescience.org.nz/
For instance, if you are RC, you might know that the current Pope is a VERY SERIOUS sort of guy, and he is quoted in brief:
The German-born Pontiff said that “…while some [global warming] concerns may be valid it was vital that the international community based its policies on science rather than the dogma of the environmentalist movement.”
Might I remind you that proper science is not a matter of voting on OPINIONS, by the majority in an existing dogma or paradigm. (Repeat OPINIONS….there is actually NO MEASURABLE EVIDENCE, per CO2 warming, but only conjecture)
For example, Lord Kelvin eventually proved by scientific calculation that the Earth is very old, contrary to the view of the scientific and religious community at the time. There are MANY other examples of paradigm shift!
Cheers, Black Wallaby
Joshua Hill disparagingly refers to a letter written by a “small coalition of US scientists” that do not support the current disastrous anthropogenic global warming paradigm of the UN’s IPCC.
These are portrayed as the last few stubborn holdouts that are denying what the consensus of the scientific community (i.e. the IPCC) believes to be true.
Joshua should update his knowledge on a large number of scientists who do not support IPCC claims of disastrous anthropogenic global warming, and have written a letter to the UN Secretary General to that effect.
http://nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164002
The letter istarts out as follows:
“Re: UN climate conference taking the World in entirely the wrong direction
It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages. Geological, archaeological, oral and written histories all attest to the dramatic challenges posed to past societies from unanticipated changes in temperature, precipitation, winds and other climatic variables. We therefore need to equip nations to become resilient to the full range of these natural phenomena by promoting economic growth and wealth generation. “
The letter, signed by 100 scientists from 18 different countries worldwide goes on to argue that:
· The IPCC Summary reports cannot properly be represented as a consensus view among experts since the “tens of thousands of other scientists who are qualified to comment on these matters, are not involved in the preparation of these documents”.
· Recent observations of phenomena such as glacial retreats, sea-level rise and the migration of temperature-sensitive species are not evidence for abnormal climate change, for none of these changes has been shown to lie outside the bounds of known natural variability.
· The average rate of warming of 0.1 to 0.2 degrees Celsius per decade recorded by satellites during the late 20th century falls within known natural rates of warming and cooling over the last 10,000 years.
· Leading scientists, including some senior IPCC representatives, acknowledge that today’s computer models cannot predict climate.
· There has been no net global warming since 1998.
· The current temperature plateau follows a late 20th-century period of warming is consistent with the continuation today of natural multi-decadal or millennial climate cycling.
· In stark contrast to the often repeated assertion that the science of climate change is “settled,” significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming.
The letter goes on to urge the UN Secretary General to abandon its futile and costly plan to implement global measures to cap and reduce energy consumption for the purpose of restricting CO2 emissions, in an attempt to “fight climate change”.
It also argues that it is irrational to apply the “precautionary principle” because many scientists recognize that both climatic coolings and warmings are realistic possibilities over the medium-term future.
The letter states that the current UN focus on “fighting climate change” is distracting governments from adapting to the threat of inevitable natural climate changes, whatever forms they may take. National and international planning for such changes is needed, with a focus on helping our most vulnerable citizens adapt to conditions that lie ahead.
It concludes that “attempts to prevent global climate change from occurring are ultimately futile, and constitute a tragic misallocation of resources that would be better spent on humanity’s real and pressing problems.”
We hope to hear from Joshua what his thoughts are on this.
Max
Looks like the much-ballyhooed (but imaginary) “consensus of the scientific community” on global warming has come unraveled, although Joshua Hill has apparently failed to get the word.
A U.S. Senate committee received a report on December 20, 2007, in which hundreds of scientists and climate experts criticized the alarmist projections of the UN’s IPCC on global warming.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report
Makes very interesting reading.
Sorry, Joshua, the scientific debate on man-made global warming is far from over; it is just starting to heat up as many rationally skeptical scientists and climate experts are “coming out of the woodwork” to challenge the IPCC myths scientifically.
Max
Joshua,
Are you unaware of the letter from 60 (sixty) concerned scientists urging the Canadian PM way back in April 2006, not to sign-up to Kyoto?
Did you understand it and ignore it, or did it just not gain your attention?
Are you unaware of the ever increasing number of scientists crawling out of the woodwork to risk their career funding for the sake of the truth, and perhaps hoping for the recognition of the more urgent priorities in the world?
You know, like releaving actual existing human suffering, rather than that of your imagination that might possibly affect YOU or your kids?