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

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

epw.senate.gov

Senate Report Debunks "Consensus"

Report Released on December 20, 2007

U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee (Minority)

INTRODUCTION:

Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.

The new report issued by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee's office of the GOP Ranking Member details the views of the scientists, the overwhelming majority of whom spoke out in 2007.

Even some in the establishment media now appear to be taking notice of the growing number of skeptical scientists. In October, the Washington Post Staff Writer Juliet Eilperin conceded the obvious, writing that climate skeptics "appear to be expanding rather than shrinking." Many scientists from around the world have dubbed 2007 as the year man-made global warming fears "bite the dust." (LINK) In addition, many scientists who are also progressive environmentalists believe climate fear promotion has "co-opted" the green movement. (LINK)

(visit the link for the full news article)

Yet again, proof that a scientific consensus on global warming
being totally man made does not exist. There are 1,000s of scientists, including myself, that are skeptics about the claims of the I.P.C.C. and the Al Gore assertions that the actual cause of climate change is nearly 100% anthropogenic. Listed here are 400 prominent scientists who disagree with Al and company, along with some of their comments.

epw.senate.gov
(visit the link for the full news article)

Very good information, thanks for sharing it with us. I am a bit of a skeptic about global warming too, but I am still learning.

Not only is it shaky science, but the politicizing of global weather trends pushes back the possibility of us terraforming a planet. We should honestly study climate and weather changes, so we can eventually have enough understanding of climate and atmosphere to terraform Mars.

reply to post by TheAvenger

so, avenger ... you have no concerns about the rising levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere or the melting of the artic ice because both of those have nothing to do with the impact of the human population. then you must be against pollution controls already inacted...therefore i think you should set a good example...i propose that you should move you and your entire family right next to a refinery...of course one that does have the least amount of pollution control systems... and actually show the world how utterly stupid those wacko enviormentilists are !!! i'm sure you can get some financial backing from the oil companies and what a great fraud you will be uncovering

reply to post by TheAvenger
and if this is the case avenger, then all the people in beijing,china that go outside wearing face masks are just plain silly and by the way where do all of these " 400 independent scientists" live...i think thats where we should be able to build all the coal fired power plants...right next to there house..you know...where their own kids can play in the back yard and if they did that...you might have a leg to stand on. of course, all the wealthy people that run these plants and wealthy investors that profit off of them live right next to them too!!! please give me a break...when isee that...where they are as unconcerned for their own life as well as their families by habitating next to these...then you might have an arguement

Originally posted by danteinhickville
Not only is it shaky science, but the politicizing of global weather trends pushes back the possibility of us terraforming a planet. We should honestly study climate and weather changes, so we can eventually have enough understanding of climate and atmosphere to terraform Mars.

You make some good points. Mars is warming too, though. I very firmly believe that science and politics do not mix. It's sad that a politician had to create this report because the global warming believers have the I.P.C.C. to underwrite their carbon tax scam.




[edit on 12/24/2007 by TheAvenger]

Originally posted by jimmyx
reply to post by TheAvenger

 

so, avenger ... you have no concerns about the rising levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere or the melting of the artic ice because both of

those have nothing to do with the impact of the human population. then you must be against pollution controls already inacted...therefore i think you should set a good example...i propose that you should move you and your entire family right next to a refinery...of course one that does have the least amount of pollution

Have you even read what these scientists are saying, or are you afflicted by the Al Gore global warming religion?

Oddly enough, I was raised for my first 18 years of life less than one mile from an oil refinery. Rising CO2 I have no fear of, the arctic ice melting is controversial. I have spoken here on ATS many times supporting conservation, improved efficiency and reduced pollution. CO2 is NOT a pollutant. I am in the business of environmental remediation, so I assure you I have done more about pollution than most.

Again, I do not think you have read the full report linked here.

[edit on 12/24/2007 by TheAvenger]

I do think global warming is happening, and that humans are the reason why it's occurring at a more rapid pace vs. natural climate change.

I also believe More scientist around the globe agree it's happening vs those that do not.

Just like any topic their will be those in favor and those opposed.

As most things time will tell.

Nice post Avenger. I was in fact going to post this one myself, as I think it perfectly illustrates the reason many of us aren't completely convinced that global warming is entirely caused by humans. The science is no where near complete, and is definitely not as conclusive as global warming advocates would wish you to believe.

I'm not familiar with most of the names of the 400 or so scientists named in this report, but I'm sure some of them will have been funded by "Big Oil" and or other fossil fuel energy companies, and thus their data will be immediately disregarded by those who believe whole heartedly in the anthropogenic global warming models. The thing these individuals forget, or in some cases simply refuse to acknowledge, is that most of the scientists who argue from the other end of the spectrum get the majority of their funding from parties with an agenda as well.

This report in and of itself should be enough to give people pause when considering sweeping economic and social changes to combat global warming.

-Cypher

[edit on 24-12-2007 by Cypher]

Originally posted by Cypher
I'm not familiar with most of the names of the 400 or so scientists named in this report, but I'm sure some of them will have been funded by "Big Oil" and or other fossil fuel energy companies, and thus their data will be immediately disregarded by those who believe whole heartedly in the anthropogenic global warming models.

The vast majority of them have no data to speak of that is relevant to this issue.

A few of them can be considered to be experts to some degree in climate science (i.e., publish[ed] relevant science). Some are far removed from that area (e.g., biologists, economists) . Others are not really scientists (e.g., Richard Courtney). Some have exaggerated their credentials (e.g., Richard Courtney). Others don't really question the basic science (e.g., Pat Michaels, Copenhagen consensus). Can't believe they have Alan Titchmarsh in there, heh.

So, all in all, who cares? It's just more Inhofe rhetoric. No better than the discovery institute's list of intelligent design creationists - they actually have more people.



[edit on 24-12-2007 by melatonin]

My point is that there is not a consensus amongst scientists that global warming may not have possible explanations other than human caused. Obviously, that claim is nothing but global warming alarmist disinformation.

The claimed scientific consensus does not exist, nor has it ever existed.




[edit on 12/24/2007 by TheAvenger]

The OP title is misleading in that this is a minority report produced by the Republican members of the Senate committee. It is misleading to characterize it as a full Senate report.

That said, I believe that CO2 as the explanation for global warming is bad science and mostly a political tool, and it is a basic fact that this entire subject is awash in political machinations and agendas (just look who issued this report, and that it was Al Gore who was given the Nobel)--the foremost being control of resources and keeping the third world down.

We are in a period of increasing solar activity and this is the main cause of global warming; all the other planets are warming with us. The linkage is direct and convincing. We live in an electric/plasma universe and our local substation is pumping out more energy, simple as that.

Avenger is also quite right to distinguish between pollution and CO2 production. The CO2 boogeyman is being intentionally folded in with pollution so that in the public mind they become the same thing. This is simple manipulation, relying on ignorance.

I've probably pointed it out numerous times, but I don't think consensus requires 100% of the relevant community agreeing. Indeed, I think the scientific literature, rather than opinion, is the best measure.

However, if the best that Inhofe and Morano can come up with includes such 'prominent scientists' as Alan Titchmarsh (a TV gardener), Lord Lawson (a Tory politician), and Len Walker (power engineer), then who cares? Really?

If you find this convincing, then times must be desperate. I also hear that Pielke Sr. has been removed from the list, heh. Guess he wasn't happy with Morano's decision to place him amongst such 'prominent scientists'.

[edit on 24-12-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by gottago
We are in a period of increasing solar activity and this is the main cause of global warming; all the other planets are warming with us. The linkage is direct and convincing.

You might find it convincing, but the problem is that 'all the other planets' are not warming with us.

Moreover, solar activity hasn't been higher than it was in the 1940s.

Originally posted by melatonin
I've probably pointed it out numerous times, but I don't think consensus requires 100% of the relevant community agreeing. Indeed, I think the scientific literature, rather than opinion, is the best measure.


[edit on 24-12-2007 by melatonin]

Here's some more of the alleged "consensus" that most AGW believers (like Al Gore) NOT skeptics hold so dear.

Liverpool John Moores University

Now you have been shown the results of three studies that show there is no scientific consensus on global warming. You have only responded with ad hominem attacks on some of those scientists listed and a U.S. Senator from my state. Then you mentioned scientific literature being better, to either dodge the issue or maybe you do believe that. Scientific literature is fine, but your fellow AGW believers keep harping on the "consensus". I have established that the consensus clearly does not exist, which no reasonable person would or could deny.




[edit on 12/25/2007 by TheAvenger]

Here is a partial list of scientific opinion on climate change that support the opinion that global warming is man made, these scientific groups all support the stated global warming theory as fact:

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(IPCC) 2007:
The world's leading climate scientists said global warming has begun, is very likely caused by man, and will be unstoppable for centuries, ... . The phrase very likely translates to a more than 90 percent certainty that global warming is caused by man's burning of fossil fuels. That was the strongest conclusion to date, making it nearly impossible to say natural forces are to blame.[3]
The report said that an increase in hurricane and tropical cyclone strength since 1970 more likely than not can be attributed to man-made global warming. The scientists said global warming's connection varies with storms in different parts of the world, but that the storms that strike the Americas are global warming-influenced.
Scientific opinion on climate change and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Joint science academies’ statement 2007
It is unequivocal that the climate is changing, and it is very likely that this is predominantly caused by the increasing human interference with the atmosphere. These changes will transform the environmental conditions on Earth unless counter-measures are taken.
Joint science academies’ statement 2005
Joint science academies’ statement 2001
National Research Council, 2001
American Meteorological Society
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Physics
American Astronomical Society
Federal Climate Change Science Program, 2006
Studies ... show clear evidence of human influences on the climate system (due to changes in greenhouse gases, aerosols, and stratospheric ozone). ... The observed patterns of change over the past 50 years cannot be explained by natural processes alone, nor by the effects of short-lived atmospheric constituents (such as aerosols and tropospheric ozone) alone.
American Association for the Advancement of Science
Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London
Geological Society of America
American Chemical Society
Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia)

The general consensus in the scientific community is that the Earth is round and that global warming is caused by man. To be fair we will look at Noncommittal statements by scietific groups:

American Association of State Climatologists
American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG)
The American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG) Position Statement on climate change states that "the AAPG membership is divided on the degree of influence that anthropogenic CO2 has on recent and potential global temperature increases ... Certain climate simulation models predict that the warming trend will continue, as reported through NAS, AGU, AAAS and AMS. AAPG respects these scientific opinions but wants to add that the current climate warming projections could fall within well-documented natural variations in past climate and observed temperature data. These data do not necessarily support the maximum case scenarios forecast in some models."[21]

Prior to the adoption of this statement, the AAPG was the only major scientific organization that rejected the finding of significant human influence on recent climate, according to a statement by the Council of the American Quaternary Association.[22] The AAPG updated its statement in part because the previous statement was "not supported by a significant number of our members and prospective members".
Scientific opinion on climate change

The AAPG is the only scientific group that I know of that actively does not agree with the current Global Warming situation.

[edit on 25-12-2007 by LDragonFire]

Originally posted by TheAvenger
Liverpool John Moores University

You have only responded with ad hominem attacks on some of those scientists listed and a U.S. Senator from my state.

....

I have established that the consensus clearly does not exist, which no reasonable person would or could deny.

Oh come on. In the whole wide world we can find people who question absolutely anything. From the holocaust to a round earth.

Peiser's study has been shown already to be rubbish. I can't remember the exact number, but there is only a few papers in his list that come anywhere close to questioning the position of the IPCC. He has even admitted it [ABE: 1 article - a Lee Gerhard piece in the AAPG].

Also, I don't see the ad homs at all. You are presenting a list that is suggested to be 'prominent scientists' that question 'man-made warming', I have every right to question whether this be true in both respects.

I showed in the other thread that Pat Michaels doesn't really question 'man-made warming'. Richard Courtney does not have a PhD (he is exaggerating his credentials), many do not have expertise in any way in climate science. Others are not even scientists, never mind 'prominent'.

Even if it were 400, who cares? IDers have a list of 1000 random people with science degrees who question evolutionary biology. I still think there is a consensus on evolution. Consensus doesn't require 100% agreement on every issue.

Anyway, the more important stuff - merry yuletide! Cheers!

[edit on 25-12-2007 by melatonin]

Richard Courtney was an expert peer reviewer for the I.P.C.C. regardless of what anyone thinks of him. Mr. Courtney besides being a scientist is a Methodist minister. He makes no claims about his credentials, though there may have been incorrect assumptions made by others when writing about or quoting him. In U.S. terms, I would say that he has the equivalent of a Master's degree.

The title of this thread is that no consensus of scientists exists on the subject of global warming a.k.a. climate change. Whether 200, 400, 4,000 or 400,000 scientists disagree, there is no consensus. You state that you think consensus is of no importance, that the scientific literature is the key. Your peers think it is an important issue or they wouldn't keep expounding on it at every opportunity. If the same words are repeated enough times, people begin to believe them regardless of their veracity.

What baffles me is why someone who doesn't believe in the consensus issue's importance would even bother to comment on this thread. Of course I always enjoy your posts and think that you represent your position on A.G.W. very well.

On that note, Merry Christmas my friend. May the New Year be good to you as well.







[edit on 12/25/2007 by TheAvenger]

reply to post by TheAvenger

merry christmas to you, avenger, and i appreciate the fact that you have kept this discussion civil, even when i, in my previous posts to you, seemed to be mocking you. i apoligize for that. my question is...what do you think the motivation is for so many dedicated climate sceintists to come out publicly and forceably in regards to global warming?. peer review is the "bread and butter" of any competant scientist. and the serious ones know that what they say or write about can be detrimental to their crediblity and future career opportunities. so... why would they go to the trouble of making these claims?.