World's largest science group rejecting man-made climate fears

World's largest science group rejecting man-made climate fears

www.newswithviews.com

An outpouring of skeptical scientists who are members of the American Chemical Society (ACS) are revolting against the group's editor-in-chief -- with some demanding he be removed -- after an editorial appeared claiming “the science of anthropogenic climate change is becoming increasingly well established.”

(visit the link for the full news article)

Mod Edit: Removed all caps title

[edit on 31-7-2009 by Gemwolf]

Normally I don't post from NewsWithViews, but this article is worth mentioning, more so since it shows proof that even from the largest scientific group in the world, most scientists dismiss the claims that "the science is settled" and most of them disagree with the claims that mankind is responsible for Climate Change, or as it was once named Global Warming, a claim which stated that anthropogenic CO2 was the cause for the warming.

Most of the letters from scientists from this scientific group state that they are digusted with the claims of the editorial chief, and the claims posted in the main page of the group which they belong to, and that they do not agree with such views.

Here are excerpts from some of those letters.

I thought my membership in ACS meant I belonged to an organization of scientific professionals focused on the betterment of our science and the collective lot of its membership. Instead, what should be a noble organization is turning into another left-wing mouthpiece. I don't agree with your climate-change views, and I am not happy that you continue to use the pulpit of your editorials to promote your left-wing opinions (C&EN, June 22, page 3).


The question of whether humans have an impact on climate change presents a great opportunity for a scientific society to take the lead in a debate involving physical science. How about using your position as editor to promote a balanced scientific discussion of the theory behind the link of human activity to global warming?


How many readers of C&EN even know why carbon dioxide is the "culprit"? How many kilocalories of infrared energy can a ton of carbon dioxide absorb? What is the amount of carbon dioxide absorbed in fresh or salt water, and how is that equilibrium impacted by temperature or other environmental factors? What are some of the other variables that can cause an increase or decrease in temperature?


Instead of debate, members are constantly subjected to your arrogant self-righteousness and the left-wing practice of stifling debate by personal attacks on anyone who disagrees. I think ACS should make an effort to educate its membership about the science of climate change and let them draw their own conclusions. Although under your editorial leadership, I suspect we would be treated to a biased and skewed version of scientific debate. I think its time to find a new editor.


Thomas E. D'Ambra
Rexford, N.Y.


I am always intrigued by claims that science is settled, especially when it comes to something as complex as climate. Rudy Baum's remarks are particularly disquieting because of his hostility toward skepticism, which is part of every scientist's soul. Let's cut to the chase with some questions for Baum: Which of the 20-odd major climate models has settled the science, such that all of the rest are now discarded?


Precisely why do you claim that the "scientific consensus of climate change has become increasingly hard to challenge," when nobody in the world claims that climate does not change?


Do you refer to "climate change" instead of "global warming" because the claim of anthropogenic global warming has become increasingly contrary to fact?


Have you made the switch from "global warming" to "climate change" because any data whatsoever can be taken, however illogically, as evidence that man is changing the climate?


Howard Hayden
Pueblo West, Colo.


I am not a climate-change researcher, but I was a geochemist doing research on paleoclimates early in my career. I have tried to follow the papers in the scientific literature, and I conclude there is evidence of increase in average nighttime global temperatures between the 1950s and late 1990s. Some of this increase may be caused by so-called greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and, to a far greater extent, water vapor. It makes sense to reduce the combustion of carbon-based fuels, if only to preserve their use as feedstocks for industry. However, I am appalled at the condescending attitude of Rudy Baum, Al Gore, President Barack Obama, et al., who essentially tell us that there is no need for further research—that the matter is solved.


The peer-reviewed literature is not unequivocal about causes and effects of global warming. We are still learning about properties of water, for goodness' sake. There needs to be more true scientific research without politics on both sides and with all scientists being heard. To insult and denigrate those with whom you disagree is not becoming.


R. Everett Langford
The Woodlands, Texas


Your editorial in the June 22 issue of C&EN was a disgrace. It was filled with misinformation, half-truths, and ad hominem attacks on those who dare disagree with you. Shameful!


Are you planning to write an editorial about the Environmental Protection Agency's recent suppression of a global warming report that goes against the gospel according to NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies Director James Hansen? Or do you only editorialize on matters in keeping with your biased views on global warming?


Climate change will occur. Always has. Always will. Does that make me a "purveyor of nonsense" or a "climate-change denier?" Trying to arrest climate change is a feeble, futile endeavor and a manifestation of human arrogance. Humankind's contribution to climate change is minuscule, and trying to eliminate even that minute effect will be enormously expensive, damaging to the poorest people on the planet, and ultimately ineffective.


Dennis Malpass
Magnolia, Texas


pubs.acs.org...

To be fair there are SOME letters from scientists which agree with the editor, but MOST of the scientists who wrote letters state that they disagree with the claims of the editor-in-chief.

Even Baum admits that most of the scientists who wrote about his OPINIONS disagree with him, but then he tries to claim that ALL scientists in other scientific groups agree with him.

The letters in this issue of C&EN, all six columns of them, address my editorial “Climate-Change News” that appeared in the June 22 issue. Most of the letters disagree sharply with the editorial. Many more letters on climate change appear in the letters section of this week’s issue of C&EN Online. Most all of the printable letters we received about the June 22 editorial are either printed in this issue or posted on C&EN Online.

I will let the letters speak for themselves. Some chemists do not think human activity is causing Earth’s climate to change. They think the evidence for their point of view is stronger than the evidence that supports the widely accepted idea that burning fossil fuels and discharging other gases and particulates into the atmosphere is causing global warming.

A few points: One is that some writers suggest that ACS should not allow me to express what they consider an extreme view on global warming. They point to the disclaimer on the Editor’s Page—”Views expressed on this page are those of the author and not necessarily those of ACS”—and say that it is insufficient in distancing ACS from me.

ACS, in fact, has an official position on climate change, which is easy to find under the “Policy” section of www.acs.org. The position statement opens with the following: “Careful and comprehensive scientific assessments have clearly demonstrated that the Earth’s climate system is changing rapidly in response to growing atmospheric burdens of greenhouse gases and absorbing aerosol particles (IPCC, 2007). There is very little room for doubt that observed climate trends are due to human activities. The threats are serious and action is urgently needed to mitigate the risks of climate change.”

I am also struck by the contempt of many of the letter writers for the thousands of scientists who work for government agencies such as EPA, NASA, NOAA, and DOE. Their harshest vitriol is aimed at the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Many of the letters dismiss out of hand any report from IPCC or any U.S. government agency that supports the idea of human-induced global warming, calling such reports irredeemably “politicized.” I am startled that they so blithely impugn the integrity of so many of their colleagues.

cenblog.org...

Many other scientists from different scientific groups have stated the same thing.

Even some scientists who claim that mankind contributes if only a little to Climate Change have stated that Climate Change has become heavily POLITICIZED, and that debate is suppressed, more so if such debate puts any doubt on the claims of the Global Warming believers.

It is time that the truth comes out, and people realize that only and for the most part POLITICIANS, and ENVIRONMENTALISTS, most of who have NO EXPERIENCE WHATSOEVER on any science which deals with Climate Change, are the ones behind the whole claim that "the science is settled' and "most scientists agree with the Global Warming claim."

I will be posting more statements from scientists who for years have stated that Climate Change has become POLITICIZED, and it is being used as a tool for certain groups, and even nations to try to put most of the blame on industrialized nations, which have reduced their emissions better than the hosts of nations that want countries like the U.S. to pay for the mess THEY MADE.

www.newswithviews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


They seem to be rather money oriented

The ACS believes strongly that the Federal Government should not seek to become a taxpayer supported publisher. By collecting, organizing, and disseminating small molecule information whose creation it has not funded and which duplicates CAS services, NIH has started ominously, down the path to unfettered scientific publishing...

en.wikipedia.org...

so instead of the public having access to the chemical database, they want to control it and sell access...

nothing new of course, countless other societies do the same thing

Here are excerpts from a letter that Chris Landsea wrote in 2005 as the reason for him to withdraw from the IPCC. Chris Landsea was a research meteorologist with Hurricane Research Division of Atlantic Oceanographic & Meteorological Laboratory at NOAA, and now is the Science and Operations Officer at the National Hurricane Center.

He was also one of the few researchers back in the day who had actually done any research on hurricanes.

Dear colleagues,

After some prolonged deliberation, I have decided to withdraw from
participating in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns.

With this open letter to the community, I wish to explain the basis for my
decision and bring awareness to what I view as a problem in the IPCC
process. The IPCC is a group of climate researchers from around the world that every few years summarize how climate is changing and how it may be altered in the future due to manmade global warming. I had served both as an author for the Observations chapter and a Reviewer for the 2nd Assessment Report in 1995 and the 3rd Assessment Report in 2001, primarily on the topic of tropical cyclones (hurricanes and typhoons). My work on hurricanes, and tropical cyclones more generally, has been widely cited by the IPCC. For the upcoming AR4, I was asked several weeks ago by the Observations chapter Lead Author---Dr. Kevin Trenberth---to provide the writeup for Atlantic hurricanes. As I had in the past, I agreed to assist the IPCC in what I thought was to be an important, and politically-neutral determination of what is happening with our climate.

www.climatechangefacts.info...

Here is what another IPCC scientist has to say about the Climate Change, or as it was once known Global Warming debate.

The lead author of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Dr. John Christy, will be the keynote speaker at Directions Media's Rocket City Geospatial Conference next week. The IPCC was awarded the Nobel Prize last Friday (Oct. 12), along with former U.S. Vice President, Al Gore, for its work on bringing attention to climate change issues. Christy, a professor at the University of Alabama-Huntsville, is skeptical of some of Gore's work on the issue. "Climate has evolved from a topic dealt with by a few bookish, pocket-protector scientists to a multi-billion dollar industry that has begun to drive legislative policy on Capitol Hill, to embolden high-profile environmental activists... and to create anxiety among the largest industries (and thus people) of the world."

apb.directionsmag.com...;-Lead-Author-to-Speak-at-Directions-Rocket-City-Geospatial-Conference.html



[edit on 31-7-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


Yeah, well the largest group pf clergy in the world were found guilty of child rape too...

What does the size of the organization have to do with anything?

Congress is HUGE too, but they are completely delinquent in their duties are they not?

Methinks the reason you posted this is only because it supports your stance.

About 200 years back most scientific authorities agreed with the process of "blood letting" as well..


STOP listening to the beliefs of OTHERS... STOP using what OTHERS say to JUSTIFY your own BELIEFS... STAND on your own observations or you STAND ON NOTHING


[edit on 31-7-2009 by HunkaHunka]

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
it shows proof that even from the largest scientific group in the world, most scientists dismiss the claims that "the science is settled" and most of them disagree with the claims that mankind is responsible for Climate Change, or as it was once named Global Warming, a claim which stated that anthropogenic CO2 was the cause for the warming.

i think you'll find that it shows that most of the people that felt compelled to write to the editor to argue with him disagreed with him. that's not really surprising, i mean who the hell writes to the editor to say they agree with him?

the editor wrote a response to his critics, which can be found here.

he quote the ACS's official position on climate change as being

Careful and comprehensive scientific assessments have clearly demonstrated that the Earth’s climate system is changing rapidly in response to growing atmospheric burdens of greenhouse gases and absorbing aerosol particles (IPCC, 2007). There is very little room for doubt that observed climate trends are due to human activities. The threats are serious and action is urgently needed to mitigate the risks of climate change.

i think you'll find that despite what your source claims, the worlds largest science group do not, in fact, reject man made climate fears.

you should really check some of the background on the stuff you're posting.


[edit on 31/7/09 by pieman]

Here is part of the statements made by Prof. Reiter as he testified to a U.K. parliamentary committee in 2005. Prof. Reiter also withdrew from the IPCC for similar reasons that Chris Landsea withdrew.

Here is part of what he had to say about the section to which he was asked to be a contributer for the IPCC report.

As Prof. Reiter testified to a U.K. parliamentary committee in 2005, "The paucity of information was hardly surprising: Not one of the lead authors had ever written a research paper on the subject! Moreover, two of the authors, both physicians, had spent their entire career as environmental activists. One of these activists has published "professional" articles as an "expert" on 32 different subjects, ranging from mercury poisoning to land mines, globalization to allergies and West Nile virus to AIDS.

"Among the contributing authors there was one professional entomologist, and a person who had written an obscure article on dengue and El Nino, but whose principal interest was the effectiveness of motorcycle crash helmets (plus one paper on the health effects of cellphones)."

How do such people become numbered among the IPCC's famed "2,500 top scientists" from around the world? Prof. Reiter, wanting to know, wrote the IPCC with a series of detailed questions about its decision-making process. It replied: "The brief answer to your question below is 'governments.' It is the governments of the world who make up the IPCC, define its remit and direction. The way in which this is done is defined in the IPCC Principles and Procedures, which have been agreed by governments." When Prof. Reiter checked out the "principles and procedures," he found "no mention of research experience, bibliography, citation statistics or any other criteria that would define the quality of 'the world's top scientists.'"

www.nationalpost.com...

A fact that many people are not aware of is that most of the 1,200 or so, so called "experts in Climate Change" are in fact not experts at all. Only a few of the authors of the IPCC were really scientists which have studied Climate Change. Over 1,250+ of the contributors for the last IPCC report were environmentalists, environmental activists, policymakers, and a myriad of other groups and government representatives who were only trying to to force people to believe that we must act now by giving them billions of dollars if they were going to stop Climate Change.

The fact is Climate Change cannot be stopped, or mitigated, we can only be prepared for the changes that occur during such periods, and most of the money being collected for Climate Change is not doing anything at all to prepare people.

Ocean sea levels have risen, and fell hundreds of times throughout the history of Earth, and they will continue to do so. The poles have been free of ice several times also, and during the past 16,000 years or so, the Arctic ice has receeded more than it has during this time period.

Most of the money being squeezed to fight Global Warming is ending up in the pockets of the rich, and the elite, and with the new taxes which the Obama administration, the UN, and the EU have been passing, and are trying to pass more money is going to be squeezed from people, and at the end they would have done NOTHING to stop, or mitigate Climate Change.

When are people going to realize this is nothing more than the biggest scam in the history of the world?

Isn't it enough that 3-4 TRILLION dollars were stolen by the elite from American taxpayers, and even the government, and president Obama dared to state they didn't know what happened with that money and where it went?....



[edit on 31-7-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

Originally posted by pieman
......................
i think you'll find that despite what your source claims, the worlds largest science group do not, in fact, reject man made climate fears.

you should really check some of the background on the stuff you're posting.

Wrong, first of all there were some letters which agreed with the editor's claims, and despite your own claims scientists do write to their editors to state that they agree with them, but in this case most of the letters the editor in chief of the largest scientific group disagree with him.

BTW, I have studied the Climate Change topic for some years now, and I have posted dozens, upon dozens of "peer-reviewed research " which disagree with the manmade Climage Change claim.

Perhaps it is you who needs to step off the soapbox and do your own research instead of believing the policymakers, and environmental activists who only want more power, and more money, and have done nothing, and will do nothing to stop Climate change, and even to stop many nations from continuing to emit as much CO2 as well as REAL toxic chemicals, and gases into our rivers, lakes, oceans, and atmosphere.

Originally posted by HunkaHunka
...............
STOP listening to the beliefs of OTHERS... STOP using what OTHERS say to JUSTIFY your own BELIEFS... STAND on your own observations or you STAND ON NOTHING

Are you kidding? It should have been known by now that at least on this topic I have posted dozens, upon dozens of "peer reviewed research" which disagree with the man-made Climate Change claims.

In fact, and if I remember correctly you yourself have made claims which were wrong and you were only trying to be in the Global Warming bandwagon. Wasn't it you who claimed that removing CO2 from the atmosphere would remove all pollution?

[edit on 31-7-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Among the contributing authors there was one professional entomologist...

I distrust anyone who cites an entomologist as having no grounds for input on the issue of climate change, and I distrust anything I read in the National Post as it has a proven right wing neo-con bias.

His Lardship, Conrad Black, is not in the habit of buying newspapers in order promote anything that might negatively affect his bottom line. Which helps to account for why he is currently in jail.

Best consider your sources.

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
in this case most of the letters the editor in chief of the largest scientific group disagree with him.

yes, most of the letters did but how many in total?

the position of the ACS is as i have posted, it is not, at this time, rejecting man made climate change fears. it's just not. your source, and headline, says it is, this is untrue.

you are now in a position of having posted stuff you know isn't true by the end of page one, do you want to stand by it?

BTW, I have studied the Climate Change topic for some years now, and I have posted dozens, upon dozens of "peer-reviewed research " which disagree with the manmade Climage Change claim.

good for you, this isn't peer reviewed, this posting is thrash.

Perhaps it is you who needs to step off the soapbox and do your own research instead of believing the policymakers

personal attacks? interesting. i did nothing except point out that you are posting stuff that is clearly untrue. i won't even get into your spinning of chris landsea's resignation.

[edit on 31/7/09 by pieman]

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

I distrust anyone who cites an entomologist as having no grounds for input on the issue of climate change, and I distrust anything I read in the National Post as it has a proven right wing neo-con bias.

His Lardship, Conrad Black, is not in the habit of buying newspapers in order promote anything that might negatively affect his bottom line. Which helps to account for why he is currently in jail.

Best consider your sources.

First of all, it appears that you are confused a bit... the entomologist, as well as the other so called "experts" were most of the scientists who agreed with the IPCC report, and constituted MOST of the IPCC contributors....

Second of all, Prof. Reiter's testimony to the UK parliamentary committee in 2005 is a documented FACT, and it only appeared in newspapers that are right-wing because LEFT -wing newspapers did not dare to post such evidence against their Global Warming manmade belief...

Here is a link to the UK Parliament website which has the testimony that Prof. Reiter gave....

www.publications.parliament.uk...

I guess we must only believe LEFT wing newspapers and sources now?....


Perhaps next time you want to claim a source should not be believed because it is "right wing" you should check the facts.

Many if not most of the LEFT also most normally don't believe the testimony from people who have experienced true Socialism/Communism and claim "they are right wing paid employees....."

This belief comes from the fact that many if not most people in the LEFT don't want to accept the facts behind their ideologies on Socialism and or Communism....

Originally posted by pieman

yes, most of the letters did but how many in total?

The position written in the websites of such groups does not speak for the mayority of the scientists which are part of such groups....it only speaks about the opinions from the small groups of boards of directors which are more interested in getting more grants than in true science when it comes to Climate Change....

Originally posted by pieman
you are now in a position of having posted stuff you know isn't true by the end of page one, do you want to stand by it?

Would you care to explain what stuff i posted is not true?....

Originally posted by pieman
good for you, this isn't peer reviewed, this posting is thrash.

Now you are showing to be nothing more than a troll... Those letters are from SCIENTISTS from the American Chemical Society... Trying to claim their comments are "trash" is nothing more than ta lie from a troll...

Originally posted by pieman
personal attacks? interesting. i did nothing except point out that you are posting stuff that is clearly untrue. i won't even get into your spinning of chris landsea's resignation.

So now it is a personal attack to respond to your "claim" that I "must check my position"?.....

The 10 Most-Respected Global Warming Skeptics
Joe Weisenthal|Jul. 30, 2009,

www.businessinsider.com...

The media portrays climate scientists as having delivered a final verdict on global warming.

They haven't.

There remain some holdouts who say this consensus is little more than conformity to a politically correct idea. Perhaps even more surprising is that a few of these global-warming skeptics are actually respected!

No matter where you stand on this debate, you should know who the major skeptics are and what they think.

reply to post by HunkaHunka


BTW, when you want to make a conclusion on a topic such as Climate Change you need more than just your own faith, you need to check all the facts for then to reach an intelligent conclusion.

Your last statement seems to say that your opinions on Climate change are based only on faith.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


the evidence is on the house of lords website but the evidence doesn't discount climate change, it discounts the projected effect of climate change on mosquito. for instance, you place a quote above that in full reads

The scientific literature on mosquito-borne diseases is voluminous, yet the text references in the chapter were restricted to a handful of articles, many of them relatively obscure, and nearly all suggesting an increase in prevalence of disease in a warmer climate. The paucity of information was hardly surprising: not one of the lead authors had ever written a research paper on the subject! ........

you seem to present it as if the man is discounting climate change rather than a particular aspect of it. there seems to be quite a lot of spin in your posts.

reply to post by pieman


I have been presenting evidence that every claim made by the IPCC is wrong, and what experts on those fields and which were part of the IPCC have to say about it....

There were many topics in the IPCC reports, and each topic had a number of experts, most of which were not experts at all....

Next ArticleDenver Weather Examiner Study: Nature responsible for global warming, not man

www.examiner.com...

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
reply to post by HunkaHunka

 

BTW, when you want to make a conclusion on a topic such as Climate Change you need more than just your own faith, you need to check all the facts for then to reach an intelligent conclusion.

Your last statement seems to say that your opinions on Climate change are based only on faith.

Yes, they cling to global warming hype like I cling to my god and my gun, lol