32,000 scientists dissent from global-warming “consensus”

[yield]

So, to recap: 32,000 accredited scientist, including 9,000 PhD holders, have signed a petition dissenting from the alarmist view that moderate warming in the twentieth century, amounting to less than 1 degree Centigrade, is "manmade" and potentially catastrophic. On the other hand, a cabal of about 20 or so unaccredited propaganda shills working the internet take the opposite view that Armageddon will soon be visited upon us like a Biblical plague unless we abandon hydrocarbons and take society back into the Dark Ages.

Oh dear! Got to admit you made me laugh bigfish.

 

[editor]

So, to recap: 32,000 accredited scientist, including 9,000 PhD holders, have signed a petition dissenting from the alarmist view that moderate warming in the twentieth century, amounting to less than 1 degree Centigrade, is "manmade" and potentially catastrophic.
Prof. Freeman Dyson, one of the world's most eminent physicists, who says the models used to justify global warming alarmism are "full of fudge factors" and "do not begin to describe the real world."

And taking the last one at random:

Freeman Dyson

As a result of the burning of coal and oil, the driving of cars, and other human activities, the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is increasing at a rate of about half a percent per year. …

The physical effects of carbon dioxide are seen in changes of rainfall, cloudiness, wind strength, and temperature, which are customarily lumped together in the misleading phrase "global warming." This phrase is misleading because the warming caused by the greenhouse effect of increased carbon dioxide is not evenly distributed. In humid air, the effect of carbon dioxide on the transport of heat by radiation is less important, because it is outweighed by the much larger greenhouse effect of water vapor.

The effect of carbon dioxide is more important where the air is dry, and air is usually dry only where it is cold. The warming mainly occurs where air is cold and dry, mainly in the arctic rather than in the tropics, mainly in winter rather than in summer, and mainly at night rather than in daytime.

The warming is real, but it is mostly making cold places warmer rather than making hot places hotter. To represent this local warming by a global average is misleading, because the global average is only a fraction of a degree while the local warming at high latitudes is much larger.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeman_Dyson

That's not what I'd call a full scale denial myself.

 

[laptop]

OK, bags I #2:

Dr. David Bromwich, president of the International Commission on Polar Meteorology, who says "it's hard to see a global warming signal from the mainland of Antarctica right now."

More of the quote:

"It's hard to see a global warming signal from the mainland of Antarctica right now," professor David Bromwich told the AAAS meeting according to the online science news site PhysOrg.com. "Part of the reason is that there is a lot of variability there. It's very hard in these polar latitudes to demonstrate a global warming signal. This is in marked contrast to the northern tip of the Antarctic Peninsula that is one of the most rapidly warming parts of the Earth."

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0JZS/is_12_23/ai_n25007747/pg_4

And then let's go back to the secondary source for the next bit:

Bromwich says that the problem rises from several complications. The continent is vast, as large as the United States and Mexico combined. Only a small amount of detailed data is available – there are perhaps only 100 weather stations on that continent compared to the thousands spread across the U.S. and Europe. And the records that we have only date back a half-century.

http://www.physorg.com/news90782778.html

So he's saying, er, it's hard work. Not, as marlin's mate implies with a selective edit, that the "signal" isn't there. And he goes on to say the models don't fit perfectly. Well, duh.

Next?

 

[bigfish]

And taking the last one at random:


That's not what I'd call a full scale denial myself.

i wouldn't place that much confidence in Wikipedia. it's pretty much a laughing stock nowadays. In any case, Freeman Dyson has definitely signed the petition, the wording of which is clear and unequivocal.

 

[bigfish]

OK, bags I #2:

So, only 31,999 left to go. If anyone can do it you can, laptop... in your capacity as a representative of the Royal Society, LOL!

 

[editor]

i wouldn't place that much confidence in Wikipedia. it's pretty much a laughing stock nowadays.

In your excitement, did you fail to see the source on that page then?

It's from The New York Review of Books, 15 March 2003.

 

[laptop]

We know that bigfish doesn't understand sources, and attribution, and nit-picky things like that, that interfere with his conspiratorial narrative. But that's ridiculous.

I said I've worked for the Royal Society. Which I have.

Now, marlin - who do you work for?

 

[Signal 11]

So, to recap: 32,000 accredited scientist, including 9,000 PhD holders

Irrelevant. You have not shown that a single one of them has expertise in climate science. Please do so or cease to use them for arguments-from-authority.

 

[free spirit]

Dr. Richard Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology at M.I.T., member, the National Research Council Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, who says global warming alarmists "are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn't happen even if the models were right."

bagsy

First, let's start where there is agreement. The public, press and policy makers have been repeatedly told that three claims have widespread scientific support: Global temperature has risen about a degree since the late 19th century; levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have increased by about 30% over the same period; and CO2 should contribute to future warming. These claims are true.

so he's not actually denying anthropogenic CO2 driven climate change as such, what he is doing is questioning the exact impact that CO2 rises will have on stuff like tropical storms, and other extreme weather events as far as I can see. He is also making a point about the difficulties faced in publishing research that goes against the IPCC's current understanding of things - which, if true, is not good and isn't going to help us to really get to grips with the exact nature of the problem.

However, what the public fails to grasp is that the claims neither constitute support for alarm nor establish man's responsibility for the small amount of warming that has occurred. In fact, those who make the most outlandish claims of alarm are actually demonstrating skepticism of the very science they say supports them. It isn't just that the alarmists are trumpeting model results that we know must be wrong. It is that they are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn't happen even if the models were right as justifying costly policies to try to prevent global warming.

If the models are correct, global warming reduces the temperature differences between the poles and the equator. When you have less difference in temperature, you have less excitation of extratropical storms, not more. And, in fact, model runs support this conclusion. Alarmists have drawn some support for increased claims of tropical storminess from a casual claim by Sir John Houghton of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that a warmer world would have more evaporation, with latent heat providing more energy for disturbances. The problem with this is that the ability of evaporation to drive tropical storms relies not only on temperature but humidity as well, and calls for drier, less humid air. Claims for starkly higher temperatures are based upon there being more humidity, not less--hardly a case for more storminess with global warming.

[source = Wall Street journal interview]

he could well be correct that tropical storms won't increase for the reasons he gives, however more humid air definately equals increased rainfall once that air hits land, rises and cools, so even within his arguement against increased storminess, he's making the case for increased rainfall intensity.

He's also talking about GW reducing the temperature difference between the poles and the tropics, which essentially means the poles warming faster than the tropics, which is obviously going to mean increased ice melt, possibly major changes in ocean circulation patterns if the north west passage is unblocked / potential weakening of the gulf stream due to this ice melt, presumably changes in systems such as the north atlantic oscillation which have major impacts on the UK weather etc etc.

so yes he is questioning whether anthropogenic co2 driven warming will lead to more stormyness, but even in doing so he's acknowledging that it will have a lot of other impacts even if he's correct about the storm side of things, and he's also not denying that increased co2 = increased global average temperatures. (as far as I can see anyway)

 

[bigfish]

In your excitement, did you fail to see the source on that page then?

It's from The New York Review of Books, 15 March 2003.

Sure, that's what gives the game away - it's out of date and no longer reflects his opinion. Dyson's made a number of public statements highly critical of so called "manmade" global warming subsequent to the 2003 publication date of that article given as the information source by Wikipedia. Plus, Dyson has now signed this new petition, the wording of which is crystal clear.

 

[laptop]

bagsy Lindzen

AFAIK, that's the only actual climatologist, and he'd well and truly bagged.

Mopping-up operations commence at 07:30Z

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

AFAIK, that's the only actual climatologist, and he'd well and truly bagged.

Mopping-up operations commence at 07:30Z

How many times do you have to be told: there are 200 climatologists on the petition.

Do you just not hear things that don't support your beliefs?

 

[bigfish]

bagsy - Richard Lindzen

"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane or other greenhouse gases is causing, or will in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of Earth."

Signed by Richard Lindzen


Dear Dr spirit - what part of the highlighted text above, endorsed by Professor Lindzen between October 07 and June 08, don't you understand?

Incidentally, the Wall Street Journal article you quote from is dated April 06.

 

[free spirit]

i wouldn't place that much confidence in Wikipedia. it's pretty much a laughing stock nowadays. In any case, Freeman Dyson has definitely signed the petition, the wording of which is clear and unequivocal.

so, to be clear, these 32,000 people haven't actually signed up in opposition to "the human-caused global warming hypothesis" as you claim in the OP.

They've signed up in opposition to the idea of it causing 'catastrophic heating of the earths atmosphere and disruption to the earths climate... in the foreseeable future'.

These are 2 very very different statements, and depend entirely on what is meant by 'catastrophic'.

There's also the cunning phrase 'there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane or other greenhouse gases, is causing or will, in the forseeable future, cause...'

The word "will" introduces a certainty to the phrase that goes beyond anything that any reasonable scientist would use when it comes to predicting 'catastrophic heating'.

basically IMO most of the IPCC, and probably even Al Gore himself would actually agree with the first sentence of the 2nd paragraph of that petition because of the way it's worded, so that entire press release is a fraud IMO as it misrepresents what the scientists who have signed it have actually signed up to.

 

[free spirit]

"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane or other greenhouse gases is causing, or will in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of Earth."

Signed by Richard Lindzen


Dear Dr spirit - what part of the highlighted text above, endorsed by Professor Lindzen between October 07 and June 08, don't you understand?

Incidentally, the Wall Street Journal article you quote from is dated April 06.

well, given that the article I quote from contains the exact wording that you quoted, and that all other articles google brought up with that quote in them referred back to the wall street journal article I've quoted, I think it's fair for me to quote the same 2 year old article you quoted from... or did you not actually know the origin of the quote you used?

you're slipping bigfish... must be nearly time to throw in the towel

as for the rest... I think I've answered that in my other post.

 

[free spirit]

Sure, that's what gives the game away - it's out of date and no longer reflects his opinion. Dyson's made a number of public statements highly critical of so called "manmade" global warming subsequent to the 2003 publication date of that article given as the information source by Wikipedia. Plus, Dyson has now signed this new petition, the wording of which is crystal clear.

yep - crystal clear as in meaning nothing like what it says in the press releases you've quoted.

 

[laptop]

there are 200 climatologists on the petition.

You'll be kind enough to provide their names, degrees, links to their publication history and the amount of funding each receives from the carbon lobby?

Thanks in advance...

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

You'll be kind enough to provide their names, degrees, links to their publication history and the amount of funding each receives from the carbon lobby?

Thanks in advance...

You can look all that up yourself. I was just refuting your falsehood that there was only one climatologist on the petition.

 

[laptop]

They've signed up in opposition to the idea of it causing 'catastrophic heating of the earths atmosphere and disruption to the earths climate... in the foreseeable future'.

These are 2 very very different statements, and depend entirely on what is meant by 'catastrophic'.

And by "forseeable"




bigfish === max_freakout !

 

[laptop]

You can look all that up yourself.

The heirs of Seitz have published a list? Linky time... pretty please!




Clue: I'm not counting as a climatologist anyone funded by the carbon lobby. They are, or have turned into, PR people.

Lindzen is the only working climatologist that anyone has shown to be on the list.

 

[free spirit]

You can look all that up yourself. I was just refuting your falsehood that there was only one climatologist on the petition.

no you weren't - you were making a claim that you're now being challenged to back up.

surely if there were 200 climatologists on that petition then bigfish would have picked out more than one for his selection of quotes. It's not like the ones he chose did his arguement any favours is it, surely one of the 200 climatologists you say are on the petition would have been able to provide a better quote than the ones given.

 

[scifisam]

i wouldn't place that much confidence in Wikipedia. it's pretty much a laughing stock nowadays. In any case, Freeman Dyson has definitely signed the petition, the wording of which is clear and unequivocal.

Am I reading that wrong? The BSc is scribbled out, which makes it looks like he has BA in mathematis. Or the Bsc being scribbled out is false, in which case he has a BSc in maths. Who gets a Bachelor of Arts in Maths?

So, either way, he has an undergraduate degree in maths. He's about as well qualified as most of the people on this thread, in that case.

 

[free spirit]

Am I reading that wrong? The BSc is scribbled out, which makes it looks like he has BA in mathematis. Or the Bsc being scribbled out is false, in which case he has a BSc in maths. Who gets a Bachelor of Arts in Maths?

So, either way, he has an undergraduate degree in maths. He's about as well qualified as most of the people on this thread, in that case.

erm, well he is also an award winning published professor of physics at cornell, which is well more qualified than me... not sure about you like


his views on climate change though aren't really what bigfish would have us believe. As far as I can sus out, he's basically making the case for much more accurate studies of all the processes that are at play, and less reliance on modelling which basically is only as good as the data that's inputted. Something I personally entirely agree with.

check his views out for yourself here

 

[d.a.s.h]

Am I reading that wrong? The BSc is scribbled out, which makes it looks like he has BA in mathematis. Or the Bsc being scribbled out is false, in which case he has a BSc in maths. Who gets a Bachelor of Arts in Maths?

So, either way, he has an undergraduate degree in maths. He's about as well qualified as most of the people on this thread, in that case.

Dyson is a first-rate physicist and comes across in interviews as a good bloke too. His position is that manmade increases in atmospheric CO2 have caused recent warming, but that future predictions are too difficult to make with any certainty, that technological fixes (i.e. CO2 sequestering) should be pursued, and that there are more pressing problems affecting the world, such as poverty and infectious diseases.

 

[d.a.s.h]

Dr. Christopher Landsea, past chairman of the American Meteorological Society's Committee on Tropical Meteorology and Tropical Cyclones, who says "there are no known scientific studies that show a conclusive physical link between global warming and observed hurricane frequency and intensity."

Unfortunately but not unsurprisingly the snippet above misses out Landsea's views on global warming in general:

In an interview on PBS, Christopher Landsea said "we certainly see substantial warming in the ocean and atmosphere over the last several decades on the order of a degree Fahrenheit, and I have no doubt a portion of that, at least, is due to greenhouse warming. The question is whether we're seeing any real increases in the hurricane activity."

 

[Signal 11]

You can look all that up yourself.

You may not shift the burden of proof. Provide the evidence requested or withdraw your claim.

 

[d.a.s.h]

Sure, that's what gives the game away - it's out of date and no longer reflects his opinion.

Sorry bigfish but as usual you're full of shit. Here's what Dyson had to say in 2006:

Climate change is a real problem, partly caused by human activities, but its importance has been grossly exaggerated.

It is far less important than other social problems such as poverty, infectious diseases, deforestation, extinction of species on land and in the sea, not to mention war, nuclear weapons and biological weapons.

http://www.livescience.com/environment/060713_global_warming.html

Here's what Dyson was saying in 2007:

I believe global warming is grossly exaggerated as a problem. It's a real problem, but it's nothing like as serious as people are led to believe. The idea that global warming is the most important problem facing the world is total nonsense and is doing a lot of harm. It distracts people's attention from much more serious problems.

http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2007/09/29/freeman_dyson/index1.html

There appears to be no significant change in the views he expressed in 2003, 2006 and 2007.

Of particular interest is Dyson's acceptance that adding CO2 to the atmosphere does cause warming. Yet you believe this to be impossible.

 

[free spirit]

Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, world-renowned expert on the ancient ice cores used in climate research, who says the U.N. "based its global-warming hypothesis on arbitrary assumptions and these assumptions, it is now clear, are false."

I think I'm going to have to give you this one... he's definately a full on sceptic of co2 driven climate change, and he does argue a decent case for some of the flaws in the ippc process, problems with Ice Core data etc.

 

[d.a.s.h]

Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski will be 81 in October this year. A disproportionate number of anti-global warming types are elderly.

Where are all the young climate scientists disputing CO2-driven global warming?

 

[free spirit]

Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski will be 81 in October this year. A disproportionate number of anti-global warming types are elderly.

Where are all the young climate scientists disputing CO2-driven global warming?

true, but then sometimes I think it does take older scientists with established reputations and nothing to lose to actually raise their heads above the parapet if there are valid concerns about some of the basic areas of the IPCC's work.

also the younger ones have been brought up with anthropogenic co2 driven climate change being scientific authodoxy their entire scientific lives, whereas the older ones can still remember when this wasn't the case