A rather shocking event happened Wednesday: the American Physical Society, an organization representing nearly 50,000 physicists, opened for debate "the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for the global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution."
This is significant because on November 18, 2007, the organization declared:
Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.
The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring.
Now, almost exactly eight months later, the following was posted at the APS website (emphasis added):
With this issue of Physics & Society, we kick off a debate concerning one of the main conclusions of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the UN body which, together with Al Gore, recently won the Nobel Prize for its work concerning climate change research. There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for the global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution. Since the correctness or fallacy of that conclusion has immense implications for public policy and for the future of the biosphere, we thought it appropriate to present a debate within the pages of P&S concerning that conclusion. This editor (JJM) invited several people to contribute articles that were either pro or con. Christopher Monckton responded with this issue's article that argues against the correctness of the IPCC conclusion, and a pair from Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, David Hafemeister and Peter Schwartz, responded with this issue's article in favor of the IPCC conclusion. We, the editors of P&S, invite reasoned rebuttals from the authors as well as further contributions from the physics community. Please contact me (jjmarque@sbcglobal.net) if you wish to jump into this fray with comments or articles that are scientific in nature. However, we will not publish articles that are political or polemical in nature. Stick to the science! (JJM)
For those unfamiliar:
The American Physical Society was founded on May 20, 1899, when 36 physicists gathered at Columbia University for that purpose. They proclaimed the mission of the new Society to be "to advance and diffuse the knowledge of physics", and in one way or another the APS has been at that task ever since. In the early years, virtually the sole activity of the APS was to hold scientific meetings, initially four per year. In 1913, the APS took over the operation of the Physical Review, which had been founded in 1893 at Cornell, and journal publication became its second major activity. Physical Review was followed by Reviews of Modern Physics in 1929, and by Physical Review Letters in 1958. Over the years, Physical Review has subdivided into five separate sections as the fields of physics have proliferated and the number of submissions grew.
I'm sure the mainstream media will be all over this rather startling announcement and the ensuing debate.
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters. Follow him at Facebook and Twitter.




















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Does this mean...
July 17, 2008 - 17:30 ET by HeavyChevythere is a slim, slight, teeny, tiny chance we can have cooler heads prevail, have a real common sense debate and finally put this whole global warming crap to bed...and the answer is not likely. The IPCC and their network of kooks invested to much time and money into their global warming madness, and the risk of losing billions in funding too great. I'm afraid this is really going to get "ugly" now. look to see the global warming alarmist cranking up their fear mongering into overdrive.
(not-so)Amazingly, the IPCC
July 17, 2008 - 17:36 ET by Roger the Shrubber(not-so)Amazingly, the IPCC were fudging some numbers, it seems.
Bad week for Global warming zealots. Maybe Noel could include those findings in the main topic.
Shocker
July 17, 2008 - 18:07 ET by dboAlso not so amazingly, it seems the IPCC is not 2500 independent scientists but rather 44 hand picked friends and co-author's enjoying a schmooze-fest and advancing each other's agenda and career.
http://scienceandpub...
Rog, I saw that earlier...
July 17, 2008 - 18:14 ET by Clear thinkerI just love how they lie to further their agendas.
Here's what Rog is talking about...
45 Communist Goals for America http://www.nationmakers.com/com_goals.htm
But what about the past 10,000 years?
July 17, 2008 - 17:33 ET by c5thenWhat was the 'cause' of the global warming since the last ice-age? How can you take a 100 year slice out of the last 10,000 years and say "this is more significant than all the rest"? To me they are trying to take an emotional/political issue and apply scientific sounding phrases to it to mask the real issue. The real issue is that the conclusion has already been decided, they only need to look for the correct data to support it (and supress all the wrong data).
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back! Alan Keyes '08.
The Sun, maybe?
July 17, 2008 - 20:38 ET by ThisnThat"What was the 'cause' of the global warming since the last ice-age?"
Whatever you do, don't mention the sun. Or sunspots. Or wobbling of the earth on its axis. Whatever the answer is, it can be traced to mankind and his SUVs. Trust me on this. I know.
___________________________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber
----
July 17, 2008 - 21:41 ET by dahliatraversit can be traced to mankind and his SUVs.
Tchaahh. AND his hairspray. C'mon, TNT ...
Who can I yell at?
July 18, 2008 - 07:57 ET by ThisnThatTo your point, dahliatravers: If any liberal wanted to show his creditionals, which groups would he try to hug the most? Answer: the poor, elderly, sick, very young, and immigrants. So, here's how the EPA, today, is using "Global Warming" to embrace liberals: "Global warming will affect the health and welfare of every American, but the poor, elderly, and children will suffer the most, according to a new White House science report released Thursday" (written mostly by one woman in the EPA).
And then, this statement was made: "Global warming is caused by greenhouse gases from the burning of fossil fuels." Period. End of discussion. Solid, scientific fact -- brought to you by some of the dumbest, easiest-fooled, agenda-driven people alive.
Who can I yell at? This whole thing is outrageous.
___________________________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber
I'm curious as to what
July 17, 2008 - 17:36 ET by danboI'm curious as to what brought on this about face. Was there a revolt by the scientist who are supposedly all in agreement with the IPCC.
Open debate? That's a novel idea.
AGW is in trouble.
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
This is what...
July 17, 2008 - 18:14 ET by David N MOI think the skyuntists in that community are revolting against their more political leaders and when the picks are puncturing the door opinions and positions change.
We've known for a long time that a lot of scientist don't agree that man has caused the changes we are apparently seeing in the climate.
If it's affiliated with the UN you know it's got to be a bad idea.
I suspect it was a
July 17, 2008 - 20:22 ET by danboI suspect it was a revolt. To AGWarmers a debate is better than a defeat. But, the real scientist likely won't accept the facade of a debate.
AGW is in trouble.
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
Debate...
July 17, 2008 - 22:57 ET by David N MOI just hope it is a true debate... as in arguments and evidence presented by both sides instead of the typical Democrat "debate" where only hyperbole is tossed out.
"Well, Bob, from the data amassed... the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere lagged the temperature rise during the last cycle..."
"But Dan!, we have only 10 years, T-E-N years! before our babies will be burned by a world gone awry! Wee need to... We MUST tax all of the rich to pay for the carbon credits necessary to save our babies!!! And that means you Dan... You are using way too much oil... you are using waay to much water... BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH!"
Save me from the good people
Sorry David, they were
July 18, 2008 - 07:29 ET by danboSorry David, they were telling me we were using too much oil and it would soon run out when I was in grammer school. I'm in my 60's. We have more oil available now then then.
The sad thing when we chase imaginary windmills we don't deal with real problems. Like world hunger. Helping the 3rd world to find ther dreams by giving them opportunities and jobs. Instead of growing food we're growing fuel for Al Gore.
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
But...
July 21, 2008 - 13:22 ET by David N MOWe have been dealing with world problems like hunger... and we have been teaching them to fish rather than giving them fish. Isn't this a huge part of the oil problem? India, Indoneasia, Vietnam, Malasia... even China! practically all of the world needs more oil to live the lifestyle the US has made possible for them! We've even cut the throats of our own farmers to give corporations access to 3rd world labor.
... Oh and did you hear the Democrats are silently pushing for a 10c oil tax increase?
didn't they get the memo?
July 17, 2008 - 17:37 ET by wizardjrThe science is settled!
I expect that they got a threat to tender resignation from thousands of their members that triggered this off. As if anyone but a handful of grant seekers and their sycophants had actually supported the early statement on AGW. Well, this is certainly about to get interesting.
Will it be a true open
July 17, 2008 - 17:39 ET by danboWill it be a true open debate? Or will it be like the NERC debates. Where sceptics are blocked for all kinds of reasons. Then the Alarmist declare victory when they're losing and close it.
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
Sorry AlGore
July 17, 2008 - 17:41 ET by ThisnThat"However, we will not publish articles that are political or polemical in nature. Stick to the science!"
Uh-oh. Looks like we won't be honored with comments from Nobel-winning, VP Al Gore on this one.
___________________________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber
Science is settled and the debate is over.
July 17, 2008 - 20:18 ET by garyganuAl Gore is not going to be happy about this. He has been proclaiming that the science is settled and the debate is over. Al Gore said that there is only a tiny percentage of people who do not believe in his theory/fact. Gore compares this minute minority to those who still believe that the earth is flat or the moon landing was staged. I wonder how Gore will react to this debate being re-opened by such a prominent group. I expect as far as he is concerned, the debate is still over and he will refuse to talk about it, as usual. The following link is to my article and satirical video base on personal experience, reason and common sense that revisits the global warming myth.
Fairy Camp...
July 17, 2008 - 17:56 ET by Clear thinkerLooks like all these folks went to fairy camps for thier summer breaks...
"Fairy Camp is a two-week not-for-profit eco-magical arts day camp for girls ages 6-8 that celebrates the earth and the powers of imagination, intuition, and creativity."
Noel.... Bet you can't wait for Gore's big announcement tomorrow. I know I can't, and will have a hard time sleeping tonight.
45 Communist Goals for America http://www.nationmakers.com/com_goals.htm
→ Gore's announcement
July 17, 2008 - 18:00 ET by Cool ArrowI'm thinking Al Gore is goig to hijack T. Boone Pickens plan so he can say he invented it
LYDSEXICS UNTIE
Not likely
July 17, 2008 - 18:11 ET by Brau"I'm sure the mainstream media will be all over this rather startling announcement and the ensuing debate."
Not likely. The issue of man-made global warming is completely a religious issue today, not a scientific one.It is happening despite the bulk of evidence against it. This kind of fear-mongering dates back thousands of years and isn't likely to stop because of a few scientists, and few thousand scientists, or any debate. Never underestimate the ability of the religious to bury their heads in the sand and profess whatever they want. After all, if the religious can say God is undeniably real, they can easily deny any evidence in order to convince themselves of anything they want to believe.
... but I still hope ...
→ Right Brau
July 17, 2008 - 18:19 ET by Cool ArrowGoes even farther back than all the gift giving and tree decorating pagans engaged in to ring back the warmth of the Sun every Dec. 25th.
Any link on how the BBC covered this story??
July 17, 2008 - 18:26 ET by PaarlPaarl
Isearched BBC site and NADA>>NYET>>ZILCH>>NOTHING
July 17, 2008 - 18:39 ET by Paarlpaarl
religious issue
July 17, 2008 - 23:20 ET by wiley catBrau,
We don't care whether the MSM picks this up or not, do we? The main thing is that the overwhelming body of scientists find a voice and support to tell the truth. It is really great to have an organization such as MRC with resources to keep this issue and its' lies out in the venue of public discourse, isn't it?
Great insight, the link to Humanist "faith-based" campaigns (with the link to religion) to drive "unbelieving" knowledge workers underground and to use massive government programs to establish their power and remove wealth from those that might be able to block their implacable agenda. Sounds like an eternal conflict. What do you think?
That MMGW "project" is the essence of the agenda of the Elite, Power-hungry, Dogma-driven Humanist/Socialist believers. The question now is, what is their Next Big Thing (NBT)? Will it be Energy Conservation, or making Illegal Immigration and Perpetual Amnesty a permanent part of our crippling social services budget, or what? That last (II/PA) probably gets my vote right now.
Do you think any socialists or liberals you know will be embarassed by
or sorry for the massive web of lies which will be obvious in AG's
award-winning MMGW horror movie when the dust settles and the total fabrication of this issue becomes painfully obvious, especially after the EU with their (superior) PC attitude has fallen for the Big Lie, hook, line and sinker?
BTW, is anybody Following Al Gore's Money (what he's investing in, and why, and where his income outside of his inheritance, is coming from)?
One little tick on a comment of yours. What will you say to or about the brilliant scientist researching the intricacies of the human body (first the geneticist, genome researchers, and sub-micro-biologists) who will inevitably say "God is undeniably real"?
There is NO "anthropogenic" Global Warming. NONE. There never has been.
Not sure about all income but,......
July 18, 2008 - 03:02 ET by HillbillyKingI did find this interesting article on what hes investing in.
http://www.canadafre...
And we know he invested in making his house environmentally friendly.
http://www.tennessee...
And he does get speaking fee's and sit's on various boards.
http://www.fastcompa...
If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you.
Don Marquis 1878-1937
I must ask a question
July 18, 2008 - 11:30 ET by Mike BrattonSince TPTB here at NB have asked that baiting remarks about faith and religion not be published here, why would you make such a comment?
Speaking as a Christian, we don't have faith in faith, but faith in facts, in truth. On the other hand, AGW is "faith in faith," glorified navel-gazing, presuming that human beings are just so powerful as to irreparably damage the planetary climate--in a century--and making such a presumption without a critical mass of data, yet pronouncing the "science" to be "settled."
If you can stick to the issue of anthropogenic global warming, that's great. If you have to throw verbal Molotovs at people who hold a different worldview, that's just mindlessly running a play out of a playbook. Please refrain from making such remarks here in the future.
--Mike
www.thebrattonreport.com
What ? A real GW Debate - no consensus ? does Al do physics?
July 17, 2008 - 18:18 ET by JayTeeAnd right after Al's BIG speech yesterday.
A non-political Debate ?
31,000 Scientists were not Reported...will this be reported ?
The Republican Revolution will not be Televised
Right
July 17, 2008 - 18:25 ET by PaarlThis is exactly why Gore gave his speech yesterday........he had a heads up and it is exactly why the MMGW cranks have turned up the hysteria in recent months......Truth is starting to win out or at least get out
Paarl of Rhodesia
Truth = $4.00 a gallon gas
July 17, 2008 - 19:02 ET by ReaverThe rising price of gas is threatening to unravel the whole GW campaign. Higher energy prices are making people a lot less open to the idea of cap and trade or carbon taxes. Too many people are starting to figure out that Algore and his fellow travellers are standing between them and more oil.
So they'll have a debate
July 17, 2008 - 18:32 ET by SgtBoband then decide to keep the same findings. "Hey, we had a debate."
>>> However, we will not
July 17, 2008 - 18:41 ET by seanrobins>>> However, we will not publish articles that are political or polemical in nature. Stick to the science! (JJM)
If they stick to this requirement for responses, then there isn't likely to be any from the Algore crowd.
sean robins
blog.seanrobins.com
"There is a considerable
July 17, 2008 - 18:48 ET by robert108"There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of
people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2
emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for the
global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution."
"...very probably likely to be primarily responsible..."???
What they really said was "the debate is over", and "conclusive proof". This is revisionism in the face of inconvenient truth.
science (note the little s)
July 17, 2008 - 22:06 ET by wiley catAnd to clear up anything that CT and r108 might have missed-
If it turns out NOT to be "...very probably likely to be primarily responsible...", it could very well be likely to be possibly very strongly secondarily responsible.
Man, I love this science stuff. That there statement's nearly a scientific paper, ain't it? It really ain't that hard to tell the truth, is it?
There is NO "anthropogenic" Global Warming. NONE. Never has been!
wiley...
July 17, 2008 - 22:18 ET by Clear thinkerIt would take a scientific paper just to explain the statement. Or the Aflac Duck!
45 Communist Goals for America http://www.nationmakers.com/com_goals.htm
just ducky
July 17, 2008 - 23:38 ET by wiley catCT-
Picture the Aflac Duck running through the length of AG's fantasy film, haplessly almost succumbing to one disaster after another, only to find itself right back in the middle of another "Natural Disaster" caused by those Nasty Humans. (I'll bet indexers and librarians are having h--- with that film: Is it Horror, or Fantasy, or almost-science Fiction?)
There is NO "anthropogenic" Global Warming. NONE.
"...CO2 emissions are
July 17, 2008 - 19:08 ET by Clear thinker"...CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible..."
Talk about covering your bets (ass).
45 Communist Goals for America http://www.nationmakers.com/com_goals.htm
Amazing... another Peer-Reviewed Paper Skeptical of AGW
July 17, 2008 - 19:21 ET by PopularTechClimate Sensitivity Reconsidered
(Physics & Society, Volume 37, Number 3, July 2008)
- Christopher Monckton
"Conclusion: Even if temperature had risen above natural variability, the recent solar Grand Maximum may have been chiefly responsible. Even if the sun were not chiefly to blame for the past half-century’s warming, the IPCC has not demonstrated that, since CO2 occupies only one-ten-thousandth part more of the atmosphere that it did in 1750, it has contributed more than a small fraction of the warming. Even if carbon dioxide were chiefly responsible for the warming that ceased in 1998 and may not resume until 2015, the distinctive, projected fingerprint of anthropogenic “greenhouse-gas” warming is entirely absent from the observed record. Even if the fingerprint were present, computer models are long proven to be inherently incapable of providing projections of the future state of the climate that are sound enough for policymaking. Even if per impossibilethe models could ever become reliable, the present paper demonstrates that it is not at all likely that the world will warm as much as the IPCC imagines. Even if the world were to warm that much, the overwhelming majority of the scientific, peer-reviewed literature does not predict that catastrophe would ensue. Even if catastrophe might ensue, even the most drastic proposals to mitigate future climate change by reducing emissions of carbon dioxide would make very little difference to the climate. Even if mitigation were likely to be effective, it would do more harm than good: already millions face starvation as the dash for biofuels takes agricultural land out of essential food production: a warning that taking precautions, “just in case”, can do untold harm unless there is a sound, scientific basis for them. Finally, even if mitigation might do more good than harm, adaptation as (and if) necessary would be far more cost-effective and less likely to be harmful.
In short, we must get the science right, or we shall get the policy wrong. If the concluding equation in this analysis (Eqn. 30) is correct, the IPCC’s estimates of climate sensitivity must have been very much exaggerated. There may, therefore, be a good reason why, contrary to the projections of the models on which the IPCC relies, temperatures have not risen for a decade and have been falling since the phase-transition in global temperature trends that occurred in late 2001. Perhaps real-world climate sensitivity is very much below the IPCC’s estimates. Perhaps, therefore, there is no “climate crisis” at all. At present, then, in policy terms there is no case for doing anything. The correct policy approach to a non-problem is to have the courage to do nothing."
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
PT
July 17, 2008 - 19:27 ET by Free StinkerGreat work PT ! You keep coming up with the "inconvenient" facts. ;-)
"They're both doofuses!" --Mark Levin
christopher monckton
July 17, 2008 - 19:55 ET by abeautifulpersonhow does a journalist with no science credentials, get published on the American Physical Society website?
i did find this: "Monckton is listed as a "Global Warming" expert for the Heartland Institute, a Chicago-based freemarket think tank. The Heartland Institute frequently attacks the scientific evidence for human-caused climate change. The Heartland Institute has received over $791,000 from oil-giant ExxonMobil since 1998."
according to Dr Stephan Harrison, Senior Lecturer in Physical Geography at the University of Exeter and Senior Research Associate at the Oxford University Centre for the Environment, "he has no qualifications in the field of climate science and I doubt he was written a single scientific paper on the issue."
source: http://www.ukwatch.net/article/christopher_monckton
but i suppose he has no more qualifications as al gore.
Nothing? Huh? "There is
July 17, 2008 - 20:27 ET by danboNothing? Huh?
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
Thanks for the Propaganda
July 17, 2008 - 21:20 ET by PopularTechExxon Secrets
$$$ Funded by Greenpeace
- Greenpeace (Discover the Networks)
"Founded in 1970 as a loose assortment of Canadian anti-nuclear agitators, American expatriates, and underground journalists calling themselves the "Don't Make a Wave Committee," Greenpeace is today the most influential group of the environmental Left. [...]
In the early 1990s, the organization turned its attention to the purported threat that chlorine posed to the world's water supplies. At the time, Greenpeace asserted that it would accept nothing less than the blanket prohibition of the element. "There are no uses of chlorine which we regard as safe," declared Greenpeace activist Joe Thornton, [...]
Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore left the organization and now laments that the group has become "dominated by leftwingers and extremists who disregard science in the pursuit of environmental purity "
According to a December 20, 2005 New York Times report, "the F.B.I. investigated possible financial ties between [Greenpeace] members and militant groups like the Earth Liberation Front and the Animal Liberation Front." [...]
An expose of Greenpeace's fundraising practices carried out in 2003 by Public Interest Watch (PIW), a nonprofit watchdog group, led to a report disclosing that Greenpeace uses its Greenpeace Fund, a tax-exempt entity debarred from engaging in political advocacy and lobbying by the IRS tax code, to illegally direct funds to Greenpeace Inc., a tax-exempt organization permitted to engage in lobbying and advocacy but not to accept tax-deductible funds. PIW calculated that in 2000, $4.25 million was provided by the Greenpeace Fund in this way.
Greenpeace is heavily funded by many foundations, among which are the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, the Bauman Family Foundation, the Blue Moon Fund, the Columbia Foundation, the Compton Foundation, the Minneapolis Foundation, the Nathan orgasmings Foundation, the Scherman Foundation, Ted Turner's Turner Foundation. The organization has also drawn support from numerous celebrities, including singers Sting, Tom Jones, and Elton John, who have sponsored its "save the rainforest" campaigns. In 2004, Greenpeace received $15,844,752 in grants, and held net assets of $1,893,548. That same year, the Greenpeace Fund received grants totaling $6,866,534 and held net assets of $7,532,018."
Please prove Monckton received money from Exxon. Then please explain how funding disproves science
Looks like Harrison is wrong as he clearly has written a paper on the issue.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
can anyone answer my initial question?
July 18, 2008 - 12:30 ET by abeautifulpersonhow does a person who's career includes:
- being aide to the most conservative british prime minister in the last 40 years
- a puzzle maker
- a journalist
- has no science credentials
- a denier of heterosexual AIDS, champion to force everyone to be AIDS tested AND forcible, permanent confinement to all infected.
manage to top the list of global warming deniers for a debate?
i see a lot of dodging, weaving, accusations and insults, but no answer. come on. there has got to be one person on this thread qualified to answer my question.
Or for that matter, how
July 18, 2008 - 12:42 ET by bassndudeOr for that matter, how does a person who's career includes:
a journalist
no sicence credentials
politician, (professional lier)
manage to top the list of global warming supporters for a debate? Oh! Thats right. He will not debate.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
you're right
July 18, 2008 - 13:58 ET by abeautifulpersonare you referring to noel sheppard? i didn't know he was a politician... or a supporter.
wait... you're talking about gore. supporter? yes. but i think (since i don't know him personally) he would feel it a bit arrogant to call himself an expert.
still haven't seen an answer to my question.
What question? Monckton has been published in a Journal Before
July 18, 2008 - 17:19 ET by PopularTechThe one about how Monckton got published at APS? You can answer your own question by getting the requirements to have a paper published by APS.
Monckton has been published in a Scientific Journals before:
Free speech about climate change
(Society, Volume 44, Number 4, May, 2007)
- Christopher Monckton
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
The Propaganda continues...
July 18, 2008 - 12:52 ET by PopularTechBefore we can move onto your new propaganda we must first finish with the original:
Please prove Monckton received money from Exxon. Then please explain how funding disproves science.
You seem qualified to spew propaganda without one supporting fact.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
abp...
July 17, 2008 - 21:36 ET by Clear thinkerSplain this...
"... demonstrates via 30 equations that computer models used by the UN's climate panel (IPCC) were pre-programmed with overstated values for the three variables whose product is "climate sensitivity" (temperature increase in response to greenhouse-gas increase), resulting in a 500-2000% overstatement of CO2's effect on temperature in the IPCC's latest climate assessment report, published in 2007. "
45 Communist Goals for America http://www.nationmakers.com/com_goals.htm
you and i are one in the same
July 18, 2008 - 12:35 ET by abeautifulpersonwe are both asking questions. i am not a scientist, and don't pretend to be. so i can't answer your question.
my question is about the credentials of an 'expert' leading the debate against global warming. i was hoping someone could help me out. no luck so far.
i hope a scientist can help you with your question. i know what its like not to have one's questions answered.
same source that calls the Monckton article in a newsletter
July 19, 2008 - 19:25 ET by Giles WinterbourneThe same source that calls the Monckton article in a newsletter:
" Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered By Christopher Monckton
This article has not undergone any scientific peer review. Its conclusions
are in disagreement with the overwhelming opinion of the world
scientific community. The Council of the American Physical Society
disagrees with this article's conclusions." (APS)
Also note at the bottom of the DT article announcing the debate: "After publication of this story, the APS responded with a statement
that its Physics and Society Forum is merely one unit within the APS,
and its views do not reflect those of the Society at large. "
Rather than leap onto the newest piece of non-reviewed material, hoping for a magic carpet ride of proof, it would be rather more prudent to let those with credibility and expertise in the topic discuss it.
Note also, there hasn't been any skeptic rebuttal of the companion piece by Hafemeister & Schwartz, nor any additional math or science support of Monckton's piece.
But reviews of Monkton's math has started: "What Monckton is doing is double counting his (dubious) evidence that sensitivity is lower than the IPCC number." (Deltoid)
Speaking of Heartland,
July 17, 2008 - 23:56 ET by RESTLESS 1Check out what the EPA is up to.
And see more good news here. </sarc>
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
The Socialist strikes again
July 18, 2008 - 03:05 ET by UnsaneIsn't it funny how you Socialists will blast ANYONE who DARES contradict the religion of AGW if they as much as admit to grabbing a cup of coffee at an Exxon station on the way to the office?
Yet WE ARE NOT TO EVER QUESTION the sources of funding of the scientists who support AGW. EVER. If anyone DARES do this, you can bet that abeautifulthief will eschew his/her "world peace" mantra in favor of violently, savagely beating whoever raises that question. After all, abeautifulthief isn't about debate...ABT is all about SHUTTING PEOPLE UP.
But I do appreciate this post, as it shows me abeautifulthief isn't about AGW as much as he/she has a barely restrained passionate hatred of capitalism and free markets. Note that he/she does not attack ARAMCO, NIOC, PEMEX, or PDVSA...companies that are much bigger players in the oil world than Exxon is.
So, abeautifulthief, a few questions for you:
Imagine that you are standing outside a massive ExxonMobil shareholders meeting when suddenly the room where they are meeting in fills with nerve gas (pick you agent, the nastier, the better). Assuming you can watch safely the ghastly results: how intense will your resulting orgasm be? Will the orgasm knock you to the ground, or give you a heart attack, or will you be able to survive it?
Just curious...
Whoever casts a vote for Barack Obama is nothing more than a common thief. Whoever fails to vote against him is nothing more than a moral coward.
hurray, you see the humour in all this.
July 18, 2008 - 12:17 ET by abeautifulpersoni asked a simple question. and i guess i shut people up because they can't answer it.
so. i'm happy to answer your question (as adult and on-topic as it is) once you answer mine... because i am genuinely curious about the answer.
Really, thief?
July 20, 2008 - 14:29 ET by UnsaneI asked a much simpler question, that cuts to you ability (or lack thereof) to think critically, and your intense Socialism (that has been demonstrated repeatedly on this board) and you can't answer it. Now who has shut who up?
I have many more that you will greet the same way. Care to try me? Once you are done patting yourself on the back, that is...
(By the way, your beloved Canada ratified the Kyoto Protocol...how is THAT working out for them??? If the Conservatives there had any sense they would back out of it as soon as Parliament reconvenes, or at least promise to in the next throne speech)
Whoever casts a vote for Barack Obama is nothing more than a common thief. Whoever fails to vote against him is nothing more than a moral coward.
monckton
July 18, 2008 - 19:05 ET by mathonBeing an MIT engineer with a fair amount of physics and math study I could not find an error in Mr Moncktons science. I would like to point out that the linear equations involved in climate change are hardly challenging math or physics like for instance Quantum Mechanics involves.
If Mr Monckton is not correct I'm sure the educated people at APS will dispose of his science readily.
More interesting to me is that the article selected to "compete" with his was less scientific and didn't really question anything Mr Monckton wrote about. In fact the "tutorial" on climate warming presented by the opposition stated nothing that is disputed by skeptics. Nobody disputes that CO2 captures IR or disputes the physics of that. The dispute revolves around how fast the effect may occur and what the feedbacks and forcing values are. The competitive article didn't even attempt to justify the IPCCs ludicrous and false statements on these things, the point of which was the subject of Mr Moncktons article. The feedbacks have already been discredited by the author of the IPCC feedbacks chapter who has recanted on the theory that cloud cover is connected in a causal relationship with CO2 warming.
Not peer-reviewed. -Not an APS journal.
July 18, 2008 - 02:14 ET by Giles WinterbourneI think SPPI instigated those 'it's peer-reviewed' and 'it's a major paper' bits of misinformation. Clarification for the non-scientists below:
"The American Physical Society reaffirms the following position on climate change, adopted by its governing body, the APS Council, on November 18, 2007:
"Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate."
An
article at odds with this statement recently appeared in an online
newsletter of the APS Forum on Physics and Society, one of 39 units of
APS. The header of this newsletter carries the statement that
"Opinions expressed are those of the authors alone and do not
necessarily reflect the views of the APS or of the Forum." This
newsletter is not a journal of the APS and it is not peer reviewed." (APS)
Interesting also is the blind faith acceptance of this article by those trying to scrape up any sort of support for their beliefs. And it has a lot of math so it must be right! It looks real sciencey! And he came to the same conclusion I want to believe! And it is a new article so it must be refuting all the AGW biased research! Quick! Claim victory!
Would be far more rational to wait and see how the math and physics holds up to close scrutiny before ascribing any weight to it.
Weak
July 18, 2008 - 02:54 ET by UnsanePeer-review is simply your excuse to not do any critical thinking of your own.
And it doesn't matter what the source is. Some of the greatest discoveries in astronomy have been made by amateur astronomers (example). It is only a concern for contemptuous elitist snobs such as yourself who seek complete, total, 100% micromanaging control of the lives of we rubes by an oligarchy of wise men WHO KNOW BEST.
Whoever casts a vote for Barack Obama is nothing more than a common thief. Whoever fails to vote against him is nothing more than a moral coward.
incorrectly citing the MONCKTON paper as peer-reviewed
July 18, 2008 - 09:22 ET by Giles WinterbourneI wasn't pushing peer-review - go back and look. PT was incorrectly citing the Monckton paper as peer-reviewed and as a major paper in order to give it some credibility in this newsletter's debate.
Ah, insulting on the first response. Nice way to initiate dialog.....
Giles...
July 18, 2008 - 11:08 ET by Clear thinkerForget Monckton for the moment and splain this...
"... demonstrates via 30 equations that computer models used by the UN's climate panel (IPCC) were pre-programmed with overstated values for the three variables whose product is "climate sensitivity" (temperature increase in response to greenhouse-gas increase), resulting in a 500-2000% overstatement of CO2's effect on temperature in the IPCC's latest climate assessment report, published in 2007. "
45 Communist Goals for America http://www.nationmakers.com/com_goals.htm
Another Peer-Reviewed Paper Debunking AGW
July 18, 2008 - 11:18 ET by PopularTechCooling of Atmosphere Due to CO2 Emission
(Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects, Volume 30, Issue 1, pages 1 - 9, January 2008)
- G. V. Chilingar, L. F. Khilyuk, O. G. Sorokhtin
"The writers investigated the effect of CO2 emission on the temperature of atmosphere. Computations based on the adiabatic theory of greenhouse effect show that increasing CO2 concentration in the atmosphere results in cooling rather than warming of the Earth's atmosphere."
Amazing Giles!
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
I may be dense, but
July 18, 2008 - 11:52 ET by RESTLESS 1I may be dense, but wouldn't this make sense? Doesn't the sun generate more heat from without than the earth does from within? It seems a denser (for lack of a better term) atmosphere would insulate earth from the heat of the sun.
"This liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
Sun vs. Earth
July 18, 2008 - 12:11 ET by Jack BauerApparently there is no accurate temperature for the Earth's core but some theoretical models put it at exceding 9000 degrees Fahrenheit.
However the surface temperature of the Sun is only a balmy 11,000 F.
Bit hotter inside though - 27,000,000 F.
Careful!
July 20, 2008 - 14:33 ET by UnsaneI'm not the one constantly chirping about peer-review, and blasting people for not having their articles and studies peer-reviewed.
I am merely pointing out what peer-review is to AGW religionists such as yourself.
I'd be careful about whining about insults if I were you. That only shows your hypocrisy, as you are well known for insulting and smearing when you can't disprove the argument...
Whoever casts a vote for Barack Obama is nothing more than a common thief. Whoever fails to vote against him is nothing more than a moral coward.
Oh what a tangled web. APS
July 18, 2008 - 07:19 ET by danboOh what a tangled web. APS has a problem. In the declaration of it's board it states, "The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring."
Yet the editor of their forum states "There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion..."
The question is... Is the board lying when they say there is incontrovertable evidence, or is "their editor" lying when he says there is a considerable presence of those who disagree,
What we have to ignore to defend the one true religion.
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
Interesting also is the
July 18, 2008 - 10:17 ET by PeskyDaneInteresting also is the blind faith acceptance of this article...
Giles, you are funny. All I ever encounter when discussing "Global Warming," with true believers is blind faith.
Regardless of which way you lean, there is one incontravertable fact on which any ration human has to agree: Far from being over, the debate continues to rage.
You mean like the whole RealClimate website?
July 18, 2008 - 10:57 ET by PopularTech"And it has a lot of math so it must be right! It looks real sciencey!"
You mean like the whole RealClimate website?
Regardless the paper still exists and was published in their "Newsletter". Interesting how the debate is supposedly over, yet they would waste time "debating" something? Makes sense to me.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
A little addendum to the TOC
July 18, 2008 - 13:28 ET by Giles WinterbourneA little addendum to the TOC of the newsletter:
"Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered
By Christopher Monckton This article has not undergone any scientific peer review. Its conclusions are in disagreement with the overwhelming opinion of the world scientific community. The Council of the American Physical Society disagrees with this article's conclusions."
(in red on the TOC, and on the article page - my bolding)
Looks like the Alarmists have gotten to someone at the APS
July 18, 2008 - 17:10 ET by PopularTechInteresting how the APS publishes a paper to promote debate on an issue and then disgracefully posts that above only Monckton 's paper to essentially try to discredit it from the debate.
I do not see how an honest debate could be had under these conditions. Before anyone can read the paper they are met with that red note.
This is how the Alarmists "debate" the science.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Its not blind faith to be skeptical
July 18, 2008 - 19:56 ET by mathonI would point out that it is blind faith that the APS has stated in its statement. It reads like a religious tract actually. They present no additional science to back up their position or data.
One has to understand that science can move instantaneously unlike politics, so the politicos who cling to AGW are the ones clinging to old information. All the science uncovered in the last 5 years on AGW is against it. I used to believe that temperatures would rise 2 or 3 degrees. I have since changed my mind because the data shows the oceans are getting cooler. The "mark" of greenhouse gases in the upper troposphere is not there and because land temperatures have cooled. These data are in direct contradiction to the theory and models of AGW presented by the IPCC. Science is based on data. If the data said it was getting warmer I would accept that without the slightest problem. The data DOESN"T say that. Therefore because the AGW folks have been unable to defend their theory against this new contradictory data onslaught the theory is dead. Is the theory of greenhouse gases defunct? No! The direct temperature effect of CO2 doubling is at most 0.3 degrees by every analysis. The only way the IPCC gets to 2-3 degrees is by assuming a wide range of forcings and feedbacks that amplify the greenhouse effect. These are the real things in dispute.
Did you get a load and I
July 17, 2008 - 20:12 ET by jdhawkDid you get a load and I do mean load of T-Bone Dufuses' ads all over the drive by media?
He proposes that we use wind power to displace oil and use natural gas in cars instead of gasoline and diesel.
There are a couple of problems with this idea. First of all, wind isn't constant and there is no way to store the huge quantity of energy it may produce when it is needed. So, you can imagine the scenario:
Martha: George the flipping electricity is off again. Your laundry is going to have to wait.
George: No problem, there is a thunder storm coming in tonight around midnight that should bring plenty of wind and hopefully enough electricity for our neighborhood. You can do the laundry then.
Martha: George, bite me!!!
Meantime, T-Bone Dufus is proposing using natural gas instead of gasoline or diesel. While gasoline is highly flammable, it rarely causes an explosion when the gasoline tank of a car is punctured (contrary to the movies that you may have seen). That can not be said of a tank full of natural gas. You can imagine the scenario:
Today, in downtown X, all the windows in the shops along Main Street for two blocks were shattered causing many hideous injuries when a natural gas fueled car collided with a dump truck. There were no survivors of either vehicle. Report at 11!
Jdh... ROFL! You nailed
July 17, 2008 - 20:19 ET by bigtimerJdh...
ROFL!
You nailed it...to a T-Bone!
Wants a windy bailout
July 17, 2008 - 21:42 ET by 10ksnookerLOL ...
Just follow the money, wind cannot be successful, and can never supply reliable 24/7 electricity. All wind can do is fill in and reduce fossil fuel use, when it's well, you know, windy.
It's the bailout part that is so funny. Didn't we get enough moonshine with that ethanol fiasco? Whoever thought burning food was a good idea, should get a Nobel Prize.
Debunking the Pickens Plan
July 18, 2008 - 19:42 ET by PopularTech"There are no turbines on my ranch, because I think they are ugly." - T. Boone Pickens, 2008
Pitfalls in the Pickens Plan (Institute for Energy Research)
The Wind Cries 'Bailout!' (Fox News)
Slim Pickins From T. Boone Pickens (Investors Business Daily)
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
PT... Once again...thank
July 18, 2008 - 19:52 ET by bigtimerPT...
Once again...thank you.
As soon as I post this I am saving your links...plus reading them tomorrow.
I don't know if you know it, but I have posted here and there about him for awhile now.
He is going to make the msm shows next week...can't wait (sarcasm)...lol.
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
PT, the windmills.. got 38 MW peak output here on Maui..
July 21, 2008 - 15:08 ET by upcountrywaterhowever only 8MW can be "dumped" onto the grid.. at any given time.. We have fuel oil driven generation, still takes 1/2 hour from start -up to full load. By then the wind has died down. I lost a UPS due to voltage spikes.. An additional capital cost is to build a pump storage system... Nope going to use batteries...cheaper start-up costs.
T Boone should spend his money on a nuk, no permit ever given in this decade ;so much for free enterprise.
Liberals62%
IranianUranium
-----
July 17, 2008 - 20:26 ET by dahliatraversVery good news indeed. Especially if they stick to their stipulation:
Stick to the science!
Pop
July 17, 2008 - 21:37 ET by 10ksnookerThere goes the consensus that never was, and now will never be.
AGW, it's a hoax, it's always been a hoax. Pay more in taxes so government can pretend to control the weather. You really aren't that dumb, are you?
Professor Truth
July 17, 2008 - 22:08 ET by AndanteAt times like this I miss Professor Truth. Yo, PT, you out there? (yes that was a rhetorical question :)
"Why can't I just eat my waffle?" -- Obama, the next president?
Just what is the perfect temperature algore is shooting for?
July 17, 2008 - 22:24 ET by JoggerNotShould we take it back 20* degrees over 20 years? 10* degrees over ten years? Put up, or shut up, me thinks.
Why would warming a little be bad?
Longer growing season, perhaps?
Seas might rise about an inch...
We dont ever get a reason as to why a little warming vs a little cooling is the worse that could happen.
Just my 2 dollar forty five...
Let a thousand flowers bloom?
July 17, 2008 - 22:56 ET by needleI only hope that this is not similar to Mao’s an invitation to “let a thousand flowers bloom” so that they are exposed to the harrowing machine.
Impunitas semper ad deteriora invitat.
solved
July 17, 2008 - 22:59 ET by Sick-n-TiredLord Monckton for Prez & N. Sheppard as V.P. Need I say any more????
"Controlling carbon is a bureaucrat's dream. If you control carbon, you control life," Richard Lindzen - March 2007.
hmm
July 18, 2008 - 08:16 ET by mbuelI didn't realize there was any science supporting global warming without number fudging, or relying purely on "models". It seems to me the debate is going to be pretty one sided.
exactly right
July 18, 2008 - 20:05 ET by mathonPeople will probably be shocked when they realize that there will be no articles disputing Mr Moncktons science because the "science" of AGW is indisputable and Mr Monckton stated it perfectly. CO2 will cause a 0.3 degree increase in temperatures by 2100 (most likely if nothing else changes) but what is in dispute is the ridiculous "models" that were used to produce a 3 degree movement (10 times what the scientific answer is.) This 3 degrees is based on assumptions that Mr Monckton tears apart readily and with humor. It is now up to the true believers in AGW to come up with the arguments in favor of their theory. The problem is that there are very few people who believe or understand these cockamamie ideas. They hide their methods and models from us, the scientists so no scientist can really defend their work. Moreover the assumptions they make are laughable. In fact, most tellingly the author of the IPCC chapter on feedbacks (which generate 2/3rds of the heating by 2100) has simply recanted in the last 9 months. He has published articles in peer reviewed science journals saying that the connection between clouds and CO2 warming does not exist and that this reduces the predicted value of warming in 2100 by 2/3rds. So, there is no way that anybody is going to come out and defend AGW against Mr Monckton. That is the problem for the AGW crowd and why in the end they will lose the debate. The only question is how long is it going to take for ethical scientists to admit that the theory of significant AGW by 2100 is dead.
Drudge & APS
July 18, 2008 - 08:55 ET by Leon BrozynaThis story must have hit a nerve. It was on Drudge only a few hours before it disappeared.
While some people have been splitting hairs about the issue, saying that the APS hasn't changed its offical position and the forum in which it appears isn't a peer reviewed publication {all true}, the fact that a publicly open scientific debate is even happening can't be denied. If Chevrolet were to make a breakthrough in automotive design, it would be announced as a GM accomplishment. If Congress passes a new law, it's announced as an initiative of the government. Why can't the same be said of the APS? While the debate is being held in the journal of a forum of the APS, I think it proper to refer to the debate as being conducted by the APS, despite their official pronouncement that they've not changed their position.
It should be interesting to see how the next issue of this journal looks in October.
Scientific debate is a good thing
July 18, 2008 - 12:26 ET by lotrScientific debate is a good thing, so long as the truth, divorced from agenda, is revealed. Bring it on I say. If AGW proves false in this "mother of all debates," then Hallelujah, praise the Lord, we need not worry about greenhouse emissions! If it proves true, then hopefully the bloated bureaucracy known as the federal government can get the backbone and will to fund scientific/engineering R&D to develop new forms of energy.
That said, though I have two other comments. First, as Noel rightfully points out, it is no doubt quite odd, contradictory in fact, for the organization to state boldly: "The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring," and then only eight months later have an editor say "There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for the global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution." These two statements appear to be at odds with one another, and APS needs to clarify. Secondly, the latter portion of the editorial, comprising more than half the text, concerns itself with a problem that I have echoed on NB in the past, one that I wholeheartedly agree is the more pressing concern over whether or not AGW is true or false:
"Whether or not human produced carbon dioxide is a major cause of impending climate change (as is being debated in the two articles of this issue), the issue of energy 'production' by our Earth-bound societies must be faced. Fossil fuel supplies may become unavailable in this century – or the next – but in a finite system, obeying the laws of thermodynamics, non-fossil energy sources will have to become available to mankind, sooner or later (within the foreseeable lifetime of our planet). One major energy resource, being much touted again, is that of the fissioning nucleus."
considerable presence within the scientific community
July 18, 2008 - 12:37 ET by Giles WinterbourneSo, let's parse this out a bit:
"..considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion..." (APS-Forum)
And "..an organization representing nearly 50,000 physicists." (NB -above)
And the only person to support the 'do not agree with' POV is not a physicist and not a member?
Yes a CONSIDERABLE presence within the scientific community
July 18, 2008 - 19:50 ET by PopularTech31,000 Scientists Prove No 'Consensus’ on "Man-Made" Global Warming (OISM)
- Art Robinson Responds to Petition Slander (OISM)
- Art Robinson: A Scientist Finds Independence (American Spectator)
- Qualifications of Signers (OISM)
4000 Scientists sign 'The Heidelberg Appeal' (Science & Environmental Policy Project)
1100 Climate Realists sign 'The Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change' (ICSC)
500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares (The Heartland Institute)
400 Scientists Dispute Man-Made Global Warming Claims (US Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works)
187 Climate Experts sign 'The Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change' (ICSC)
170 Scientists, Economists and Theologians sign an open letter to the signers of 'Climate Change: An Evangelical Call to Action' (Cownwall Alliance)
105 Scientists sign 'The Leipzig Declaration on Global Climate Change' (Science & Environmental Policy Project)
100 Scientists sign an 'Open Letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations' (National Post, Canada)
60 Scientists call on Harper to revisit the science of global warming (Financial Post, Canada)
47 Scientists sign the 'Statement by Atmospheric Scientists on Greenhouse Warming' (Science & Environmental Policy Project)
41 Scientists debunk global warming alert (The Daily Telegraph, UK)
35 Skeptical Scientists, 'The Deniers' (National Post, Canada)
Skeptical Scientists:
"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane"
- Marcus Aurelius, Roman Emperor
A. Alan Moghissi, Ph.D. Physical Chemistry, Technical University of Karlsruhe, Germany
Aksel Wiin-Nielsen, Professor of Geophysical Science, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
Albrecht Glatzle, Ph.D. Agricultural Biology, University of Hohenheim, Germany
Alexander Gumen, M.S. Hydrogeology and Engineering Geology, Ph.D. Geology, Moscow Geological Prospecting Academy, Russia
Alfred (Al) H. Pekarek, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Geology, St. Cloud State University, USA
Allan M.R. MacRae, B.Sc., M.Eng., P.Eng, Canada
Amy Kaleita, Ph.D. Agricultural Engineering, University of Illinois, USA
Andreas Prokoph, B.Sc. Geology, Ph.D. Earth Sciences, University Tubingen, Germany
Anthony R. Lupo, Ph.D. Atmospheric Science, Purdue University, USA
Antonino Zichichi, Ph.D. President of the World Federation of Scientists, Italy
Arthur B. Robinson, Ph.D. Chemistry, University of California, San Diego, USA
Arthur Rorsch, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Molecular Genetics, Leiden University, The Netherlands
Ben Herman, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Arizona, USA
Benjamin D. Pearson, B.S. Physics, University of Rochester, USA
Bjarne Andresen, Ph. D. Theoretical Chemistry, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
Bob Durrenberger, Retired Climatologist, Former President of the American Association of State Climatologists, USA
Boris Winterhalter, M.Sc. Ph.D. Geology, Helsinki University, Finland
Brian Pratt, Ph.D. Professor of Geology, Sedimentology, University of Saskatchewan, Canada
Bruce N. Ames, Ph.D. Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, University of California, Berkeley, USA
Bruno Wiskel, B.Sc. Geology, University of Albert, Canada
Bryan Leyland, M.Sc. Electrical and Mechanical Engineering, New Zealand
Carl Johan Friedrich (Frits) Böttcher, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Physical Chemistry, University of Leiden, The Netherlands
Charles Gelman, B.S. Chemistry, M.S. Public Health, University of Michigan, USA
Chauncey Starr, Ph.D. Physics, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, USA
Chris de Freitas, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Environmental Science, University of Auckland, New Zealand
Christiaan Frans van Sumere, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry, University of Gent, Belgium
Christoph C. Borel, Ph.D. Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Massachusetts, USA
Christopher Essex, Ph.D. Professor of Applied Mathematics, University of Western Ontario, Canada
Christopher Landsea, Ph.D. Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University, USA
Claude Allegre, Ph.D. Physics, University of Paris, France
Cliff Ollier, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Geology, University of Western Australia, Australia
Clinton H. Sheehan, Ph.D. Physics, University of Western Ontario, Canada
Craig D. Idso, M.S. Agronomy, Ph.D. Geography, Arizona State University, USA
Craig Loehle, Ph.D. Mathematical Ecology, Colorado State University, USA
Dan Carruthers, M.Sc. Wildlife Biology Consultant, Specializing in Animal Ecology in Arctic and Subarctic Regions, Canada
Daniel B. Botkin, Ph.D. Biology, Rutgers University, USA
David Deming, B.S. Geology, Ph.D. Geophysics, University of Utah, USA
David E. Wojick, B.S. Civil Engineering, Ph.D. Mathematical Logic, University of Pittsburgh, USA
David Evans, B.Sc. Applied Mathematics and Physics, M.S. Statistics, Ph.D. Electrical Engineering, Stanford, USA
David G. Aubrey, B.S. Geological Sciences, Ph.D. Oceanography, University of California at San Diego, USA
David H. Douglass, Ph.D. Physics, MIT, USA
David J. Ameling, B.A. Physics, UCLA, USA
David J. Bellamy, B.Sc. Botany, Ph.D. Ecology, Durham University, UK
David Kear, Ph.D. Geology, New Zealand
David L. Hill, Ph.D. Physics, Princeton University, USA
David Nowell, M.Sc. Meteorology, Royal Meteorological Society, Canada
David R. Legates, Ph.D. Climatology, University of Delaware, USA
Dennis P. Lettenmaier, Ph.D. Professor of Hydrology, University of Washington, USA
Dick Thoenes, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Chemical Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands
Don J. Easterbrook, Ph.D. Geology, University of Washington, USA
Don Parkes, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Geography, University of Newcastle, Australia
Donald G. Baker, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Soil, Water & Climate, University of Minnesota, USA
Donn Dears, B.S. Engineering, U.S. Merchant Marine Academy, USA
Douglas V. Hoyt, Solar Physicist and Climatologist, Retired, Raytheon, USA
Duncan Wingham, Ph.D. Physics, University of Bath, UK
Eckhard Grimmel, Ph.D. Geography, University of Hamburg, Germany
Edward Wegman, Ph.D. Mathematical Statistics, University of Iowa, USA
Eigil Friis-Christensen, Ph.D. Geophysics, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
Elliot Abrams, M.S. Meteorology, Penn State, USA
Eric S. Posmentier, Adjunct Professor of Earth Sciences, Dartmouth, USA
Ernst-Georg Beck, M.Sc. Biology, Merian-Schule, Germany
Ferenc Miskolczi, Atmospheric Physicist, Hungary
Fred Goldberg, Ph.D. Mechanical Engineering, Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden
Fred Michel, B.Sc. Geological Sciences, M.Sc., Ph.D. Earth Sciences, University of Waterloo, Canada
Fred W. Decker, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences, Oregon State University, USA
Freeman Dyson, Professor Emeritus of Physics, Princeton University, USA
G. Cornelis van Kooten, B.Sc. Geophysics, Ph.D. Agricultural & Resource Economics, Oregon State University, USA
Gabriel T. Csanady, Ph.D. Mechanical Engineering, University of New South Wales, Australia
Garth Paltridge, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus, Institute of Antarctic and Southern Ocean Studies, University of Tasmania, Australia
Gary D. Sharp, Ph.D. Marine Biology, University of California, USA
Gary Novak, M.S. Microbiology, USA
Geoff L. Austin, Ph.D. Professor of Physics, University of Auckland, New Zealand
George E. McVehil, B.A. Physics, M.S. Ph.D. Meteorology, AMS Certified Consulting Meteorologist, USA
George H. Taylor, M.S. Meteorology, University of Utah, USA
George Kukla, Micropalentologist, Special Research Scientist of Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University, USA
George V. Chilingarian, Ph.D. Geology, University of Southern California, USA
George Wilhelm Stroke, Ph.D. Physics, University of Paris, France
Gerd-Rainer Weber, Ph.D. Consulting Meteorologist, Germany
Gerhard Gerlich, Ph.D. Physics, Technical University of Braunschweig, Germany
Gerrit J. van der Lingen, Ph.D. Geologist, Paleoclimatologist, New Zealand
Glen E. Shaw, Atmospheric Scientist, Professor of Physics, University of Alaska, USA
Gordon E. Swaters, Ph.D. Applied Mathematics and Physical Oceanography, University of British Columbia, Canada
Gordon J. Fulks, Ph.D. Physics, University of Chicago, USA
Graham Smith, Associate Professor of Geography, University of Western Ontario, Canada
H. Grant (H.G.) Goodell, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia, USA
H. Michael (Mike) Mogil, M.S. Meteorology, Florida State University, USA
Hans Erren, B.Sc. Geology and Physics, M.Sc. Geophysics, Utrecht University, The Netherlands
Hans Jelbring, Ph.D. Climatology, Stockholm University, Sweden
Hans Schreuder, Analytical Chemist, UK
Harry N.A. Priem, Professor Emeritus of Isotope and Planetary Geology, Utrecht University, The Netherlands
Hartwig Volz, Geophysicist, RWE Research Lab, Germany
Hendrik Tennekes, Former Director of Research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute, The Netherlands
Henrik Svensmark, Director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research, Danish National Space Center, Denmark
Henry R. Linden, Ph.D. Chemical Engineering, Illinois Institute of Technology, USA
Howard C. Hayden, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Physics, University of Connecticut, USA
Howard Maccabee, Ph.D. Biophysics, University of California, Berkeley, USA
Hugh W. Ellsaesser, Ph.D. Meteorology, Formerly with Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, USA
Ian D. Clark, Ph.D. Professor of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa, Canada
Ian R. Plimer, Ph.D. Professor of Geology, University of Adelaide, Australia
Indur M. Goklany, Ph.D. Electrical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, India
J. Scott Armstrong, B.A. Applied Science, B.S. Industrial Engineering, Ph.D. MIT, USA
Jack Barrett, Ph.D. Physical Chemistry, Manchester, UK
Jack Welch, B.S. M.S. Ph.D. Chemical Engineering, University of Illinois, USA
James A. Peden, B.S. Physics and Mathematics, M.S. Experimental Physics, University of Pittsburgh, USA
James (Jim) Goodridge, Retired California State Climatologist, USA
James J. O’Brien, Ph.D. Meteorology, Texas A&M University, USA
James R. Stalker, Ph.D. Atmospheric Science, University of Alabama, USA
Ján Veizer, Professor Emeritus of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa, Canada
Jay H. Lehr, Ph.D. Groundwater Hydrology, University of Arizona, USA
Jasper Kirkby, Particle Physicist at CERN the European Organization for Nuclear Research, Switzerland
Jeffrey A. Glassman, Ph.D. Applied Physicist and Engineer, USA
Jens Olaf Pepke Pedersen, Senior Scientist, Center for Sun-Climate Research, Danish National Space Center, Denmark
Jennifer Marohasy, Ph.D. Biology, University of Queensland, Australia
Joanne Simpson, Ph.D. Chief Scientist Emeritus for Meteorology, Earth Sun Exploration Division, NASA, USA
Joel M. Kauffman, Ph.D. Organic Chemistry, MIT, USA
Joel Schwartz, B.S. Chemistry, M.S. Planetary Science, California Institute of Technology, USA
John Brignell, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus, Department of Electronics & Computer Science, University of Southampton, UK
John Dale Dunn, M.D. Carl R. Darnall Army Medical Center, USA
John E. Gaynor, M.S. Meteorology, UCLA, USA
John E. Oliphant, B.A. Mathematics and Physics, M.S. Meteorology Penn State, USA
John K. Sutherland, Ph.D. Geology, University of Manchester, UK
John R. Christy, B.A. Mathematics, M.S. Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Alabama in Huntsville, USA
Joseph Conklin, M.S. Meteorology, Rutgers University, USA
Joseph D’Aleo, M.S. Meteorology, University of Wisconsin, USA
Joseph (Joe) P. Sobel, Ph.D. Meteorology, Penn State, USA
Keith D. Hage, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Meteorology, University of Alberta, Canada
Keith E. Idso, Ph.D. Botany, Arizona State University, USA
Kelvin Kemm, Ph.D. Nuclear Physics, Natal University, South Africa
Ken Gregory, B.A.Sc. Mechanical Engineering, University of British Columbia, Canada
Kenneth E.F. Watt, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Environmental Studies, University of California, Davis, USA
Khabibullo Abdusamatov, Ph.D. Astrophysicist, University of Leningrad, Russia
Kiminori Itoh, Ph.D. Professor of Environmental Metrology, Yokohama National University, Japan
Klaus Wyrtki, Ph.D. Oceanography, Physics, Mathematics, University of Kiel, Germany
Lance Endersbee, Professor Emeritus of Engineering, Monash University, Australia
Lee C. Gerhard, Ph.D. Geology, University of Kansas, USA
Lee Raymond, Ph.D. Chemical Engineering, University of Minnesota, USA
Len Walker, Ph.D. Soil Mechanics, Cambridge University, Australia
Louis Hissink, M.Sc. Geology, Macquarie University, Australia
Luboš Motl, Ph.D. Theoretical Physics, Rutgers, USA
Madhav Khandekar, B.Sc. Mathematics and Physics, M.Sc. Statistics, Ph.D. Meteorology, Florida State University, USA
Martin Livermore, B.S. Chemistry, University of Oxford, UK
Manik Talwani, Ph.D. Physics, Columbia University, USA
Marcel Leroux, Professor Emeritus of Climatology, University of Lyon, France
Mark P. Mills, B.S. Physics, Queen’s University, Canada
Martin Hertzberg, Ph.D. Physical Chemistry, Stanford, USA
Mel Goldstein, Ph.D. Meteorology, NYU, USA
Michael Crichton, A.B. Anthropology, M.D. Harvard, USA
Michael D. Griffin, B.S. Physics, M.S. Applied Physics, Ph.D. Aerospace Engineering, University of Maryland, USA
Michael E Adams, Ph.D. Meteorology, Lyndon State College, USA
Michael J. Economides, Ph.D. Professor of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, University of Houston, USA
Michael J. Oard, B.S., M.S. Atmospheric Science, University of Washington, USA
Michael Savage, B.S. Biology, M.S. Anthropology, M.S. Ethnobotany, Ph.D. Nutritional Ethnomedicine, USA
Michael R. Fox, Ph.D. Physical Chemistry, University of Washington, USA
Michel Salomon, M.D. University of Paris, Director of the International Centre for Scientific Ecology, France
Nathan Paldor, Ph.D. Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography, Hebrew University, Israel
Noah E. Robinson, Ph.D. Chemistry, California Institute of Technology, USA
Neil Frank, Ph.D. Meteorology, Florida State University, USA
Nigel Marsh, Senior Scientist, Center for Sun-Climate Research, Danish National Space Center, Denmark
Nils-Axel Mörner, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Palegeophysics and Geodynamics, Stockholm University, Sweden
Nir J. Shaviv, Ph.D. Astrophysicist, Israel Institute of Technology, Israel
Norman Brown, Professor Emeritus of Chemistry, University of Ulster, UK
Ola M. Johannessen, Professor, Nansen Environmental and Remote Sensing Center, Norway
Olavi Kärner, Ph.D. Atmospheric Physics, Leningrad Hydrometeorological Institute, Estonia
Oliver W. Frauenfeld, Ph.D. Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia, USA
Paavo Siitam, M.Sc. Agronomist, Canada
Paul Copper, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Earth Sciences, Laurentian University, Canada
Paul Driessen, B.A. Geology and Field Ecology, Lawrence University, USA
Paul Reiter, Ph.D. Professor of Medical Entomology, Pasteur Institute, France
Patrick Frank, Ph.D. Chemistry, Stanford University, USA
Patrick J. Michaels, Ph.D. Ecological Climatology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA
Patrick Moore, B.Sc. Forest Biology, Ph.D. Ecology, University of British Columbia, Greenpeace co-founder, Canada
Peter Stilbs, Ph.D. (TeknD) Physical Chemistry, Lund Institute of Technology, Sweden
Peter W. Huber, Ph.D. Mechanical Engineering, MIT, USA
Petr Chylek, Ph.D. Physics, University of California, USA
Philip K. Chapman, B.S. Physics and Mathematics, M.S. Aeronautics and Astronautics, Ph.D. Instrumentation, MIT, Australia
Philip Stott, Professor Emeritus of Biogeography, University of London, UK
Piers Corbyn, B.Sc. Physics, M.Sc. Astrophysics, Queen Mary College, UK
R.G. Roper, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology, USA
R. Tim Patterson, B.Sc. Biology, Ph.D. Professor of Geology, Carleton University, Canada
R.
W. Gauldie, Ph.D. Research Professor, Hawaii Institute of Geophysics
and Planetology, School of Ocean Earth Sciences and Technology,
University of Hawaii, USA
Raphael A.J. Wust, M.Sc., Ph.D. Lecturer, School of Earth Sciences, James Cook University, Australia
Ralf D. Tscheuschner, Ph.D. Physics, University of Hamburg, Germany
Randall Cerveny, Ph.D. Geography, University of Nebraska, USA
Richard C. Willson, Ph.D. Atmospheric Sciences, University of California Los Angeles, USA
Richard S. Courtney, Ph.D. Geography, Ohio State University, USA
Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT, USA
Rob Scagel, M.Sc., Forest Microclimate Specialist, Canada
Robert C. Balling Jr., Ph.D. Professor of Climatology, Arizona State University, USA
Robert C. Whitten, Physicist, Retired Research Scientist, NASA, USA
Robert E. Davis, B.S. Meteorology, Ph.D. Climatology, University of Delaware, USA
Robert G. Williscroft, B.Sc. Marine & Atmospheric Physics, M.Sc., Ph.D. Engineering, California Coast University, USA
Robert Giegengack, Ph.D. Geology, Yale, USA
Robert H. Essenhigh, M.S. Natural Sciences, Ph.D. Chemical Engineering, University of Sheffield, UK
Robert L. Kovach, Professor of Geophysics, Stanford University, USA
Robert (Bob) M. Carter, B.Sc. Geology, Ph.D. Paleontology, University of Cambridge, Australia
Robin Vaughan, Ph.D. Physics, Nottingham University, UK
Roger A. Pielke (Sr.), Ph.D. Meteorology, Penn State, USA
Roger Bate, M.Sc. Environmental and Resource Management, Ph.D. Economics, University of Cambridge, UK
Roy Spencer, Ph.D. Meteorology, Former Senior Scientist for Climate Studies, NASA, USA
S. Fred Singer, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia, USA
Sallie Baliunas, M.A. Ph.D. Astrophysics, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, USA
Sherwood B. Idso, Ph.D. Soil Science, University of Minnesota, USA
Simon C. Brassell, B.Sc. Chemistry & Geology, Ph.D. Organic Geochemistry, University of Bristol, UK
Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, Ph.D. Department of Geography, University of Hull, UK
Stanley B. Goldenberg, B.S. M.S. Meteorology, Hurricane Research Division, NOAA, USA
Steve Milloy, B.A. Natural Sciences, M.S. Health Sciences, Johns Hopkins University, USA
Stephen McIntyre, B.Sc. Mathematics, University of Toronto, Canada
Stewart W. Franks, Ph.D. Environmental Science, Lancaster University, U.K.
Sylvan H. Wittwer, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Horticulture, Michigan State University, USA
Syun-Ichi Akasofu, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Geophysics, University of Alaska Fairbanks, USA
Tad S. Murty, Ph.D. Oceanography and Meteorology, University of Chicago, USA
Thomas Schmidlin, Ph.D. Professor of Geography, Kent State University, USA
Tim F. Ball, Ph.D. Historical Climatologist, University of London, UK
Tom Harris, B. Eng. M. Eng. Mechanical Engineering (thermo-fluids), Canada
Tom V. Segalstad, Ph.D. Professor of Environmental Geology, University of Oslo, Norway
Ulrich Berner, Geologist, Federal Institute for Geosciences, Germany
Vern Harnapp, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Geography, University of Akron, USA
Vincent Gray, Ph.D. Physical Chemistry, Cambridge University, UK
Vitaliy Rusov, Ph.D. Physics and Mathematics, Professor of Physics, Odessa Polytechnic University, Ukraine
Yuri A. Izrael, D.Sc. Physics and Mathematics, Vice Chairman, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Russia
W. Dennis Clark, B.A. Biological Sciences, Ph.D. Botany, Sacramento State College, USA
Walter Starck, Ph.D. Marine Science, University of Miami, USA
Warren Meyer, B.S. Mechanical Engineering, Princeton University, USA
Warwick Hughes, B.S. Geology, Auckland University, Australia
Wibjorn Karlen, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden
Willem de Lange, Ph.D. Senior Lecturer, Department of Earth and Ocean Sciences, Waikato University, New Zealand
William B. Hubbard, Ph.D. Professor of Planetary Atmospheres, University of Arizona, USA
William (Bill) Bauman, B.S., Meteorology, M.S., Ph.D. Atmospheric Sciences, North Carolina State University, USA
William Cotton, M.S. Atmospheric Science, Ph.D. Meteorology, Pennsylvania State University, USA
William E. Reifsnyder, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Forest Meteorology and Biometeorology, Yale, USA
William
J.R. Alexander, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus, Department of Civil and
Biosystems Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa
William M. Briggs, B.S. Meteorology and Math, M.S. Atmospheric Science, Ph.D. Statistics, Cornell University, USA
William (Bill) M. Gray, M.S. Meteorology, Ph.D. Geophysical Sciences, University of Chicago, USA
Willie Soon, Ph.D. Astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, USA
Wm. Robert Johnston, B.A. Astronomy, M.S. Physics, University of Texas, USA
Wolfgang Thüne, Ph.D. Geography, University of Wuerzburg, Germany
Zachary W. Robinson, B.S. Chemistry, Oregon State University, USA
Zbigniew Jaworowski, M.D., Ph.D., D.Sc., Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Poland
Meteorologists:
"Scientists that study the earth's atmosphere, climate, and weather" - Wordsmyth
A.J. Colby, B.S. Atmospheric Sciences, AMS Certified, Meteorologist WKYC-TV, USA
Andre Bernier, B.S. Meteorology, Lyndon State College, Meteorologist WJW-TV, USA
Anthony Watts, AMS Certified, Chief Meteorologist KPAY-AM, USA
Arlo Gambell, AMS Certified, Meteorologist, USA
Art Horn, B.S. Meteorology, Lyndon State College, Meteorologist WVIT-TV, USA
Arthur T. Safford III, Retired Meteorologist USAF, USA
Asmunn Moene, former Chief Meteorologist, Oslo, Norway
Austin W. Hogan, AMS Certified, Meteorologist, USA
Bill Meck, Chief Meteorologist WLEX-TV, USA
Bill Steffen, Meteorologist WOOD-TV, USA
Bob Breck, B.S. Meteorology & Oceanography, University of Michigan, Chief Meteorologist WVUE-TV, USA
Brad Sussman, Meteorologist, USA
Brian Sussman, Meteorologist, USA
Bruce Boe, Director of Meteorology Weather Modification Inc., USA
Bruce Schwoegler, B.S. Meteorology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA
Christopher Plonka, Meteorologist USAF, USA
Craig James, B.S. Meteorology, Penn State University, Chief Meteorologist WOOD-TV, USA
Dan Maly, Retired Meteorologist WOIO-TV, USA
David Aldrich, B.S. Meteorology, North Carolina State University, Meteorologist WTXF-TV, USA
Dick Goddard, Chief Meteorologist WJW-TV, USA
Don Webster, Retired Meteorologist WEWS-TV, USA
Douglas Leahey, Meteorologist, Canada
Eugenio Hackbart, Chief Meteorologist MetSul Meteorologia Weather Center, Brazil
Grant Dade, Meteorologist KLTV, USA
Herb Stevens, Meteorologist WNYT-TV, USA
James Spann, AMS Certified, Chief Meteorologist WCFT-TV, WJSU-TV, USA
Jason Russell, Meteorologist, WTEN-TV, USA
Jeff Halblaub, B.S. Atmospheric Science, Ohio State University, Meteorologist, USA
Jerry Lettre, Senior Meteorologist, WSI, USA
Jim Clarke, B.S. Meteorology, St. Louis University, Meteorologist WZVN-TV, USA
Joe Bastardi, B.S. Meteorology, Penn State, Expert Senior Forecaster AccuWeather, USA
John Coleman, Meteorologist, Founder of 'The Weather Channel', Chief Meteorologist KUSI-TV, USA
Jon Loufman, Meteorologist WOIO-TV, USA
Joseph E. Luisi, Former Chief Meteorologist Delta Airlines, USA
Justin Berk, B.S. Meteorology, Cornell University, AMS Certified, Meteorologist WMAR-TV, USA
Karl Bohnak, B.S. Meteorology, University of Wisconsin, AMS Certified, Meteorologist WLUC-TV, USA
Kevin Lemanowicz, B.S. Meteorology, Cornell University, Chief Meteorologist WFXT-TV, USA
Kevin Williams, B.S. Meteorology, Cornell University, Chief Meteorologist WHEC-TV, USA
Keith Eichner, Meteorologist WIVB-TV, USA
Lee Eddington, Meteorologist Geophysics Branch, U.S. Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division, USA
Mark Koontz, Meteorologist WFMJ-TV, USA
Mark Breen, B.S. Meteorology, Lyndon State College, Senior Meteorologist Fairbanks Museum and Planetarium, USA
Mark Johnson, AMS Certified, Chief Meteorologist, WEWS-TV, USA
Mark Scirto, B.S. Meteorology, University of St. Thomas, AMS Certified, Chief Meteorologist KLTV, USA
Morgan Palmer, AMS Certified, Meteorologist KLTV, USA
Nick Morganelli, Free-Lance Meteorologist, USA
Paul Cousins, B.S. Meteorology and Geophysics, AMS and NWA Certified, Founder AtmosForecast, USA
Peter McGurk, Senior Meteorologist, WSI, USA
Randy Baker, B.S. Atmospheric Science, University of Kansas, Senior Meteorologist UPS Airlines, USA
Randy Mann, AMS Certified, Meteorologist KREM-TV, USA
Richard (Rich) Apuzzo, Chief Meteorologist Skyeye Weather, USA
Roy Leep, B.S. Meteorology, Florida State University, Meteorologist WTVT-TV, USA
Sally Bernier, B.S. Meteorology, Lyndon State College, Meteorologist WJW-TV, USA
Shane Hollett, Meteorologist WMJI-FM, USA
Steven Nogueira, NWS Senior Meteorologist, USA
Terry Eliasen, B.S. Meteorology, University of Massachusetts Lowell, Meteorologist WBZ-TV, USA
Thomas B. Gray, M.S. Meteorology, USAF, USA
Tim Kelley, B.S. Meteorology, Lyndon State College, Meteorologist NECN, USA
Tom Chisholm, B.S. Atmospheric Sciences, Lyndon State College, Chief Meteorologist WMTW-TV, USA
William Kininmonth, B.Sc., M.Sc., Retired Head of the Australian National Climate Centre, Australia
Social Scientists:
"The assessment of regional environmental and social impacts is a multidisciplinary task that involves natural and social scientists working in tandem with policy makers." - American Meteorological Society
Alan Moran, Ph.D. Economics, Director of the IPA's Deregulation Unit, Australia
Alex Robson, Ph.D. Economics, University of California, Irvine, USA
Alister McFarquhar, Ph.D. Economics, Downing College, UK
Andrei Illarionov, Ph.D. Economics, St. Petersburg University, Russia
Ben Stein, B.S. Economics, Columbia University, USA
Benny Peiser, Ph.D. Professor of Social Anthropology, Liverpool John Moores University, UK
Bjørn Lomborg, M.A., Ph.D. Political Science, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
Daniel K. Benjamin, Ph.D. Economics, University of California at Los Angeles, USA
Daniel R. Simmons, B.A. Economics, Utah State University, USA
David A. Ridenour, B.A. Political Science, University of Oregon, USA
David Almasi, B.A. Political Science, Northwestern University, USA
David Henderson, Professor of Economics, London School of Economics, UK
Dennis T. Avery, M.S. Agricultural Economics, University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA
Don Aitkin, Ph.D. Political Science, Australian National University, Australia
Donald I. Hertzmark, M.S. Ph.D. Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics, University of Wisconsin, USA
Donald J. Boudreaux, Ph.D. Economics, Auburn University, USA
Frank Milne, Ph.D. Professor of Economics, Queen's University, Canada
Douglas Southgate, Ph.D. Professor of Agricultural, Environmental, and Development Economics, Ohio State University, USA
George F. Will, Ph.D. Political Science, Princeton University, USA
Ian Castles, BCom Commerce, Former Vice President of the Academy of the Social Sciences, Australia
James Johnson, M.A. Ph.D. Economics, UCLA, USA
James Inhofe, B.A. Economics, University of Tulsa, USA
Jerry Taylor, B.A. Political Science, University of Iowa, USA
John J. Ray, Ph.D. Psychology, Macquarie University, Mensa, Sydney, Australia
John Stossel, B.A. Psychology, Princeton University, USA
Julian Morris, M.A. Economics, M.Sc. Environment and Resource Economics, M.Phil. Land Economics, Cambridge University, UK
Kendra Okonski, B.A. Economics, Hillsdale College, USA
Kenneth W. Chilton, Ph.D. Director of the Institute for Study of Economics and the Environment, Lindenwood University, USA
Kesten C. Green, Ph.D. Management Science, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand
Marlo Lewis, B.A. Political Science, Ph.D., Claremont McKenna College, USA
Margo Thorning, Ph.D. Economics, University of Georgia, USA
Myron Ebell, M.Sc. Economics, London School of Economics, USA
Nigel Lawson, Baron Lawson of Blaby, B.A. Economics, University of Oxford, UK
Randy T. Simmons, Ph.D. Political Science, University of Oregon, USA
Richard W. Rahn, Ph.D. Business Economics, Columbia University, USA
Robert L. Bradley Jr., B.A. Economics, Ph.D. Political Economy, University of Houston, USA
Robert Higgs, Ph.D. Economics, Johns Hopkins University, USA
Robert P. Murphy, Ph.D. Economics, New York University, USA
Roger A. Pielke (Jr.), Ph.D. Political Science, University of Colorado, USA
Ronad Rychlak, Professor of Environmental Law, University of Mississippi School of Law, USA
Ross McKitrick, M.A., Ph.D. Economics, University of British Columbia, Canada
Roy E. Cordato, M.A. Ph.D. Economics, George Mason University, USA
Stephan Wilksch, Dr-Ing Professor of Economic Science, University of Technolgy and Economics Berlin, Germany
Terry L. Anderson, Ph.D. Economics, University of Washington, USA
Thomas A. Birkland, Ph.D. Political Science, University of Washington, USA
Thomas Gale Moore, M.A., Ph.D. Economics, University of Chicago, USA
Thomas Sowell, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Economics, UCLA, USA
Vaclav Klaus, app. Ph.D. Economics, University of Economics, Prague, Czech Republic
Walter E. Williams, Ph.D. Professor of Economics, George Mason University, USA
William Evans, Ph.D. Professor of Economics, Notre Dame, USA
William Nordhaus, Ph.D. Economics, MIT, USA
Zonia M. Pino, B.A. Political Science, Florida International University, USA
Deceased:
"Some of this noise won't stop until some of these scientists are dead" - James Hansen, 2006
Aaron Wildavsky, Ph.D. Political Science, Yale, USA (Died: September 4, 1993)
Adrian H. Gordon, Meteorologist, University of South Australia, Australia (Died: April 12, 2000)
August H. Auer Jr., Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Science, University of Wyoming, USA (Died: June 10, 2007)
Duwayne M. Anderson, Professor Emeritus of Geology, Texas A&M University, USA (Died: October 4, 2002)
Frederick Seitz, Ph.D. Physics, Princeton University, USA (Died: March 2, 2008)
George H. Sutton, Professor Emeritus of Geophysics, University of Hawaii, USA (Died: January 25, 2004)
Heinz Lettau, Professor Emeritus of Geophysics, University of Wisconsin, USA (Died: August 4, 2005)
Helmut Metzner, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Botany, University of Tubingen, Germany (Died: September 20, 1999)
James P. Lodge Jr., Ph.D. Consultant in Atmospheric Chemistry, USA (Died: December 14, 2001)
John L. Daly, B.Sc.Econ Economics, Aberystwyth University, UK (Died: January 29, 2004)
John R. Apel, Ph.D. Physics, Johns Hopkins University, USA (Died: August 16, 2001)
Julian Simon, B.A. Psychology, Ph.D. Economics, University of Chicago, USA (Died: February 8, 1998)
Larry H. Brace, B.S. Physics, University of Michigan, USA (Died: August 28, 2005)
Michael J. Higatsberger, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Experimental Physics, University of Vienna, Austria (Died: January 7, 2004)
Paul Handler, Professor Emeritus of Physics, University of Illinois, USA (Died: January 24, 1998)
Reid A. Bryson, B.A. Geology, Ph.D. Meteorology, University of Chicago, USA (Died: June 11, 2008)
Rhodes Fairbridge, Ph.D. Geology, University of Western Australia, Australia (Died: November 8, 2006)
Robert E. Stevenson, Ph.D. Oceanography, University of Southern California, USA (Died: August 12, 2001)
Robert Jastrow, Ph.D. Theoretical Physics, Columbia University, USA (Died: February 8, 2008)
Roland (R.A.D.) Byron-Scott, Senior Lecturer Emeritus in Meteorology at Flinders University, Australia (Died: January, 2004)
Thomas Gold, Professor Emeritus of Astronomy, Cornell University, USA (Died: June 22, 2004)
Tor Ragnar Gerholm, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Physics, University of Stockholm, Sweden (Died: June 27, 2007)
William (Bill) A. Nierenberg, Ph.D. Physics, Columbia University, USA (Died: September 10, 2000)
William Mitchell, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Physics, University of Oxford, UK (Died: October 30, 2002)
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Pop Tech...
July 18, 2008 - 20:02 ET by Clear thinkerYour postings are getting shorter all the time!
;-)
45 Communist Goals for America http://www.nationmakers.com/com_goals.htm
CT
July 18, 2008 - 20:09 ET by Noel SheppardCT,
It's age! :-) ns
NS...
July 18, 2008 - 20:11 ET by Clear thinkerYep, you can see where he's losing his edge.
If only he had more info...
45 Communist Goals for America http://www.nationmakers.com/com_goals.htm
CT
July 18, 2008 - 20:14 ET by Noel SheppardCT,
Exactly. I remember way back when, PT would post these long, well researched comments, with, I don't know, maybe 100 citations. Now, he's down to like 75. What a waste! ns
late getting to the fete
July 20, 2008 - 00:19 ET by wiley catGosh, I was just now able to get back here, and was looking for a counter-argument full of relevant statistics and basic climate data, and a good scientific "discussion" (exactly what is that?), when suddenly this part of the thread just stopped.
Thank God for your diligent gathering of the truth and the facts, PT.
Wasn't the original APS position based on the writing of some 45 (is that number close?), or so, non-practicing scientists and bureaucrats who have the credentials (we suppose) of scientists, but in fact had an agenda other than scientific data gathering and accurate statement of conclusions? The following really is the totality of their "proof"'s claim to "scientific" status (from the above discussion): "...in disagreement with the overwhelming opinion of the world scientific community...". (Yep, saying those words "overwhelming opinion" and naming the "world scientific community" puts it right into the category of "science", all right. I'm impressed, aren't you?)
IMHO, if many more of us do not become equally as vigilant and aggressive regarding the truth and the truth of what constitutes science, with each false assertion, item by item, as this group here at NB so effectively shows how to do, and disproving this massive campaign to "sell" the "fact of the coming disaster of MMGW", then I fear we will soon be trading Carbon Credits (or something equally as worthless) to buy our flour and our spears and bows and arrows.
The "redefiners" of terms, especially of the term "science", are using extraordinary measures world-wide to redefine all of the terms of the debate (or to suppress debate completely) in order to support their agenda. Of course, that agenda is to establish an international mega-uber-bureaucracy to escape the "disaster of MMGW", in order for them to gain the power (of controlling that bureaucracy, and you and me, to start) that they so desparately covet.
The other part of our problem, with our primary weapon the equal distribution of the truth, is that, in such a battle as we now have, we are only establishing the truth for those that believe in and want the truth.
Our opponents (such as the propagators of the MMGW hoax) truly not only have no use for the truth, they laugh at those that do, while they are adjusting their plans (and their lies) so that their primary goal, gaining and maintaining political power, is achieved. They actually care not what you call them, and they only get mad if you actually and effectively block their path to power.
Waclaw Klaus, President of the Czech Republic, has the best understanding, and the clearest and most cogent rebuttals to the international power-mongers, including their use of global warming.
http://www.vaclavkla...
I pray that a large number of people, and large numbers of our leaders, will follow the lead of the faithful truth-tellers here, to counter the international pressure to go along with their fabrication, and establish the following once and for all as a scientific fact and the truth (and make them fabricate another false issue):
There is NO "anthropogenic" Global Warming. NONE.
And yet, the best (or only) skeptic/denier/ delayer response
July 18, 2008 - 21:24 ET by Giles WinterbourneAnd yet, the best (or only) skeptic/denier/ delayer response APS published was Monckton's, a journalist......
Giles...
July 18, 2008 - 21:29 ET by Clear thinkerForget Monckton for the moment and splain this...
"... demonstrates via 30 equations that computer models used by the UN's climate panel (IPCC) were pre-programmed with overstated values for the three variables whose product is "climate sensitivity" (temperature increase in response to greenhouse-gas increase), resulting in a 500-2000% overstatement of CO2's effect on temperature in the IPCC's latest climate assessment report, published in 2007. "
45 Communist Goals for America http://www.nationmakers.com/com_goals.htm
The same source that calls the Monckton article in a newsletter
July 18, 2008 - 21:43 ET by Giles WinterbourneThe same source that calls the Monckton article in a newsletter:
" Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered By Christopher Monckton
This article has not undergone any scientific peer review. Its conclusions
are in disagreement with the overwhelming opinion of the world
scientific community. The Council of the American Physical Society
disagrees with this article's conclusions." (APS)
Also note at the bottom of the DT article announcing the debate: "After
publication of this story, the APS responded with a statement
that its Physics and Society Forum is merely one unit within the APS,
and its views do not reflect those of the Society at large. "
Rather than leap onto the newest piece of non-reviewed material, hoping
for a magic carpet ride of proof, it would be rather more prudent to
let those with credibility and expertise in the topic discuss it.
Note also, there hasn't been any skeptic rebuttal of the companion piece by Hafemeister & Schwartz, nor any additional math or science support of Monckton's piece.
Giles...
July 18, 2008 - 21:48 ET by Clear thinkerThat was NOT an explanation!
45 Communist Goals for America http://www.nationmakers.com/com_goals.htm
Your point was?
July 20, 2008 - 17:44 ET by Giles WinterbourneOK.
They (and the other blogs that are copying it without attribution) are giving essentially an abstract of and press release for Monckton's writing. Not offering additional proof or support.
Not part of the scientific debate, not substantive discussion of the merits (or problems) of the piece. And rather than a discussion of the math, just accepting his writing on its face. Probably since it fits their meme and he is their chief policy adviser.
They are continuing to miss-identify his writing as peer-reviewed and as published in a journal.
Deleted. You were not
July 20, 2008 - 18:10 ET by RESTLESS 1Deleted. You were not posting to me.
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
Giles needs a reboot
July 18, 2008 - 22:23 ET by PopularTechHAHA! Giles, did your auto-alarmist software default to this?
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
PT, Giles needs a "boot" alright.
July 20, 2008 - 00:33 ET by R D HelmLOL-However, as I am trying to somewhat moderate my more extreme (according to some) tendencies, I shall refrain from suggesting where said boot should be squarely placed. :-)
The truth is insensitive. - Neal Boortz
PeerGate review scandal at Applied Physical Society ....Giles
July 19, 2008 - 20:46 ET by PopularTechPeerGate review scandal at Applied Physical Society
The American Physical Society alleged that Lord Monckton’s paper Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered was not peer reviewed when Monckton in fact thoroughly revised his paper in response to APS peer review. Monckton immediately demanded retraction, accountability and an apology.
"The editors of Physics and Society, a newsletter of the American Physical Society, invited me to submit a paper for their July 2008 edition explaining why I considered that the warming that might be expected from anthropogenic enrichment of the atmosphere with carbon dioxide might be significantly less than the IPCC imagines.
I very much appreciated this courteous offer, and submitted a paper. The commissioning editor referred it to his colleague, who subjected it to a thorough and competent scientific review. I was delighted to accede to all of the reviewer’s requests for revision (see the attached reconciliation sheet). Most revisions were intended to clarify for physicists who were not climatologists the method by which the IPCC evaluates climate sensitivity – a method which the IPCC does not itself clearly or fully explain. The paper was duly published, immediately after a paper by other authors setting out the IPCC’s viewpoint. Some days later, however, without my knowledge or consent, the following appeared, in red, above the text of my paper as published on the website of Physics and Society:
“The following article has not undergone any scientific peer
review. Its conclusions are in disagreement with the overwhelming opinion of the world scientific community. The Council of the American Physical Society disagrees with this article’s conclusions.”
This seems discourteous. I had been invited to submit the paper; I had submitted it; an eminent Professor of Physics had then scientifically reviewed it in meticulous detail; I had revised it at all points requested, and in the manner requested; the editors had accepted and published the reviewed and revised draft (some 3000 words longer than the original) and I had expended considerable labor, without having been offered or having requested any honorarium.
Please either remove the offending red-flag text at once or let me have the name and qualifications of the member of the Council or advisor to it who considered my paper before the Council ordered the offending text to be posted above my paper; a copy of this rapporteur’s findings and ratio decidendi; the date of the Council meeting at which the findings were presented; a copy of the minutes of the discussion; and a copy of the text of the Council’s decision, together with the names of those present at the meeting. If the Council has not scientifically evaluated or formally considered my paper, may I ask with what credible scientific justification, and on whose authority, the offending text asserts primo, that the paper had not been scientifically reviewed when it had; secundo, that its conclusions disagree with what is said (on no evidence) to be the “overwhelming opinion of the world scientific community”; and, tertio, that “The Council of the American Physical Society disagrees with this article’s conclusions”? Which of my conclusions does the Council disagree with, and on what scientific grounds (if any)?
Having regard to the circumstances, surely the Council owes me an apology?
Yours truly,
THE VISCOUNT MONCKTON OF BRENCHLEY"
Ut-oh Giles....
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
trying to convince the hoi-polloi
July 20, 2008 - 14:51 ET by Giles WinterbourneRevewed by one editor of one newsletter is not peer-review. Not as an intense of a level of scrutiny on two levels - editor may not have the level of specialization and review is only for a newletter of a forum, not one of the published journals.
Which is why the math and logic has problems : "Did you spot what he just did? If you assume that there is no delay in warming (which is wrong) and McKitrick is right (which is also wrong), then you get a low value of sensitivity. If you also assume that the IPCC values for ΔF2x
and f are correct, then their value of κ must be too high -- Monckton
comes up with a number 20% less. But in the previous section Monckton
argued that the IPCC value of ΔF2x was too high by a factor of three. If instead you use Monckton's number, the IPCC value of κ is too low." (Deltoid) And that is without dragging earlier versions of Monckton's writing on this topic and the earlier debunking of the math and logic. He's recycling stuff that already has been proven, let's say, not error-free.
Now he's whining on, trying to convince the hoi-polloi, that his work was peer-reviewed...... Trying to take it out of the science field and into the political / opinion field. Notice, he is not defending his math.
This is a similar tactic to SPPI's (and a couple of others) attempts to brand the Monckton piece as 'published in an APS journal' and 'peer-reviewed'.
Really, several of you claim to have scientific chops; so you know the drill on peer-review to get published in a reputable journal. Seriously, this piece wouldn't (hasn't) been able to bear up to the scrutiny that comes with defending one's thesis. And you know that.
¢¢ Giles
July 20, 2008 - 14:59 ET by Free StinkerI don't need scientific chops to realize that other planets heating up - Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune, Uranus, and Pluto - means something is happening with the Sun.
Duh.
"The Sky is Falling" -- Cry of the Global Warming Alarmists
suggestions and 'what I did to fix it'
July 20, 2008 - 16:51 ET by Giles WinterbourneHis letter, complete with the suggestions and 'what I did to fix it' is pretty conclusive proof that the APS piece was not 'peer-reviewed'. And pretty obvious that many, if not most, of the suggestions really were an editorial effort to clear up major gaffes in the writting.
Or as sometimes seen on undergraduate work, 'good first draft, but not ready for submission for grade.' Jeez, it looks as though he tried to send it in without citations! "References: Will be needed. References now added"
It would be interesting to see the actual first draft before the changes. It must have been pretty muddled writing to have the editor note: “Forcing”: I don't understand why forcing can't be measured. that shows that I don't understand the difference between solar
flux incident on top of atmosphere and "forcing", which takes us back to the initial need for clear explanatory definition." and “Feedback”: I don't know the difference between "forcing" and "feedback". If "forcing" is not just external energy flux, than I
would assume it includes "feedback". What do you mean?"and "Fig. 4, 5 can’t read at all. Don’t understand them, or where they came from. Some hints needed.
And just a little point of clarification: Most journals ask for a list of people the author(s) would consider as peers. They, and reviewers choosen by the editorial staff then review to start the process.This piece obviously did not go through that process.
Who the hell cares?
July 20, 2008 - 16:59 ET by RESTLESS 1If it is right, then what does it matter if it is peer reviewed. What, so a bunch of kool aid drinking scientists didn't get paid to debunk the paper? You alarmists have so successfully confused everyone on the issue of global warming that we may never know the truth. You have made sure everyone takes sides so that we may never be able to find truly neutral "peer review" ever again. If the author picks the "peers", then he is cherry picking those he chooses and the same goes for the other side. Nice work guys.
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
First, the math is bad
July 20, 2008 - 17:20 ET by Giles WinterbourneFirst, the math is bad
Second, if it were peer-reviewed, then Monckton could have had his choice of reviewers involved in the process. Perhaps in their sympathy for that point of view, they would have helped him work out the problems that have been found so far.Or those critical of his work would have pointed out the flaws so there would have been a chance to re-analyze the logic and math. In either case, it is critiquing the material before a larger body reads and discusses it.
Obviously, one editor looking for clarity in writing is not reviewing it for flaws in math or logic or conclusions.
Like I said. It matters not
July 20, 2008 - 18:16 ET by RESTLESS 1Like I said. It matters not what anyone says on this matter anymore. It has become nothing more that a tit fo tat. Hanson's models are wrong; Seitz (sp?) is a hack; Mann is so stupid he couldn't place the lines for CO2 and Temp. rise correctly. The debate is not over, it's just not going anywhere. For this reason alone, it is time to start all over and not spend billions or more, wrecking economies along the way, for neither side will ever be proven the way we are going now.
In all honesty, all we have is both sides trying to prove their point, and their point only. Those of us who are not experts, have nowhere to turn.
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
"...it is time to start all
July 20, 2008 - 18:27 ET by celator"...it is time to start all over and not spend billions or more, wrecking economies along the way,"
Unfortunately, wrecking economies, capitalism in particular, is exactly what the man-made global warming scandal is all about. It is the latest tool of governmental tyranny, as well as a gold mine of wealth for those who are pushing this fairy tale--Gore et al. And the shameless MSM is working it as hard as they can.
The major media report only half the news. Why are they surprised they have only half the potential audience?
"First, the math is
July 20, 2008 - 18:23 ET by NL207"First, the math is bad."
Amusing. Isn't this exactly what was wrong with Michael Mann's "landmark" hockey stick paper?
This conclusion has subsequently been supported ...
July 21, 2008 - 01:32 ET by Giles WinterbourneThe NAS study says otherwise:
"The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th
century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at
least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been
supported by an array of evidence that includes both additional
large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and pronounced changes
in a variety of local proxy indicators, such as melting on ice caps and
the retreat of glaciers around the world, which in many cases appear to
be unprecedented during at least the last 2,000 years. Not all
individual proxy records indicate that the recent warmth is
unprecedented, although a larger fraction of geographically"
"Based on the analyses presented in the original
papers by Mann et al. and this newer supporting evidence, the committee
finds it plausible that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the
last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period
over the preceding millennium. The substantial uncertainties currently
present in the quantitative assessment of large-scale surface
temperature changes prior to about A.D. 1600 lower our confidence in
this conclusion compared to the high level of confidence we place in
the Little Ice Age cooling and 20th century warming. Even less
confidence can be placed in the original conclusions by Mann et al.
(1999) that “the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the
warmest year, in at least a millennium” because the uncertainties
inherent in temperature reconstructions for individual years and
decades are larger than those for longer time periods and because not
all of the available proxies record temperature information on such
short timescales.
Surface temperature
reconstructions for periods prior to the industrial era are only one of
multiple lines of evidence supporting the conclusion that climatic
warming is occurring in response to human activities, and they are not
the primary evidence."
But this has to do with Monckton's attempts how?
The NAS study concluded that we are warmer than the LIA
July 21, 2008 - 21:42 ET by PopularTechSurface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years (PDF) (National Academy of Sciences, 2006)
"Even less confidence can be placed in the original conclusions by Mann et al. (1999) that "the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium" [...]
Prior to about 1600, ...periods of medieval warmth are seen in a number of diverse records, including historical information from Europe and Asia; cave deposits; marine and lake sediments; and ice cores from Greenland, Ellesmere Island, Tibet, and the equatorial Andes. [...]
Using proxies sensitive to hydrologic variables (including moisture-sensitive trees...) to take advantage of observed correlations with surface temperature could lead to problems [...]
For tree ring chronologies, the process of removing biological trends from ringwidth data potentially obscures information on long-term changes in climate. [...]
Large-scale surface temperature reconstructions yield a generally consistent picture of temperature trends during the preceding millennium, including relatively warm conditions centered around A.D. 1000 (identified by some as the “Medieval Warm Period”) and a relatively cold period (or “Little Ice Age”) centered around 1700. The existence and extent of a Little Ice Age from roughly 1500 to 1850 is supported by a wide variety of evidence including ice cores, tree rings, borehole temperatures, glacier length records, and historical documents. Evidence for regional warmth during medieval times can be found in a diverse ...set of records including ice cores, tree rings, marine sediments, and historical sources from Europe and Asia"
Von Storch, Zorita and Gonzalez-Raucen statement on the NAS Panel Report (Climate Audit, June 22, 2006)
"We share the assessment of the NRC committee that the evidence for unprecedented warming of a single decade or even a single year in times prior to 1500, or so, is stretching the scientific evidence too far. However, this was the key claim made in the contested 1998-nature and 1999-GRL-papers by Mann et al.
With respect to methods, the committee is showing reservations concerning the methodology of Mann et al.. The committee notes explicitly on pages 91 and 111 that the method has no validation (CE) skill significantly different from zero. In the past, however, it has always been claimed that the method has a significant nonzero validation skill. Methods without a validation skill are usually considered useless. [...]
Thus, the public perception that the hockeystick as truthfully describing the temperature history was definitely false.
We find it disappointing that the method of Mann et al. was not sufficiently described in the original publication, and thus not peer-reviewed prior to publication, and that no serious efforts were made to allow independent researchers to check the performance of the methods and of the data used."
Spin can’t hide the facts concerning the hockey stick (PDF) (Stephen McIntyre, B.Sc. Mathematics, Ross McKitrick Ph.D. Economics, July 26, 2006)
The NAS conclusions that recent temperatures are warmer than the Little Ice Age should get a very scientific response - duh.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Mann's Math was still
July 22, 2008 - 16:48 ET by NL207Mann's Math was still wrong.
His result was singular pronounced, which is why it was so revolutionary when published. It was also invalid.
Face the music, Giles.
Really?
July 22, 2008 - 19:03 ET by Giles WinterbourneThat is the best you can do?
A cite from dubious, to be charitable, resource? And out of context selections?
A 'the math is wrong' with no supporting evidence?
Sorry, but you and I both know that isn't how science is done.
Since the topic of this was the APS newsletter with Monckton's execrable work, perhaps putting some math skills to work and attempt to support it? Especially since a couple of exegeses are available.
Perhaps a closer reading of the entire book is more in order before disputing Mann's work, especially considering it was corroborated and reinforced with additional research in AR4 ( pages 466-472) , a well vetted analysis of the research.
Hmmm, wonder if NAP gave permission for copyrighted material to be posted like that?
Giles, I love how you climate Nazis always insist ...
July 20, 2008 - 00:44 ET by R D Helm...that any and all writings that contradict the views of the Children of Al Gore be "peer reviewed."
What "peers"are you referring to? Other like-minded climate Nazis?
Of course, one does have to ensure that the AGW propaganda line remains consistent, correct?
The truth is insensitive. - Neal Boortz
Worship the Gods of Academia
July 20, 2008 - 14:38 ET by UnsaneEasy. See, people like Giles hate to critically think more than anything else. So "peer-review" absolves them of doing something that THEY should be doing.
It is also painfully obvious that not only does Giles view our ability and desire to critically think and to think for ourselves with extreme contempt, he views his own the same way. Notice that he cannot do anything without referring to the gods of academia. It is as if he cannot make an observation on his own without the gods of academia approving and rubber stamping what he is observing.
Whoever casts a vote for Barack Obama is nothing more than a common thief. Whoever fails to vote against him is nothing more than a moral coward.
If I have seen further
July 20, 2008 - 15:17 ET by Giles Winterbourne"If I have seen further it is by standing on ye shoulders of Giants." Newton.
When you have the knowledge, data, and resources to research, explore, and publish, then perhaps relying solely on your own critical thinking might be comparable to the 'gods of academia'. Til then, utilizing those brains makes a far better basis for decision-making.And would have saved several of the do-nothing crowd from much of the embarrassment / shellacking going on in the popular and scientific press.
A simplified version of 'shoulders of Giants'.
Smug condescension courtesy of Guilt Winterbourne
July 21, 2008 - 06:45 ET by UnsaneDo-nothing, you say? I like the idea of the United States going, say, 80% nuclear. It works for France. Of course, my idea behind that has less to do with your religion than it does using a proven alternative source of energy...
But then, all your religion is about is about YOUR feeling guilty for living in the world's largest and most advanced economy, and because of YOUR guilt, YOU want to force ME and millions of others to live a sixth-world existence to absolve YOU of YOUR guilt.
And it is nice to see your smug condescension again. What, you don't think I read the science? Do you have the nerve to think that I am not familiar with the scientfic realms?
If you actually believe that, at best, you are highly presumptuous. At worst, you are a complete blithering idiot.
Whoever casts a vote for Barack Obama is nothing more than a common thief. Whoever fails to vote against him is nothing more than a moral coward.
Unsane,
July 23, 2008 - 01:19 ET by R D HelmSo "peer-review" absolves them of doing something that THEY should be doing.
Nailed it with that, you have. :-)
The truth is insensitive. - Neal Boortz
The requirements were credentials like Al Gore
July 18, 2008 - 22:25 ET by PopularTechIn which case Lord Monckton is over-qualified.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Pardon me while I imitate
July 19, 2008 - 22:46 ET by dboPardon me while I imitate PT for a moment with a long post but I have no link to the following from Lord Monckton and it is a classic.
Below is a summary of a talk given by Christopher Monckton
[monckton@mail.com] to the annual conference of the Local Government
Association at Bournemouth, England, on 3 July 2008. Each statement is
supported by references. Citation details are available from Viscount
Monckton
Even if global temperature has risen, it has
risen in a straight line at a natural 0.5 øC/century for 300 years
since the Sun recovered from the Maunder Minimum, long before we could
have had any influence (Akasofu, 2008).
Even if warming had sped
up, now temperature is 7C below most of the past 500m yrs; 5C below all
4 recent inter-glacials; and up to 3C below the Bronze Age, Roman &
mediaeval optima (Petit et al., 1999; IPCC, 1990).
Even if
today's warming were unprecedented, the Sun is the probable cause. It
was more active in the past 70 years than in the previous 11,400
(Usoskin et al., 2003; Hathaway et al., 2004; IAU, 2004; Solanki et
al., 2005).
Even if the sun were not to blame, the UN's climate
panel has not shown that humanity is to blame. CO2 occupies only
one-ten-thousandth more of the atmosphere today than it did in 1750
(Keeling & Whorf, 2004).
Even if CO2 were to blame, no
"runaway greenhouse" catastrophe occurred in the Cambrian era, when
there was ~20 times today's concentration in the air. Temperature was
just 7 C warmer than today (IPCC, 2001).
Even if CO2 levels had
set a record, there has been no warming since 1998. For 7 years,
temperatures have fallen. The Jan 2007-Jan 2008 fall was the steepest
since 1880 (GISS; Hadley; NCDC; RSS; UAH: all 2008).
Even if the
planet were not cooling, the rate of warming is far less than the UN
imagines. It would be too small to cause harm. There may well be no new
warming until 2015, if then (Keenlyside et al., 2008).
Even if
warming were harmful, humankind's effect is minuscule. "The observed
changes may be natural" (IPCC, 2001; cf. Chylek et al., 2008; Lindzen,
2007; Spencer, 2007; Wentz et al., 2007; Zichichi, 2007; etc.).
Even
if our effect were significant, the UN's projected human fingerprint -
tropical mid-troposphere warming at thrice the surface rate - is absent
(Douglass et al., 2004, 2007; Lindzen, 2001, 2007; Spencer, 2007).
Even
if the human fingerprint were present, climate models cannot predict
the future of the complex, chaotic climate unless we know its initial
state to an unattainable precision (Lorenz, 1963; Giorgi, 2005; IPCC,
2001).
Even if computer models could work, they cannot predict
future rates of warming. Temperature response to atmospheric
greenhouse-gas enrichment is an input to the computers, not an output
from them (Akasofu, 2008).
Even if the UN's imagined high
"climate sensitivity" to CO2 were right, disaster would not be likely
to follow. The peer-reviewed literature is near-unanimous in not
predicting climate catastrophe (Schulte, 2008).
Even if Al
Gore were right that harm might occur, "the Armageddon scenario he
depicts is not based on any scientific view". Sea level may rise 1 ft
to 2100, not 20 ft (Burton, J., 2007; IPCC, 2007; Moerner, 2004).
Even
if Armageddon were likely, scientifically-unsound precautions are
already starving millions as biofuels, a "crime against humanity",
pre-empt agricultural land, doubling staple cereal prices in a year.
(UNFAO, 2008).
Even if precautions were not killing the poor,
they would work no better than the "precautionary" ban on DDT, which
killed 40 million children before the UN at last ended it (Dr. Arata
Kochi, UN malaria program, 2006).
Even if precautions might
work, the strategic harm done to humanity by killing the world's poor
and destroying the economic prosperity of the West would outweigh any
climate benefit (Henderson, 2007; UNFAO, 2008).
Even if the
climatic benefits of mitigation could outweigh the millions of deaths
it is causing, adaptation as and if necessary would be far more
cost-effective and less harmful (all economists except Stern, 2006).
Even
if mitigation were as cost-effective as adaptation, the public sector -
which emits twice as much carbon to do a given thing as the private
sector - must cut its own size by half before it preaches to us
(Friedman, 1993).
Therefore, extravagant, futile schemes by the
State and its organs to mitigate imagined "global warming" will have no
more effect than King Canute's command to the tide not to come in and
wet the Royal feet.
We must get the science right or we shall
get the policy wrong. There is no manmade "climate crisis". It is a
non-problem. The correct policy approach to a non-problem is to have
the courage to do nothing.
a rehash of
July 20, 2008 - 16:13 ET by Giles Winterbournehis APS screed. Given, according to this source, at a Local Government Association conference earlier this month.(and probably a ppt or pdf bouncing around junkscience or heartland or icecap; they tend to hang onto any scrap that supports that belief system).
Not a scientific venue, back to moving the science into a political venue.
Insult and smear
July 23, 2008 - 06:12 ET by UnsaneYep, Guilt, whenever you can't address the question or commentary, merely insult and smear, and whine that science is being moved into a political venue. (Are you the rebirth of the pathetically dishonest guiltwobbler, perhaps?)
Methinks of you are really so concerned about science being moved into a political venue, you would support the government stopping all research, grants, etc, in all scientific endeavors?
Whoever casts a vote for Barack Obama is nothing more than a common thief. Whoever fails to vote against him is nothing more than a moral coward.
OK, then we'll reiterate
July 23, 2008 - 14:53 ET by Giles WinterbourneThe stuff above is a rehash of Monkton's earlier work (from 2006) and the stuff in the APS newsletter that has the denier camp all aglow. To not sidetrack the original topic, let's just focus on the newsletter article.
The math is bad
Now, this is from just two people who have reviewed Monckton's work since it was published.
Nobody has come out with support for Monckton's math, or how or why he made some of the arbitrary decisions along the way. Supposedly there are thirty one thousand qualified scientists who would be in support of his pov; none have come forward with details supporting this newsletter article.
Monckton, from all accounts, seems to know that his work won't hold up to scientific scrutiny.So he gives speeches at non-science conferences, like the LGA where the above stuff was given, where it won't be scrutinized with rigor. And he leaps out with press releases in support of his work so that it gets some public attention (or in this case, notoriety). Hence, out of the scientific field and into the political arena where he hopes to have some influence.
Monckton's stuff has been reviewed and debunked in publications both scientific and political. Take a look through ProQuest, Ebsco, Lexis-Nexis databases through your public library. Review scholar.google . Review the blogosphere.
So, what I see in your posts is no cited content; a bunch of opinion without supporting detail, and oddly for saying I'm insulting, innuendo and playing rather non-cleverly with names. But, that seems to be your norm on this playground.
I can understand your desire to support Monckton in his endeavor, but your confidence in him is sadly misplaced. What do you think will be in the next newsletter, when there will have been time to even more closely review that work?Why haven't any of the thirty one thousand come forward in support? Even the sceptic/denier/delayer blogs don't add support to the article; motls goes off into some name-calling about the disclaimer and a couple of assertions only citing his own writings; NR only cites Monckton's letter complaining about the disclaimer; AmericanThinker also focuses on the disclaimer. And that disclaimer wouldn't have been necessary but for the press release from SPPI (where Monckton is Chief Policy Adviser) lying about the paper being published in a peer-reviewed journal and over-stating its importance by claiming that it was 'proof'. Hardly appropriate behavior in a learned discussion. But the norm on some playgrounds.
Weak
July 24, 2008 - 00:11 ET by UnsaneI see you are a graduate of the Department of Redundancy Department.
Rest assured, I have no faith in Mr. Monkton any bit as much as your religion. To me, the science is inconclusive either way.
And once again, for the umpteenth time, all "peer-review" is for you and your fellow religionists is an excuse to not do any critical thinking of your own...
Whoever casts a vote for Barack Obama is nothing more than a common thief. Whoever fails to vote against him is nothing more than a moral coward.
Continued global warmth
July 20, 2008 - 11:37 ET by lotrContinued global warmth marked 2006. The 10 warmest years on record have all occurred since 1995, with 2006 ranking as the fifth or sixth warmest year on record, depending on the dataset analyzed. All datasets agree that global surface temperatures continue to warm, with the rate of global temperature rise increasing from around 0.06°C decade−1 over the past century to nearly 0.18°C decade−1 for the last 30 yr. (emphasis mine)
Published in:
Bull. Amer. Meteorol. Soc., 88(6), S1-S135, 2007
By:
1. ACEITUNO, PATRICIO, Universidad de Chile, Santiago de Chile, Chile
2. ACHBERGER, CHRISTINE, Institutionen för Geovetenskaper, Göteborgs Universitet, Göteborg, Sweden
3. ADAMS, NEIL, Antarctic Meteorological Section, Australian Bureau of Meteorology, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
4. AMBENJE, PETER G., Kenyan Meteorological Department, Nairobi, Kenya
5. ARGUEZ, ANTHONY, NOAA/NESDIS National Climatic Data Center, Asheville, North Carolina
6. ARMSTRONG, RICHARD L., CIRES National Snow and Ice Data Center, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado
7. BARINGER, MOLLY O., NOAA/OAR Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory, Physical Oceanography Division, Miami, Florida
8. BARREIRA, SANDRA, Argentine Navy Meteorological Service, Argentine Hydrographic Service, Buenos Aires, Argentina
9. BAUM, BRYAN, Space Science and Engineering Center, University of Wisconsin—Madison, Madison, Wisconsin
10. BELITSKAYA, VALENTINA DAVYDOVA, National Meteorological Service-NWC, Mexico City, Mexico
11. BELL, GERALD D., NOAA/NWS/NCEP Climate Prediction Center, Camp Springs, Maryland
12. BELL, MICHAEL, International Research Institute for Climate and Society, Palisades, New York
13. BENGTSSON, LENNART, Max-Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, Germany
14. BIDEGAIN, MARIO, University of Republic, Montevideo, Uruguay
15. BISSOLLI, PETER, German Meteorological Service, Department of Climate Monitoring, Offenbach, Germany
16. BLAKE, ERIC, NOAA/NWS/NCEP National Hurricane Center, Miami, Florida
17. BOUDET ROCO, DAGNE, Instituto de Meteorología, La Habana, Cuba
18. BOURASSA, MARK, Center for Ocean–Atmospheric Prediction Studies, The Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida
19. BOX, JASON E., Byrd Polar Research Center, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio
20. BROMWICH, DAVID H., Byrd Polar Research Center, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio
21. BULYGINA, OLGA N., All-Russian Research Institute of Hydrometeorological Information, Obninsk, Russia
22. BURGESS, STUART M., National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, Ltd., Wellington, New Zealand
23. CAMACHO, JOSE LUIS, Centro Internacional para la Investigación del Fenómeno de El Niño, Guayaquil, Ecuador
24. CAMARGO, SUZANA J., International Research Institute for Climate and Society, The Earth Institute at Columbia University, Palisades, New York
25. CARRIÓN ROMERO, ANA M., Instituto de Meteorología, La Habana, Cuba
26. CHELLIAH, MUTHUVEL, NOAA/NWS/NCEP Climate Prediction Center, Camp Springs, Maryland 27. CHEN, DELIANG, Institutionen för Geovetenskaper, Göteborgs Universitet, Göteborg, Sweden
28. CHRISTY, JOHN C., University of Alabama in Huntsville, Huntsville, Alabama
29. COELHO, CAIO A. S., CPTEC/INPE, Center for Weather Forecasts and Climate Studies, Cachoeira Paulista, Brazil
30. CUTIÉ CANSINO, VIRGEN, Instituto de Meteorología, La Habana, Cuba
31. DIAMOND, HOWARD J., NOAA/NESDIS National Climatic Data Center, Silver Spring, Maryland
32. DOUGLAS, ARTHUR, Creighton University, Omaha, Nebraska
33. DUTTON, GEOFF S., NOAA/OAR Earth Systems Research Laboratory, Global Monitoring Division, Boulder, Colorado
34. ELKINS, JAMES W., NOAA/OAR Earth Systems Research Laboratory, Global Monitoring Division, Boulder, Colorado
35. EVAN, AMATO T., Cooperative Institute for Meteorological Satellite Studies, University of Wisconsin—Madison, Madison, Wisconsin
36. FEELY, RICHARD A., NOAA/OAR Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory, Seattle, Washington
37. FETTERER, FLORENCE, CIRES National Snow and Ice Data Center, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado
38. FOGT, RYAN L., Byrd Polar Research Center, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio
39. FONSECA RIVERA, Cecilia, Instituto de Meteorología, La Habana, Cuba
40. GARCIA-HERRERA, RICARDO F., Universidad Complutense Madrid, Madrid, Spain
41. GIERACH, MICHELLE M., University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina
42. GILL, STEPHEN, NOAA/NOS Center for Operational Oceanographic Products and Services, Silver Spring, Maryland
43. GLEASON, KARIN L., NOAA/NESDIS National Climatic Data Center, Asheville, North Carolina
44. GOLDENBERG, STANLEY B., NOAA/OAR Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory, Miami, Florida
45. GONI, GUSTAVO, NOAA/OAR Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory, Physical Oceanography Division, Miami, Florida
46. GUTTMAN, NATHANIEL B., NOAA/NESDIS National Climatic Data Center, Asheville, North Carolina
47. HALPERT, MICHAEL S., NOAA/NWS/NCEP Climate Prediction Center, Camp Springs, Maryland
48. HEIDINGER, ANDREW K., NOAA/NESDIS Center for Satellite Applications and Research, Cooperative Research Program, University of Wisconsin—Madison, Madison, Wisconsin
49. HEIM, RICHARD R., JR., NOAA/NESDIS National Climatic Data Center, Asheville, North Carolina
50. HENRIQUEZ, MAXIMILIANO, Institute of Hydrology, Meteorology and Environmental Studies (IDEAM), Bogotá, Columbia
51. HERNÁNDEZ SOUZA, MARIETA, Instituto de Meteorología, La Habana, Cuba
52. HIGGINS, WAYNE, NOAA/NWS/NCEP Climate Prediction Center, Camp Springs, Maryland
53. HORVITZ, ANDY, NOAA National Weather Service, Silver Spring, Maryland
54. HOVSEPYAN, ANAHIT, Armenian State Hydrometeorological and Monitoring Service, Yerevan, Armenia
55. HUGHES, PAUL J., Center for Ocean-Atmospheric Prediction Studies, The Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida
56. HURTADO, GONZALO, Institute of Hydrology, Meteorology and Environmental Studies (IDEAM), Bogotá, Columbia 5
7. JAIMES, ENA, National Meteorological and Hydrological Service of Peru (SENAMHI), Lima, Perú
58. JANOWIAK, JOHN E., NOAA/NWS/NCEP Climate Prediction Center, Camp Springs, Maryland
59. JEZEK, KENNETH, Byrd Polar Research Center, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio
60. JOHNSON, GREGORY C., NOAA/OAR Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory, Seattle, Washington
61. KABIDI, KHADIJA, Direction de la Météorologie Nationale, Rabat, Morocco
62. KADI, MOHAMMED, African Center for Meteorological Applications for Development, Niamey, Niger
63. KENNEDY, JOHN J., Hadley Centre for Climate Change, Met Office, Exeter, United Kingdom
64. KHOSHKAM, MAHBOBEH, Islamic Republic of Iran Meteorological Organization, Tehran, Iran
65. KORSHUNOVA, NATALIA N., All-Russian Research Institute of Hydrometeorological Information, Obninsk, Russia
66. KRUGER, ANDRIES, South African Weather Service, Pretoria, South Africa
67. LANDMAN, WILLEM A., South African Weather Service, Pretoria, South Africa
68. LANDSEA, CHRIS W., NOAA/NWS/NCEP National Hurricane Center, Miami, Florida
69. LAPINEL PEDROSO, Braulio, Instituto de Meteorología, La Habana, Cuba
70. LAWRIMORE, JAY H., NOAA/NESDIS National Climatic Data Center, Asheville, North Carolina
71. LEVINSON, DAVID H., NOAA/NESDIS National Climatic Data Center, Asheville, North Carolina
72. LEVY, JOEL M., NOAA/OAR Climate Program Office, Silver Spring, Maryland
73. L’HEUREUX, MICHELLE, NOAA/NWS/NCEP Climate Prediction Center, Camp Springs, Maryland
74. LI, WEI, National Climate Center, China Meteorological Administration, Beijing, China
75. LIU, HONGXING, Department of Geography, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas
76. LUBIN, DAN, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California
77. LUMPKIN, RICK, NOAA/OAR Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory, Physical Oceanography Division, Miami, Florida
78. LYMAN, JOHN M., NOAA/OAR Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory, Seattle, Washington
79. MAHOWALD, NATALIE M., National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado
80. MAJSTOROVIC, ZELJKO, METEOBIH, Federal Meteorological Institute, Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina
81. MARENGO, JOSÉ A., CPTEC/INPE Center for Weather Forecasts and Climate Studies, São Paulo, Brazil
82. MARTÍNEZ, RODNEY, Centro Internacional para la Investigación del Fenómeno de El Niño, Guayaquil, Ecuador
83. MASSOM, ROBERT A., Australian Antarctic Division and Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems CRC, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
84. MAUE, RYAN N., Center for Ocean–Atmospheric Prediction Studies, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida
85. MEINEN, CHRISTOPHER S., NOAA/OAR Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory, Physical Oceanography Division, Miami, Florida
86. MENNE, MATTHEW J., NOAA/NESDIS National Climatic Data Center, Asheville, North Carolina
87. MERRIFIELD, MARK. A., University of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu, Hawaii
88. MITCHUM, GARY T., University of South Florida, College of Marine Science, St. Petersburg, Florida
89. MO, KINGSTE C., NOAA/NWS/NCEP Climate Prediction Center, Camp Springs, Maryland
90. MONAGHAN, ANDREW, Byrd Polar Research Center, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio
91. MORISON, JAMES, Polar Science Center, Applied Physics Laboratory, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington
92. MULLAN, BRETT, National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, Ltd., Wellington, New Zealand
93. MUMBA, ZILORE, African Center for Meteorological Applications for Development, Niamey, Niger
94. NEWMAN, PAUL A., NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt Maryland
95. NGHIEM, SON V., NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California
96. NJAU, LEONARD, African Center for Meteorological Applications for Development, Niamey, Niger
97. NORTE, FEDERICO, National Program of Meteorology, Mendoza, Argentina
98. OBERMAN, NAUM G., MIREKO Company, Syktyvkar, Russia
99. OBREGÓN, ANDRÉ, Laboratory for Climatology and Remote Sensing (LCRS), Faculty of Geography, University of Marburg, Marburg, Germany
100. OLUDHE, CHRISTOPHER, University of Nairobi, Nairobi, Kenya
101. OVERLAND, JAMES E., NOAA/OAR Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory, Seattle, Washington
102. PABÓN, JOSÉ DANIEL, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Bogotá, Colombia
103. PAREDES, DANIEL, Universidad Complutense Madrid, Madrid, Spain
104. PASCH, RICHARD, NOAA/NWS/NCEP National Hurricane Center, Miami, Florida
105. PATRICIO, DOMINGOS MOSQUITO, Instituto Nacional de Meteorologia (INAM), Observation and Network Department, Mozambique
106. PÉREZ FERNÁNDEZ, JOEL, El Centro del Agua del Trópico Húmedo para América Latina y el Caribe, Panama City, Panama
107. PÉREZ SUÁREZ, RAMÓN, Instituto de Meteorología, La Habana, Cuba
108. PEROVICH, DONALD K., ERDC Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, Hanover, New Hampshire
109. PETERSON, THOMAS C., NOAA/NESDIS National Climatic Data Center, Asheville, North Carolina
110. PEZZA, ALEXANDRE B., The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
111. PHILLIPS, DAVID, Environment Canada, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
112. PROSHUTINSKY, ANDREY, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, Woods Hole, Massachusetts
113. PRZYBYLAK, RAJMUND, Nicolaus Copernicus University, Torun´, Poland
114. QUINTANA, JUAN, Dirección Meteorológica de Chile, Santiago, Chile
115. RAHIMZADEH, FATEMEH, Atmospheric Science and Meteorological Research Center (ASMERC), Tehran, Iran
116. RAJEEVAN, MADHAVAN, National Climate Centre, India Meteorological Department, Pune, India
117. RAMIREZ OBANDO, PATRICIA, Regional Committee for Hydraulic Resources (CRRH/SICA), San José, Costa Rica
118. RAMOS, ALEXANDRE, CGUL, IDL, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal
119. RAZUVAEV, VYACHESLAV N., All-Russian Research Institute of Hydrometeorological Information, Obninsk, Russia
120. REMER, LORRAINE A., NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Maryland
121. REVADEKAR, JAYASHREE, Indian Institute of Tropical Meteorology, Pune, India
122. REYNOLDS, RICHARD W., NOAA/NESDIS National Climatic Data Center, Asheville, North Carolina
123. RICHTER-MENGE, JACQUELINE A., ERDC Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, Hanover, New Hampshire
124. RIGOR, IGNATIUS G., Polar Science Center, Applied Physics Laboratory, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington
125. ROBINSON, DAVID A., Department of Geography, Rutgers–The State University of New Jersey, Piscataway, New Jersey
126. ROLPH, JEREMY J., Center for Ocean–Atmospheric Prediction Studies, The Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida
127. ROMANOVSKY, VLADIMIR E., Geophysical Institute, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Fairbanks, Alaska
128. RUSTICUCCI, MATILDE, University of Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina
129. SABINE, CHRISTOPHER L., NOAA/OAR Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory, Seattle, Washington
130. SALINGER, M. JAMES, National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, Ltd., Newmarket, Auckland, New Zealand
131. SANCHEZ-LUGO, AHIRA M., NOAA/NESDIS National Climatic Data Center, Asheville, North Carolina
132. SCAMBOS, TED A., CIRES National Snow and Ice Data Center, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado
133. SCHNELL, RUSSELL C., NOAA/ESRL Global Monitoring Division, Climate Monitoring and Diagnostics Laboratory, Boulder, Colorado
134. SENSOY, SERHAT, Turkish State Meteorological Service, Ankara, Turkey
135. SHIKLOMANOV, ALEXANDER I., University of New Hampshire, Durham, New Hampshire
136. SIMONELLI, SILVIA, National Program of Meteorology, Mendoza, Argentina
137. SMITH, SHAWN R., Center for Ocean–Atmospheric Prediction Studies, The Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida
138. SUBRAHMANYAM, BULUSU, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina
139. THIAW, WASSILA M., NOAA/NWS/NCEP Climate Prediction Center, Camp Springs, Maryland
140. TREWIN, BLAIR C., National Climate Centre, Australian Bureau of Meteorology, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
141. TRIGO, RICARDO M., CGUL, IDL, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal
142. TURNER, JOHN, British Antarctic Survey, Cambridge, United Kingdom
143. ULKE, GRACIELA, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina
144. VIALE, MAXIMILIANO, National Program of Meteorology, Mendoza, Argentina
145. WALKER, DONALD, Institute of Arctic Biology, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Fairbanks, Alaska
146. WALSH, JOHN, International Arctic Research Center, Fairbanks, Alaska
147. WANG, LEI, Department of Geography, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas
148. WANG, LING, China Meteorological Administration, Beijing, China
149. WANNINKHOF, RIK, NOAA/OAR Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory, Ocean Chemistry Division, Miami, Florida
150. WAPLE, ANNE M., NOAA/NESDIS National Climatic Data Center (STG, Inc.), Asheville, North Carolina
151. WATKINS, ANDREW B., National Climate Centre, Australian Bureau of Meteorology, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
152. WELLER, ROBERT A., Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, Woods Hole, Massachusetts
153. WHITEWOOD, ROBERT, Environment Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
154. WILLIS, JOSHUA K., NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, California
155. WOODWORTH, PHILIP L., Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory, Liverpool, United Kingdom
156. XIE, PINGPING, NOAA/NWS/NCEP, Climate Prediction Center, Camp Springs, Maryland
157. YE, DIANXIU, National Climate Center, China Meteorological Administration, Beijing, China
158. YU, LISAN, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, Woods Hole, Massachusetts
159. ZHU, YANFENG, Beijing Climate Center, China Meteorological Administration, Beijing, China
Stay Tuned for the 2007 Report, currently in peer review....
"from around 0.06°C
July 20, 2008 - 22:32 ET by NL207"from around 0.06°C decade−1 over the past century to nearly 0.18°C decade−1 for the last 30 yr"
Let's do some arithmetic here, lotr. 7*0.06 = 0.42. Yes?
And 3*0.18 = .54 Yes?
And, 0.54+0.42 = 0.96 Yes?
Now, no less an authority than the IPCC said in 2007 that warming over the last century amounted to 0.75 C +/- 0.15. That made the range 0.6 - 0.9.
Isn't the number your associates are quoting a little high? Especially since we all know the IPCC enhanced its number from 0.6 --> 0.75 between 2001 and 2007.
NL207
July 21, 2008 - 12:13 ET by lotrYes, that number would be erroneous, but they are only saying the 1906-2006 trend is 0.06 K per decade, whereas the 1976-2006 trend is 0.18 K per decade indicating that the positive trend in temperature has become more steep. Now, I'll be the first to admit that there appears to have been a leveling off since 2005, and right now it does not look like 2008 is going to break any records either. Of course, this by itself doesn't debunk the theory, but it will nevertheless need to be explained, as the theory does predict a continued trend.
"All datasets agree that
July 20, 2008 - 19:19 ET by RESTLESS 1"All datasets agree that global surface temperatures continue to warm, with the rate of global temperature rise increasing from around 0.06°C decade−1 over the past century to nearly 0.18°C decade−1 for the last 30 yr. (emphasis mine)"
So, temps. over the last 30 years have increased at an accelertated rate, even though the western world has gone to great lengths to clean the air, reduce emissions, and blunt the human influence on climate. It doesn't make sense. The air is much cleaner in these past 30 years in civilized parts of the world, yet it is still our fault? All this proves to me is that humans can do nothing to change the global climate, for better or worse.
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
Actually, it makes a lot of
July 20, 2008 - 22:44 ET by NL207Actually, it makes a lot of sense. If you allow for the portion of warming attributable to increased solar output over the last century, about 45-50% of total warming, that leaves just about what physicists back in the 70's estimated the CO2 increase we have witnessed would cause when questions about this were first raised, something approximately 0.40 degree C. These old estimates said that doubling CO2 over pre-industrial levels would lead to a 1.0 C increase. The functionality ought track on a exponential asymptoting to some theoretical limit beyond which further increases in CO2 cannot cause further warming because the CO2 wavelengths are already 100% blocked.
If the old science is right, and I see no reason to believe that it isn't, there won't be any 3, 4 or 6 degree C global warming from CO2 alone as the alarmists claim. To get those kind of outcomes some other factor(s) would have to come into play.