While global warming alarmists like soon-to-be-Dr. Al Gore and his band of not so merry sycophants continue talking about a scientific consensus concerning man’s role in “climate change,” the list of scientists that have grown skeptical of this nexus continues to grow.
Unfortunately, a media obsessed with advancing hysteria on the subject refuse to acknowledge the existence of such folks as they continue to pound the table about the imminent doom to the planet.
With that in mind, Sen. James Inhofe’s office (R-Oklahoma) is preparing a “detailed and comprehensive sampling of scientists who have only recently spoken out against climate hysteria [that] will be forthcoming in a soon to be released U.S. Senate report.”
Inhofe’s communications director, Marc Morano, published a few of these names, as well as their backgrounds and conclusions, at Inhofe’s EPW Press Blog Tuesday:
- Geophysicist Dr. Claude Allegre, a top geophysicist and French Socialist who has authored more than 100 scientific articles and written 11 books and received numerous scientific awards including the Goldschmidt Medal from the Geochemical Society of the United States, converted from climate alarmist to skeptic in 2006.
- Geologist Bruno Wiskel of the University of Alberta recently reversed his view of man-made climate change and instead became a global warming skeptic.
- Astrophysicist Dr. Nir Shaviv, one of Israel's top young award winning scientists, recanted his belief that manmade emissions were driving climate change.
- Mathematician & engineer Dr. David Evans, who did carbon accounting for the Australian Government, recently detailed his conversion to a skeptic.
- Climate researcher Dr. Tad Murty, former Senior Research Scientist for Fisheries and Oceans in Canada, also reversed himself from believer in man-made climate change to a skeptic.
- Botanist Dr. David Bellamy, a famed UK environmental campaigner, former lecturer at Durham University and host of a popular UK TV series on wildlife, recently converted into a skeptic after reviewing the science and now calls global warming fears "poppycock."
- Climate scientist Dr. Chris de Freitas of The University of Auckland, N.Z., also converted from a believer in man-made global warming to a skeptic.
- Meteorologist Dr. Reid Bryson, the founding chairman of the Department of Meteorology at University of Wisconsin (now the Department of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences, was pivotal in promoting the coming ice age scare of the 1970’s ( See Time Magazine’s 1974 article “Another Ice Age” citing Bryson: & see Newsweek’s 1975 article “The Cooling World” citing Bryson) has now converted into a leading global warming skeptic.
- Global warming author and economist Hans H.J. Labohm started out as a man-made global warming believer but he later switched his view after conducting climate research.
- Paleoclimatologist Tim Patterson, of Carlton University in Ottawa converted from believer in C02 driving the climate change to a skeptic.
- Physicist Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, chairman of the Central Laboratory for the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Radiological Protection in Warsaw, took a scientific journey from a believer of man-made climate change in the form of global cooling in the 1970’s all the way to converting to a skeptic of current predictions of catastrophic man-made global warming.
- Paleoclimatologist Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor of the Department of Earth Sciences at University of Ottawa, reversed his views on man-made climate change after further examining the evidence.
- Environmental geochemist Dr. Jan Veizer, professor emeritus of University of Ottawa, converted from believer to skeptic after conducting scientific studies of climate history.
Like many of you, I look forward to the full report being prepared by Sen. Inhofe’s office, and can’t way to see Charlie Gibson, Brian Williams, and Katie Couric begin their respective evening new broadcasts with these revelations.
Of course, I am not holding my breath.
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Get some real experts
May 16, 2007 - 13:40 ET by EllisWyatt"Paleoclimatologist", "Physicist", "Geophysicist", "Astrophysicist" ... please. I'll trust Al Gore, Laurie David and Sheryl Crow. They're the REAL experts.
If you're not outraged at the media, you haven't been paying attention.
I can't believe the MSM isn't
May 16, 2007 - 13:43 ET by TruthMongerI can't believe the MSM isn't touting this! They were so big on this "consensus" a couple of weeks ago...
It's almost like they're somewhat biased towards Global Warming. But no. That would be an appalling and abolutely reprehensible abuse of their inherent community-service priviledge. I can't imagine that they would actually be that kind of lowdown, scum-sucking gutter filth...
Hmmmm.....
Fabulous. Can't wait.
May 16, 2007 - 13:49 ET by dahliatraversFabulous. Can't wait.
This is so delicious! The M
May 16, 2007 - 13:54 ET by mattmThis is so delicious! The MSM is between a rock and a hard place because of their own biased coverage. Ha Ha Ha!!!!
If they had simply REPORTED the issue from a balanced standpoint, they could simply continue to do so.
But they advocated one side, so now that their side is losing the debate, despite Chicken Little's claim that "the debate is over," they look like idiots. So they either have to keep mum, or admit their idiocy and their bias... Ha!
mattm,Great point! However,
May 16, 2007 - 14:10 ET by Sick-n-Tiredmattm,
Great point! However, the unsrupulous MSM will have no problem sweeping this one under the rug as well. Whether people catch it or not will be interesting to see...we can only hope they do.
Gotta love Sen. Inhofe---ol' squeaky wheel!
?
May 16, 2007 - 14:13 ET by general companyNoel,, what is it about "the debate is over" don't you understand? Geez
You would think now that we h
May 16, 2007 - 14:25 ET by paperheadYou would think now that we have proof that two other planets, Mars and Neptune, are showing signs of global warming, that it would shut these people up. Apparently, nothing short of a Mack truck will do that.
Paperhead, not only are Mars
May 18, 2007 - 19:33 ET by MikeBPaperhead, not only are Mars and Neptune showing signs of global warming, but so are Jupiter, Saturn, and Pluto. Even the moons Titan and Triton are showing signs of global warming.
Dam* that Bush and those evil oil companies! They are causing global warming throughout the solar system! It must be they've developed satellites and probes powered by internal combustion engines that work in vacuum. Those evil scientists are diabolically clever, yes?
"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan
I love it!Of course the MSM w
May 16, 2007 - 14:37 ET by SumricaI love it!
Of course the MSM will be silent. Only a looming disaster with Polar Bear swimming for their lives fits the template of a news story. Gawd, I can't wait for it to crash down upon them!
The MSM will just spike the story
May 16, 2007 - 14:38 ET by c5thenOf course FOX will cover it, so most of the country will hear about it, but those in the liberal left-wing cities will be clueless as the MSM intend. Then the blog-o-crats will come out of the woodwork to deride the study and the scientists.
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic
c5then,That is correct. &qu
May 16, 2007 - 14:48 ET by Sick-n-Tiredc5then,
That is correct. "...deride the study and the scientists." That is what they do, deflect, distract, detract and otherwise try to discredit the scientists that are contrarian to their beliefs. What else can they resort to anyways when they are wrong?!
Go Inhofe, Go!!!! He's the
May 16, 2007 - 15:07 ET by dscottGo Inhofe, Go!!!! He's the man!
Like I've said before, the bottom is just about to drop out on AGW. Liberal screeching is at a fever pitch trying to drown out reality.
“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
There is no way the MSM is go
May 16, 2007 - 15:11 ET by Dave RThere is no way the MSM is going to report this, except perhaps to poke holes in it and cast aspersions on those who have "left the tent." After all, MMGW is their (current) vehicle to bring about their dream of "Global Utopia" (world socialism) and they aren't about to consciously forward anything that does not fit within that agenda.
I wonder what that GW NAZI Heidi Cullen over at the propagan........oops, I mean Weather Channel is going to have to say about this, or has she finally abandoned her crusade to revoke the professional credentials of those who refuse to tow the party line.
This republic will not survive the continued neglect of its people.-Neal Boortz.
I think even FoxNews has jump
May 16, 2007 - 18:41 ET by chessplayerI think even FoxNews has jumped on the AGW bandwagon, so this will be totally ignored.
In light of what appears to b
May 16, 2007 - 15:49 ET by Sick-n-TiredIn light of what appears to be a freight train of dissent gaining steam over AGW, did anybody catch this article?
(http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20070515/sc_livescience/californiasizedareaoficemeltsinantarctica?)
Two things that stick out to me, lie in the third and fourth paragraphs; "Antarctica has shown little to no warming in the recent past" and "Large amounts of Antarctic freshwater flowing into the ocean also could affect ocean salinity, currents and global climate.".
How do you guys take these statements?
Me personally, I think in response to the mounting evidence against anthropogenic warming, they AGW disciples are starting to go on defensive with their next line of attack.
Could it be they are now setting up the pitch to push the "Day After Tomorrow" scenario? That is, via the Arctic model of cold fresh water run-off cutting off the Gulfstream and sending us into another ice age???? hmmmmmm.....
I knew this would be coming as soon as they got flushed from their holes on the warming hype.
The issue is the issue.
May 16, 2007 - 16:26 ET by c5thenIt's not that these experts and scientists disagree that the climate is getting warmer, and neither do I. It's that it is caused by CO2 entering the atmosphere directly related to human activity. The temperature graphs and the solar output graphs correlate to .99 from 1950 to present.
It is much more logical to account for the climate differences observed through solar activity, than anything else.
Rather than spending time and resources trying to halt a process that is millions of years old and driven by a primary factor that we have no control over (the Sun), we should be studying the process to see if we can get some predictive ability and maybe decide if it's a long term trend or a short term blip. If it's long term, then we need to figure out how to live with it. If it's a short term blip, then we can learn to live with it. Those are our choices.
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic
Absolutely it is warming, and
May 16, 2007 - 16:56 ET by Sick-n-TiredAbsolutely it is warming, and absolutely it is part of natural variability--a combination of solar output, Milankovitch periodicities etc. Either way we will have to adapt and overcome. Our ancestors, homo erectus to homo sapiens have done it for 2 million years, I think we will be able to do it, and continue to do it again.
But of course, they (AGW'ers) would rather see it as the 'sky is falling' and sell the hype.
Good to see more changing the
May 16, 2007 - 17:21 ET by chessplayerGood to see more changing their minds, but we know the games the left will play. When Allegre changed his mind some weeks ago,AGW`s said his opinions are meaningless as he is not a climatologist. The only climate scientists in this list are Freitas and maybe Murty. The rest will be written off. And AGW`s will find a connection between Freitas and Murty and Exxon even if it`s by 6 degrees of separation.
The temperature graphs and th
May 16, 2007 - 19:05 ET by dahliatraversThe temperature graphs and the solar output graphs correlate .99 from 1950 to present.
As opposed to temperature graphs and CO2 graphs, which do not.
Gorebal Warming
May 16, 2007 - 21:36 ET by pbthinkerWell, Al Gore has his Chiropractor and Tippers Gynecologist who agree with him, and they're both Doctors. I mean, who do you trust anyway?
Never argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
Ford drops carbon (foot print) SUV paint color
May 16, 2007 - 23:39 ET by w0tmMy brother bought a new Ford SUV recently. He specified "carbon" as the color. Looked steel gray to me but paint color names haven't made sense in 30 years every since some designer came up with "taupe". He took delivery but it was promptly followed by a certified letter apologizing the color he selected was no longer available. The color of his SUV was now called dark mist gray. He should specify that in any legal documents. He was curious enough why the importance and urgency of this (he's an engineer) so he called and got to talk to one of their engineers who would probably be fired if his boss knew he told a customer WHY the change. Higher ups at Ford decided the media would notice the paint color name and do a story on "the carbon foot print Ford SUV". You just can NOT make this stuff up! Once in a while, this whole Global Warming thing is just hilarious!
********
View http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaE98w1KZ-c to FINALLY understand why liberals think the way they do. This was the most informative 47 minutes I've ever spent. Please -- take the time to view it.
Following a moderately se
May 17, 2007 - 11:28 ET by MilesDFollowing a moderately severe El Niño event in the Summer of 1988, I heard a debate between a representative hired by the World Wildlife Fund, and Fred Singer, in Washington, DC. The subject was "global warming precipitated by carbon dioxide." Although the discussion was open to the public (and free of charge), there were not very many people in attendance at this discussion.
The few who who asked questions of Dr. Singer appeared skeptical of his confidence that there was no basis for any concern. Dr. Singer replied that he had witnessed many other "global climate forecasts of disaster" in his career, and some of these scenarios, he believed, had more scientific merit than this one.
Our director at [US Government Agency where I worked] asked me to prepare a report giving our recommendation of how to respond to the situation.
I responded that the claims were without scientific merit, and that I doubted the issue would receive much more serious consideration by any one, excepting a few on the fringe who would not be given serious consideration.
Boy was I wrong ...
Silly you, Miles. You thoug
May 17, 2007 - 14:11 ET by dahliatraversSilly you, Miles. You thought everyone would be guided by evidence, the scientific method and a healthy debate.