A candidate for public office in any contemporary democracy may have to consider what, if anything, to do about “global warming.” Candidates should understand that the oft-repeated claim that nearly all scientists demand that something dramatic be done to stop global warming is not true. In fact, a large and growing number of distinguished scientists and engineers do not agree that drastic actions on global warming are needed.
In September, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever, a supporter of President Obama in the last election, publicly resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) with a letter that begins: “I did not renew [my membership] because I cannot live with the [APS policy] statement: ‘The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.’ In the APS it is OK to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?”
In spite of a multidecade international campaign to enforce the message that increasing amounts of the “pollutant” carbon dioxide will destroy civilization, large numbers of scientists, many very prominent, share the opinions of Dr. Giaever. And the number of scientific “heretics” is growing with each passing year. The reason is a collection of stubborn scientific facts.
Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now. This is known to the warming establishment, as one can see from the 2009 “Climategate” email of climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.” But the warming is only missing if one believes computer models where so-called feedbacks involving water vapor and clouds greatly amplify the small effect of CO2.
27 Jan
16 Concerned Scientists: No Need to Panic About Global Warming
That’s the opinion of 16 scientist—compared to thousands of the other side.
@Liberal1 (objectivity):
Unfortunately for global warming zealots, it’s not JUST 16 scientists who believe this. It’s many, many more. The reason that the article lists 16 is that that is the number that signed on in support of the article.
You should look at WHO those 16 scientists are, as well. Go ahead, they are listed at the end of the linked article.
@Liberal1 (objectivity):
Those same “thousands” of the TIME and Newsweek flavor that were pushing the Next Ice Age in the 1970s. Particularly Stephen Schneider, the author of that TIME article, who today is one of the world’s leading GlobalWarming alarmists! The same thousands who’s hacked emails removed beyond a shadow of a doubt that the “scientists” were colluding to push certain acceptable memes while working together to hide inconvenient facts. The thousands on the other side who fail to comprehend that climate change happens, that it’s a cycle, that we’ve had a handful of Ice Ages prior to the Industrial Age.
The other side, the same kooks like Ted Danson who in 1988 said, “the oceans are all gonna die in ten years” and Al Gore’s famous 2008 prediction ” the entire north polar ice cap will be gone in 5 years” and UNEP’s Environmentally Induced Migration “Fifty million climate refugees by 2010″ study/map – yup, an inconvenient truth but that’s the other side for ya.
I leave you with the idiotic droll of Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, who in 2000 stated that within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”.
“Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said.
Folks, liberal#2 doesn’t care about the facts, just trolling.
90% of climatologists could say it was bogus and he’d still scream that the 10% supporting it means it’s true.
These 16 scientists are not necessarily qualified. Who these people actually are:
Roger Cohen
retired from ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company.
http://www.marshall.org/experts.php?id=252
Edward E. David
President of Research and Engineering for Exxon Corporation, serving until 1985
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_E._David_Jr.
Claude Allègre
discredited by 500 of his peers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_Allègre
Scott Armstrong
professor of marketing, not climate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Scott_Armstrong
Jan Breslow
a doctor, not a climate scientist
http://www.rockefeller.edu/research/faculty/labheads/JanBreslow/
William Happer
Likened environmentalists to Nazis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Happer
Michael Kelly
Electrical engineer, not a climate scientist
http://www.eng.cam.ac.uk/~mjk1/
William Kininmonth
Can’t find much on him, but appears to be a legit meteorological scientist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Kininmonth_(meteorologist)
Richard Lindzen
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen
A real climate scientist Lindzen’s graduate students describe him as “fiercely intelligent, with a deep contrarian streak.”
James McGrath
Ethyl Chaired Professor of Chemistry – Ethyl Corp was formed by General Motors
http://www.files.chem.vt.edu/chem-dept/mcgrath/
Rodney Nichols
his career appears to have little to do with climate science
http://www.atlanticlegal.org/person.php?conid=2433
Burt Rutan
Literally, a rocket scientist, not a climate scientist
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burt_Rutan
Harrison Schmitt
Former astronaut, and Republican politician, likens environmentalists to Communists
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Schmitt
Nir Shaviv
A scientist with an alternative theory that warming is caused by cosmic rays
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nir_Shaviv
Henk Tennekes
supported this decisions by referring to biblical texts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hendrik_Tennekes
Antonino Zichichi
Nobel Prize laureate Hans Bethe has been quoted saying about Zichichi “eccellent organizer, mediocre physicist”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonino_Zichichi
These emails show the contempt that Michael Mann has for those scientists who disagree with his vision.
http://www.atinstitute.org/virginians-get-first-peak-at-secret-uva-emails/ Mann and buddies continue to prevent both sides of the issue from being heard. The Climategate emails show they successfully prevented publication in peer review journals. They also were “hiding the decline in temperature”. This is all about money. As long as Mann and his cohorts continue to have kooks like liberal1 believe that a trace gas like CO2 is causing global warming, they stay on the gravey train. That old “follow the money” is true if you want to really find out the truth.
Interesting that some guy fails to mention that many of the global warming proponents have similar “conflicts” and “qualification” issues.
And someguy, Wikipedia? Really?
@Some Guy: Ok, what is a climate scientist? Who determines their qualifications? I can understand that a physicial education teacher may not be considered a climate scientist, but does it take a climate scientist to see that the so called climate scientists and their models violate scientific protocol? Some of their projections violate laws of physics. Would someone with a degree in physics be able to challenge the findings of a climate scientist? Check out the qualifications of Michael Mann, he of the famous hocky stick! What makes him a climate scientist? Climate science is so broad and encompasses so many different fields, that one can not realistically minimize contributions to climate science by their degree or place of employment. You can minimize them by their unwillingness to allow their opinions to be challenged. Michael Mann and his climategate cohorts have done just that-violate their scientific inquirey integrity!
Humbug. Anthropocentric Global Warming is humbug.
The scatter (random variation) in temperature readings drowns out any claimed ability to chart any temperature changing on a global scale.
Fact: the globe is large. 70% (approximately) of the surface of the globe is water. We do not have good temperature data from surface stations on water. We could do so, but such a project would be prohibitively expensive.
Fact: there is no agreement on the “multiplier” effect of carbon dioxide and temperature. Fact: the Greenland ice cores suggest that the relationship runs in the other direction: changes in temperature, after 500 to 1000 years, result in changes in carbon dioxide level.
Fact: we do not have a grip on the global carbon dioxide budget. The absorption/release of carbon dioxide from the 70% water listed above is poorly understood; it seems to be temperature-related.
Fact: billions of dollars have gone to “scientists” who have “investigated” AGW, while no tax dollars have gone to those who oppose the “theory” of AGW.
Fact: the predicted temperature rise during the past 12 years has not happened.
Those are the inconvenient truths. The same crew which was predicting “Nuclear Winter” 50 years ago is running the same scare campaign, with just a little tweak in the message.
And, by the way, to discredit a person on the basis of his employment is the most scurrilous of ad hominem attacks. I guess arguing on the basis of facts is passe.
Bernie Goldberg captures this in his OP ED http://www.bernardgoldberg.com/the-other-global-warming-story/ There are so many ignorant people reporting on APG when they have no clue as to what the science is or what the issues really are. If they stick their toe outside and it was warmer than yesterday, then there is global warming and it must be caused by humans. Not one person has any proof that CO2 generated by humans is causing global warming! Not one study. But look at all of the reporters who are commenting.