U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
Old 11-24-2012, 01:04 PM
Location: Planet earth
2,510 posts, read 1,119,243 times
Reputation: 765


You know what is sick? Not a one of these anthropogenic global warming (or man-made climate change, whatever the newspeak of the day is for it) folks, has proven a thing. When asked for proof, they call names. When asked for proof the point to a document that has a bunch of signatures on it. But once the SUMMARY for that document came out, one that was CONTRADICTORY to the original document, the majority of those signatories wrote, called or otherwise demanded to have their endorsement removed.

Climatologist slams RealClimate.org for 'erroneously communicating the reality of the how climate system is actually behaving' | Climate Depot

Climatologist slams RealClimate.org for 'erroneously communicating the reality of the how climate system is actually behaving'

Climate Depot Exclusive: Real Climate Exposed! A Comprehensive Report on the 'Real' RealClimate.org

Tuesday, June 30, 2009By Marc MoranoClimate Depot
[LEFT]The global warming promoting website RealClimate.org, is under fire yet again from a prominent scientist for presenting incorrect climate information. Climatologist Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. publicly rebuked the website in a June 30, 2009 article for "erroneously communicating the reality of the how the climate system is actually behaving." Pielke, the former Colorado State Climatologist and currently a senior scientist at the University of Colorado in Boulder, countered Real Climate's claim that warming was "progressing faster than expected" with the latest data on sea level rise, ocean heat content and Arctic ice.[/LEFT]
[LEFT]In his article titled "Real Climate's Misinformation", Pielke also chastised readers of Real Climate for blindly accepting the incorrect climate claims promoted on the site.[/LEFT]
"Media and policymakers who blindly accept these claims are either naive or are deliberately slanting the science to promote their particular advocacy position," Pielke Sr. wrote.
Realclimate.org, a website which much of the mainstream media has relied on for climate science developments, has come under increasing criticism and scrutiny from scientists. Real Climate's lead blogger and NASA scientist Gavin Schmidt was harshly criticized for some of his scientific claims in January 2009. Atmospheric scientist Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, a prominent scientist from the Netherlands, wrote a scathing denunciation of Schmidt in which he said he was “appalled” by Schmidt's “lack of knowledge” and added, “Back to graduate school, Gavin!”
The latest scientific woes by RealClimate.org were rebutted point by point by Pielke on June 20, 2009.
Real Climate claimed:
“Our regular readers will hardly be surprised by the key findings from physical climate science, most of which we have already discussed here. Some aspects of climate change are progressing faster than was expected a few years ago - such as rising sea levels, the increase of heat stored in the ocean and the shrinking Arctic sea ice."
Pielke responded:
"First, what is 'physical climate science'? How is this different from 'climate science'. In the past, this terminology has been used when authors ignore the biological components of the climate system," Pielke wrote.
Pielke continued: "More importantly, however, the author of the weblog makes the statement that the following climate metrics 'are progressing faster than was expected a few years ago'":
1. Real Climate Claim: “rising sea levels”
Pielke's Response: "NOT TRUE; e.g. see the University of Colorado at Boulder Sea Level Change analysis. Sea level has actually flattened since 2006."
2. Real Climate Claim: “the increase of heat stored in the ocean”
Pielke's "Response: NOT TRUE; see
Update On A Comparison Of Upper Ocean Heat Content Changes With The GISS Model Predictions.
Their has been no statistically significant warming of the upper ocean since 2003."

3. Real Climate Claim: “shrinking Arctic sea ice”
Pielke's Response: "NOT TRUE; see the Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Anomaly from the University of Illinois Cyrosphere Today website. Since 2008, the anomalies have actually decreased."
Pielke Concluded: "These climate metrics might again start following the predictions of the models. However, until and unless they do, the authors of the Copenhagen Congress Synthesis Report and the author of the Real Climate weblog are erroneously communicating the reality of the how the climate system is actually behaving.
Media and policymakers who blindly accept these claims are either naive or are deliberately slanting the science to promote their particular advocacy position."
Climate Depot Exclusive Report: A Long History of Accuracy Woes and Activism for RealClimate.org
Atmospheric scientist Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, a prominent scientist from the Netherlands, wrote a scathing denunciation of Schmidt in which he said he was “appalled” by Schmidt's “lack of knowledge” and added, “Back to graduate school, Gavin!”
“Roger Pielke, Sr. has graciously invited me to add my perspective to his discussion with Gavin Schmidt at Real Climate. If this were not such a serious matter, I would have been amused by Gavin's lack of knowledge of the differences between weather models and climate models. As it stands, I am appalled. Back to graduate school, Gavin!” Tennekes wrote on January 29, 2009. Tennekes, is an scientific pioneer in the development of numerical weather prediction and former director of research at The Netherlands' Royal National Meteorological Institute, and an internationally recognized expert in atmospheric boundary layer processes. Tennekes is also featured in U.S. Senate Minority Report Update: More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims“Gavin Schmidt is not the only meteorologist with an inadequate grasp of the role of the oceans in the climate system. In my weblog of June 24, 2008, I addressed the limited perception that at least one other climate modeler appears to have,” Tennekes wrote. “From my perspective it is not a little bit alarming that the current generation of climate models cannot simulate such fundamental phenomena as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. I will not trust any climate model until and unless it can accurately represent the PDO and other slow features of the world ocean circulation. Even then, I would remain skeptical about the potential predictive skill of such a model many tens of years into the future,” Tennekes added.
Atmospheric Physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh, also critiqued RealClimate.org on June 24, 2008. Peden wrote, “'Real Climate' is a staged and contracted production, which wasn't created by 'scientists,' it was actually created by Environmental Media Services, a company which specializes in spreading environmental junk science on behalf of numerous clients who stand to financially benefit from scare tactics through environmental fear mongering.”
Meteorologist Joe D'Aleo also launched a sharply worded critique of RealClimate.org in January 2009 titled “Response to Gavin Schmidt – Global Data Base Issues Are Real.” “To Gavin [Schmidt] and the other alarmists, it appears, a piece that is fair and balanced can make no mention of any other opinion except that carbon dioxide is causing global warming and action is needed now and will deliver gain and no pain, something the one sided media coverage has gotten them used to over the years,” D'Aleo wrote on January 13, 2009. D'Aleo served as the first Director of Meteorology at The Weather Channel and served as chairman of the American Meteorological Society's Committee on Weather Analysis and Forecasting.
Israeli Astrophysicist Nir Shaviv has also been critical. “The aim of RealClimate.org is not to engage a sincere scientific debate. Their aim is to post a reply full of a straw man so their supporters can claim that your point 'has been refuted by real scientists at RealClimate.org,'” Shaviv's website reported. Shaviv, who calls the website “Wishfulclimate.org,” noted that the “writers (at RealClimaet.org) try again and again to concoct what appears to be deep critiques against skeptic arguments, but end up doing a very shallow job. All in the name of saving the world. How gallant of them.”

More Real Scientists Rebuke Real Climate:
'Scientist adjusts data -- presto, Antarctic cooling disappears' - December 21, 2008
Excerpt: The analysis concluded, “Looks like [study author] Steig 'got rid of' Antarctic cooling the same way [Michael] Mann got rid of medieval warming. Why not just look at the station data instead of 'adjusting' it (graph above)? It shows a 50-year cooling trend,” the analysis concluded.
Pielke Jr.: 'Gavin Schmidt admits to stealing a scientific idea from his arch-nemesis, Steve McIntyre' – February 4, 2009 - Excerpt: This is not a hypothetical example, but a caricature of real goings on with our friends over at Real Climate ... Due to an inadvertent release of information, NASA's Gavin Schmidt (a “real scientist” of the Real Climate blog) admits to stealing a scientific idea from his arch-nemesis, Steve McIntyre (not a “real scientist” of the Climate Audit blog) and then representing it as his own idea, and getting credit for it. In his explanation why this is OK, Gavin explains that he did some work on his own after getting the idea from Steve's blog, and so it was OK to take full credit for the idea. [...] Gavin's outing is remarkable because it shows him not only stealing an idea, but stealing from someone who he and his colleagues routinely criticize as being wrong, corrupt, and a fraud. Does anyone wonder why skepticism flourishes? When evaluations of expertise hinge on trust, stealing someone's ideas and taking credit for them does not help.
Gavin Schmidt's Antics Prompts Laughter From Scientist '“How am I supposed to get any work done when I am laughing so hard?” - Feb. 2009 - Excerpt: Reaction By Climate researcher Dr. Craig Loehle, formerly of the department of Energy Laboratories and currently with the National Council for Air and Stream Improvements, who has published more than 100 peer-reviewed scientific papers.
'Is Gavin Schmidt The Best Thing Ever Happened To AGW Skeptics?'
Gavin's "Mystery Man" Revealed - by Climate Audit's Steve McIntyre on February 4th, 2009 –Gavin Schmidt demands Pielke Jr. Pull Critical Blog
Real Climate's Schmidt 'anti-science exposed' 'Using an image of Lake Powell to indicate anything about climate change is perverse' - June 4, 2009 - Excerpt: As with so many other products generated by the AGW industry, Schmidt's book Climate Change: Picturing the Science is part of an ongoing effort to frighten the credulous. Its messages include: weather will kill you; our moment on Earth is unique; and climate did not used to change. Had you wanted to fulfill the responsibilities of an objective and hard-hitting journalist, you might have asked Schmidt about the image of Lake Powell on his book's cover. [...] Were you aware, may I ask, of the controversial nature of the damming of the Colorado River that led to Lake Powell? Environmentalists were and are appalled by this particular dam. It has changed an important piece of the American natural landscape. [...] Group-think has affected many societies negatively, and it has not disappeared during our own time. The fact that neither Mr. Schmidt's editor, nor his publisher, nor you, nor the photographer, nor Mr. Schmidt himself would stop to reflect on the oddity of this cover is enough to give one pause.
Schmidt issues 'Correction and apology' for incorrectly claiming permafrost melt was cause of collapse - June 2, 2009 - Excerpt: the cause of the collapse was the 1964 Earthquake rather than permafrost melt. We take complete responsibility for the mix-up in captioning and the erroneous attribution and we'd like to fully apologize.
AP reporter Borenstein calls out 'Real Climate' activists' Mann and Schmidt for 'misrepresenting interviews he did with each of them'- June 15, 2009
Real Climate touted Steig et al 'Antarctica is warming' study 'falsified' - May 29, 2009
Excerpt: After reading this latest statistical analysis, I think it is fair to conclude that the paper's premise has been falsified. [...] It is my view that all Steig and Michael Mann have done with their application of RegEm to the station data is to smear the temperature around much like an artist would smear red and white paint on a pallete board to get a new color “pink” and then paint the entire continent with it. It is a lot like “spin art” you see at the county fair.
Scientists, Data Challenge Real Climate Touted Antarctic 'Warming' Study - 'It is hard to make data where none exist' - January 21, 2009
The Truth about RealClimate.org - July 6, 2009
Excerpt: Essentially the site exists to promote global warming alarm-ism and attack anyone who does not agree with their declaration of doomsday (proven of course by their own computer climate models) and the need for government intervention against the life supporting, atmospheric trace gas, carbon dioxide. Standard operating procedure is to post "rebuttals" to everything they disagree with and then declare victory, making sure to censor comments challenging their position. It doesn't matter if they actual rebutted any of the science or facts just so long as they provide the existence of a criticism. This gives their fanboys "ammunition" to further promote alarmist propaganda across the Internet (and of course declare victory). Their resident propagandist William Connolley's job is to edit dissent and smear skeptical scientists on Wikipedia. In the world of global warming alarmist "science" pretending you win is apparently all that matters because in real debates they lose. The truth is that RealClimate.org is an environmentalist shill site directly connected to an eco-activist group, Environmental Media Services and Al Gore but they don't want you to know that.
Schmidt Admits Defeat in Climate Debate! Tough New York City crowd reverses view on man-made warming and converts to skepticism following debate featuring RealClimate.org's Schmidt– March 2007
RealClimate.org's Michael Mann incorrectly Cites Mt. Kilimanjaro as evidence of man-made global warming - Providence Journal - September 25, 2008
Reality Check: Mann's using years old Mt. Kilimanjaro talking points. Mann's “facts” on Kilimanjaro are outdated.
2008: Studies and scientists debunk Mann's 'new hockey stick' - Comprehensive report exposing Mann's research
UK Spectator: 'Hysterical' Real Climate's Michael Mann's Hockey Stick 'most discredited study in history of Science – February 7, 2009 – By Melanie Phillips
Pielke Jr.: Details RealClimate.org's & Others Engage in 'Character Assassination' of Skeptical Scientists'
Real Climate 'has clearly aligned itself squarely with one political position on climate change' - January 14, 2005 - Excerpt: The site's focus has been exclusively on attacking those who invoke science as the basis for their opposition to action on climate change, folks such as George Will, Senator James Inhofe, Michael Crichton, McIntyre and McKitrick, Fox News, and Myron Ebell. Whether intended or not, the site has clearly aligned itself squarely with one political position on climate change.
Real Climate's Schmidt attempts to 'explain why skeptics are simplistic' - June 1, 2009
Not again! Antarctic 'warming' author Steig claims Steve McIntyre has accused him of 'thinly-veiled accusations of scientific fraud' - June 3, 2009
Perhaps a Complex? Real Climate's Steig claimed Morano 'accuses him of scientific fraud'- Morano Responds - January 29, 2009
History of Real Cilmate's activism and funding - Newsbusters.org - June 28, 2008
UN IPCC Scientist Richard Courtney Rips Real Climate Touted Antarctic Study - January 29, 2009
Excerpt: I am not surprised at Steig's behaviour that attempts to deflect attention from his paper and its content. I have written a letter to Nature complaining that Steig's paper contains a flaw so severe that Steig's paper should not have been published, and I suspect that others have written complaints to Nature concerning other errors in that paper, too.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

Old 11-24-2012, 01:07 PM
Location: Planet earth
2,510 posts, read 1,119,243 times
Reputation: 765
You know what is sick? Not a one of these anthropogenic global warming (or man-made climate change, whatever the newspeak of the day is for it) folks, has proven a thing. When asked for proof, they call names. When asked for proof the point to a document that has a bunch of signatures on it. But once the SUMMARY for that document came out, one that was CONTRADICTORY to the original document, the majority of those signatories wrote, called or otherwise demanded to have their endorsement removed.

.: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Minority Page :.

U.S. Senate Minority Report Update: More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims
December 11, 2008

Posted by Marc Morano – 9:30 AM EST - Marc_Morano@EPW.Senate.GOV
[CENTER] U. S. Senate Minority Report: [/CENTER]
[CENTER] More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims [/CENTER]
[CENTER] [SIZE=4]Scientists Continue to Debunk “Consensus” in 2008 & 2009[/SIZE] [/CENTER]
[SIZE=3][SIZE=4][SIZE=3]Update: March 17, 2009: 59 Scientists Joint Senate Report[/SIZE][SIZE=3] [/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE]
[SIZE=3][SIZE=4][SIZE=3]Update: January 28, 2009: James Hansen's Former NASA Supervisor Declares Himself a Skeptic[/SIZE][SIZE=3] [/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][SIZE=3][SIZE=4] [SIZE=3]Update: December 22, 2008: More Prominent Scientists Join Senate Report[/SIZE][SIZE=3] [/SIZE]
Link to Full Printable 255-Page PDF Report
(Updates Previous Report: “More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims” released on Decmeber 11, 2008)
O[SIZE=3]ver 700 dissenting scientists (updates previous 650 report) from around the globe challenged man-made global warming claims made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Vice President Al Gore. This new 2009 255-page U.S. Senate Minority Report -- updated from 2007’s groundbreaking report of over 400 scientists who voiced skepticism about the so-called global warming “consensus” -- features the skeptical voices of over 700 prominent international scientists, including many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN IPCC. This updated report includes an additional 300 (and growing) scientists and climate researchers since the initial release in December 2007. The over 700 dissenting scientists are more than 13 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers. [/SIZE][SIZE=3] The chorus of skeptical scientific voices grow louder in 2008 and 2009 as a steady stream of peer-reviewed studies, analyses, real world data and inconvenient developments challenged the UN’s and former Vice President Al Gore's claims that the "science is settled" and there is a "consensus." On a range of issues, 2008 and 2009 proved to be challenging for the promoters of man-made climate fears. Promoters of anthropogenic warming fears endured the following: Global temperaturesfailingto warm; Peer-reviewed studiespredicting a continued lack of warming; a failed attempt to revive the discredited “Hockey Stick”; inconvenient developments and studies regarding rising CO2; the SpotlessSun; Clouds; Antarctica; the Arctic; Greenland’s ice; Mount Kilimanjaro; Global sea ice; Causesof Hurricanes; ExtremeStorms; Extinctions; Floods; Droughts; Ocean Acidification;PolarBears; Extreme weather deaths; Frogs; lack of atmospheric dust; Malaria; the failure of oceans to warmand rise as predicted.
In addition, the following developments further secured 2008 and 2009 as the years the “consensus” collapsed. Russian scientists “rejected the very idea that carbon dioxide may be responsible for global warming”. An American Physical Society editor conceded that a “considerable presence” of scientific skeptics exists. An International team of scientists countered the UN IPCC, declaring: “Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate”. India Issued a report challenging global warming fears.International Scientists demanded the UN IPCC “be called to account and cease its deceptive practices,”and a canvass of more than 51,000 Canadian scientists revealed 68% disagree that global warming science is “settled.” [SIZE=3] AJapan Geoscience Union symposium survey in 2008 “showed 90 per cent of the participants do not believe the IPCC report.”[/SIZE]
This new report issued by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee's office of the GOP Ranking Member is the latest evidence of the growing groundswell of scientific opposition challenging significant aspects of the claims of the UN IPCC and Al Gore. Scientific meetings are now being dominated by a growing number of skeptical scientists. The prestigious International Geological Congress, dubbed the geologists' equivalent of the Olympic Games, was held in Norway in August 2008 and prominently featured the voices of scientists skeptical of man-made global warming fears. [See: Skeptical scientists overwhelm conference: '2/3 of presenters and question-askers were hostile to, even dismissive of, the UN IPCC' & see full reports here & here - Also see: UN IPCC's William Schlesinger admits in 2009 that only 20% of IPCC scientists deal with climate ]
Even the mainstream media has begun to take notice of the expanding number of scientists serving as “consensus busters.” A November 25, 2008, article in Politico noted that a “growing accumulation” of science is challenging warming fears, and added that the “science behind global warming may still be too shaky to warrant cap-and-trade legislation.” Canada’s National Post noted on October 20, 2008, that “the number of climate change skeptics is growing rapidly.” New York Times environmental reporter Andrew Revkin noted on March 6, 2008, "As we all know, climate science is not a numbers game (there are heaps of signed statements by folks with advanced degrees on all sides of this issue)," Revkin wrote. (LINK) In 2007, Washington Post Staff Writer Juliet Eilperin conceded the obvious, writing that climate skeptics "appear to be expanding rather than shrinking."

Skeptical scientists are gaining recognition despite what many say is a bias against them in parts of the scientific community and are facing significant funding disadvantages. Dr. William M. Briggs, a climate statistician who serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee, explained that his colleagues described “absolute horror stories of what happened to them when they tried getting papers published that explored non-‘consensus’ views.” In a March 4, 2008, report Briggs described the behavior as “really outrageous and unethical … on the parts of some editors. I was shocked.” (LINK) [Note: An August 2007 report detailed how proponents of man-made global warming fears enjoy a monumental funding advantage over skeptical scientists. LINK A July 2007 Senate report details how skeptical scientists have faced threats and intimidation - LINK & LINK ]

Highlights of the Updated 2008/2009 Senate Minority Report featuring over 700 international scientists dissenting from man-made climate fears:
“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.
“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical...The main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system.” - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”

Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists.” - Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.

“So far, real measurements give no ground for concern about a catastrophic future warming.” - Scientist Dr. Jarl R. Ahlbeck, a chemical engineer at Abo Akademi University in Finland, author of 200 scientific publications and former Greenpeace member.

“Anyone who claims that the debate is over and the conclusions are firm has a fundamentally unscientific approach to one of the most momentous issues of our time.” - Solar physicist Dr. Pal Brekke, senior advisor to the Norwegian Space Centre in Oslo. Brekke has published more than 40 peer-reviewed scientific articles on the sun and solar interaction with the Earth.
“The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.” - Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico
“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA. “Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.” – . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.
After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri's asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it's hard to remain quiet.” - Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.
“The Kyoto theorists have put the cart before the horse. It is global warming that triggers higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not the other way round…A large number of critical documents submitted at the 1995 U.N. conference in Madrid vanished without a trace. As a result, the discussion was one-sided and heavily biased, and the U.N. declared global warming to be a scientific fact,” Andrei Kapitsa, a Russian geographer and Antarctic ice core researcher.
“I am convinced that the current alarm over carbon dioxide is mistaken...Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science.” - Award Winning Physicist Dr. Will Happer, Professor at the Department of Physics at Princeton Universityand Former Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy, who has published over 200 scientific papers, and is a fellow of the American Physical Society, The American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the National Academy of Sciences.

“Nature's regulatory instrument is water vapor: more carbon dioxide leads to less moisture in the air, keeping the overall GHG content in accord with the necessary balance conditions.” – Prominent Hungarian Physicist and environmental researcher Dr. Miklós Zágoni reversed his view of man-made warming and is now a skeptic. Zágoni was once Hungary’s most outspoken supporter of the Kyoto Protocol.
“For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?" - Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.
“Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” - Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.
“The quantity of CO2 we produce is insignificant in terms of the natural circulation between air, water and soil... I am doing a detailed assessment of the UN IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science.” - South Afican Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150 refereed publications.
“Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.” - Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.
“All those urging action to curb global warming need to take off the blinkers and give some thought to what we should do if we are facing global cooling instead.” - Geophysicist Dr. Phil Chapman, an astronautical engineer and former NASA astronaut, served as staff physicist at MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
“Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.” - Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.
“CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.” - Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.
“The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds.- Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata.

“Whatever the weather, it's not being caused by global warming. If anything, the climate may be starting into a cooling period.” Atmospheric scientist Dr. Art V. Douglas, former Chair of the Atmospheric Sciences Department at Creighton University in Omaha, Nebraska, and is the author of numerous papers for peer-reviewed publications.

“But there is no falsifiable scientific basis whatever to assert this warming is caused by human-produced greenhouse gasses because current physical theory is too grossly inadequate to establish any cause at all.” - Chemist Dr. Patrick Frank, who has authored more than 50 peer-reviewed articles.
“The ‘global warming scare’ is being used as a political tool to increase government control over American lives, incomes and decision making. It has no place in the Society's activities.” - Award-Winning NASA Astronaut/Geologist and Moonwalker Jack Schmitt who flew on the Apollo 17 mission and formerly of the Norwegian Geological Survey and for the U.S. Geological Survey.
“Earth has cooled since 1998 in defiance of the predictions by the UN-IPCC….The global temperature for 2007 was the coldest in a decade and the coldest of the millennium…which is why ‘global warming’ is now called ‘climate change.’” - Climatologist Dr. Richard Keen of the Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences at the University of Colorado.
“I have yet to see credible proof of carbon dioxide driving climate change, yet alone man-made CO2 driving it. The atmospheric hot-spot is missing and the ice core data refute this. When will we collectively awake from this deceptive delusion?” - Dr. G LeBlanc Smith, a retired Principal Research Scientist with Australia’s CSIRO. (The full quotes of the scientists are later in this report)
[SIZE=3]# [/SIZE]
[SIZE=3] [SIZE=3]This Senate report is not a “list” of scientists, but a report that includes full biographies of each scientist and their quotes, papers and links for further reading. The scientists featured in the report express their views in their own words, complete with their intended subtleties and caveats. This Senate report features the names, biographies, academic/institutional affiliation, and quotes of literally hundreds of additional international scientists who publicly dissented from man-made climate fears. This report lists the scientists by name, country of residence, and academic/institutional affiliation. It also features their own words, biographies, and weblinks to their peer reviewed studies, scientific analyses and original source materials as gathered from directly from the scientists or from public statements, news outlets, and websites in 2007 and 2008. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]The distinguished scientists featured in this new report are experts in diverse fields, including: climatology; geology; biology; glaciology; biogeography; meteorology; oceanography; economics; chemistry; mathematics; environmental sciences; astrophysics, engineering; physics and paleoclimatology. Some of those profiled have won Nobel Prizes for their outstanding contribution to their field of expertise and many shared a portion of the UN IPCC Nobel Peace Prize with Vice President Gore. [/SIZE][SIZE=3]Additionally, these scientists hail from prestigious institutions worldwide, including: Harvard University; NASA; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR); Massachusetts Institute of Technology; the UN IPCC; the Danish National Space Center; U.S. Department of Energy; Princeton University; the Environmental Protection Agency; University of Pennsylvania; Hebrew University of Jerusalem; the International Arctic Research Centre; the Pasteur Institute in Paris; the Belgian Weather Institute; Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute; the University of Helsinki; the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S., France, and Russia; the University of Pretoria; University of Notre Dame; Abo Akademi University in Finland; University of La Plata in Argentina; Stockholm University; Punjab University in India; University of Melbourne; Columbia University; the World Federation of Scientists; and the University of London. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]Background: Only 52 Scientists Participated in UN IPCC Summary [/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]The notion of "hundreds" or "thousands" of UN scientists agreeing to a scientific statement does not hold up to scrutiny. (See report debunking "consensus" LINK) [/SIZE][SIZE=3]Recent research by Australian climate data analyst John McLean revealed that the IPCC's peer-review process for the Summary for Policymakers leaves much to be desired. (LINK) (LINK) ([/SIZE][SIZE=3]LINK[/SIZE][SIZE=3]) & (LINK) (Note: The 52 scientists who participated in the 2007 IPCC Summary for Policymakers had to adhere to the wishes of the UN political leaders and delegates in a process described as more closely resembling a political party’s convention platform battle, not a scientific process -[/SIZE] LINK[SIZE=3]) [/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]One former UN IPCC scientist bluntly told EPW how the UN IPCC Summary for Policymakers “distorted” the scientists work. “I have found examples of a Summary saying precisely the opposite of what the scientists said,” explained South Afican Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150 refereed publications. [Also see: Internal Report Says U.N. Climate Agency Rife With Bad Practices - Fox News – December 4, 2008 ][/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]Proponents of man-made global warming like to note how the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the American Meteorological Society (AMS) have issued statements endorsing the so-called "consensus" view that man is driving global warming. But both the NAS and AMS never allowed member scientists to directly vote on these climate statements. Essentially, only two dozen or so members on the governing boards of these institutions produced the "consensus" statements. This report gives a voice to the rank-and-file scientists who were shut out of the process. (LINK) [ AlsoSee: MIT Climate Scientist Exposes ‘Corrupted Science’ in Devastating Critique – November 29, 2008 ] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]One of the more recent attempts to imply there was an overwhelming scientific "consensus" in favor of man-made global warming fears came in December 2007 during the UN climate conference in Bali. A letter signed by only 215 scientists urged the UN to mandate deep cuts in carbon dioxide emissions by 2050. But absent from the letter were the signatures of these alleged "thousands" of scientists. (See AP article: - LINK ) The more than 700 scientists expressing skepticism, comes after the UN IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri implied that there were only “about a dozen" skeptical scientists left in the world. (LINK) Former Vice President Gore has claimed that scientists skeptical of climate change are akin to "flat Earth society members" and similar in number to those who "believe the moon landing was actually staged in a movie lot in Arizona." (LINK) & (LINK) [/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]Examples of "consensus" claims made by promoters of man-made climate fears: [/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]Former Vice President Al Gore (November 5, 2007): "There are still people who believe that the Earth is flat." (LINK) Gore also compared global warming skeptics to people who "believe the moon landing was actually staged in a movie lot in Arizona." (June 20, 2006 - LINK) [/SIZE][SIZE=3][/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]CNN's Miles O'Brien (July 23, 2007): "The scientific debate is over," O'Brien said. "We're done." O'Brien also declared on CNN on February 9, 2006 that scientific skeptics of man-made catastrophic global warming "are bought and paid for by the fossil fuel industry, usually." (LINK) [/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]On July 27, 2006, Associated Press reporter Seth Borenstein described a scientist as "one of the few remaining scientists skeptical of the global warming harm caused by industries that burn fossil fuels." (LINK) [/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, Chairman of the IPCC view on the number of skeptical scientists as quoted on Feb. 20, 2003: "About 300 years ago, a Flat Earth Society was founded by those who did not believe the world was round. That society still exists; it probably has about a dozen members." (LINK) [/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]Agence France-Press (AFP Press) article (December 4, 2007): The article noted that a prominent skeptic "finds himself increasingly alone in his claim that climate change poses no imminent threat to the planet." [/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]Andrew Dessler in the eco-publication Grist Magazine (November 21, 2007): "While some people claim there are lots of skeptical climate scientists out there, if you actually try to find one, you keep turning up the same two dozen or so (e.g., Singer, Lindzen, Michaels, Christy, etc., etc.). These skeptics are endlessly recycled by the denial machine, so someone not paying close attention might think there are lots of them out there -- but that's not the case." (LINK) [/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]The Washington Post asserted on May 23, 2006 that there were only "a handful of skeptics" of man-made climate fears. (LINK) [/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]UN special climate envoy Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland on May 10, 2007 declared the climate debate "over" and added “it's completely immoral, even, to question” the UN’s scientific “consensus." (LINK) [/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer said it was “criminally irresponsible” to ignore the urgency of global warming on November 12, 2007. (LINK) [/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]ABC News Global Warming Reporter Bill Blakemore reported on August 30, 2006: "After extensive searches, ABC News has found no such [scientific] debate" on global warming. (LINK)[/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]# [/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]While the scientists contained in this report hold a diverse range of views, they generally rally around several key points. 1) The Earth is currentlywell withinnatural climate variability. 2) Almost all climate fear is generated by unproven computer modelpredictions. 3) An abundance of peer-reviewed studies continue to debunk rising CO2 fears and, 4) "Consensus" has been manufactured for political, not scientific purposes.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]# [/SIZE]
[LEFT] [SIZE=3] [SIZE=4]Link to Full Printable 255-Page PDF Report[/SIZE][/SIZE] [/LEFT]
[LEFT] [SIZE=3]# # # # [/SIZE][/LEFT]
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 11-24-2012, 01:31 PM
Location: Planet earth
2,510 posts, read 1,119,243 times
Reputation: 765
BBC’s “Best Scientific Experts” « Climate Audit

Nic Lewis on Statistical errors in the Forest 2006 climate sensitivity study « Climate Audit

Karoly and Gergis vs Journal of Climate « Climate Audit

Gergis et al Correspondence « Climate Audit

IPCC Check Kites Gergis « Climate Audit

AGU Webinar on Michael Mann « Climate Audit
for the link above, just scroll down to read the transcripts.

A Belated SI for D’Arrigo et al 2006 « Climate Audit

You just can't make this crap up!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 11-24-2012, 02:05 PM
Location: Planet earth
2,510 posts, read 1,119,243 times
Reputation: 765
Lewandowsky and “Hide the Decline” « Climate Audit

The Afterlife of IPCC 1990 Figure 7.1 « Climate Audit

Kahneman Scathes Social Psychologists « Climate Audit

Wow... This goes on and on and on... I've been going backwards from the present date, and I'm still in October of 2012!

Is it possible that these SUPPOSED scientists are pushing an agenda rather than science? There is credible evidence showing that MANY of them ARE doing just that.

What is really funny is they are so narcissistic, and have such blind faith in their religion of anthropogenic global warming (climate change) that they were stupid enough to not plan on having their work audited.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 11-24-2012, 02:24 PM
Location: Planet earth
2,510 posts, read 1,119,243 times
Reputation: 765
Disinformation from Kerry Emanuel « Climate Audit

Ross McKitrick Posted Mar 31, 2011 at 3:57 PM | Permalink | Reply
Emanuel said that the authors “only omitted that part of it that was provably false.” Emanuel’s statement is provably false.
He is presumably referring to Phil Jones’ 1999 WMO graph, where he removed the post-1960 portion of Briffa’s data to hide the decline. Jones does not claim in his email (0942777075.txt) that he is deleting it because it is false, he says he is deleting it to Hide the Decline; he offers no proof that up to 1960 the measurements were accurate but after 1960 they became inaccurate. He only refers to the fact that after 1960 they decline, and he deleted them to hide the fact.
The next Hide the Decline episode was in the 2001 IPCC Report, followed by the 2007 IPCC Report. In the email chain leading up to the 2001 IPCC report (see Steve’s summary here and links to emails therein) no one claimed to have proof of the explanation for the divergence. In fact Mann admitted they didn’t have an explanation about why the different series diverged:
So if Chris[Folland] and Tom [Karl] are ok with this, I would be happy to add Keith’s series. That having been said, it does raise a conundrum: We demonstrate [through comparining an exatropical averaging of our nothern hemisphere patterns with Phil's more extratropical series) that the major discrepancies between Phil's and our series can be explained in terms of spatial sampling/latitudinal emphasis (seasonality seems to be secondary here, but probably explains much of the residual differences). But that explanation certainly can't rectify why Keith's series, which has similar seasonality *and* latitudinal emphasis to Phil's series, differs in large part in exactly the opposite direction that Phil's does from ours.]
When the NAS panel looked at the divergence issue in 2006 they spent 4 pages (pp 48-52)discussing various possible explanations but didn’t endorse any of them, much less indicate one as “proof”.
If there is proof that the data was accurate up to 1960 and then wrong after 1960 for reasons that can be fully accounted for, none of the authors who deleted the data claimed to possess it at the time they did the deletion, or since, nor have any of the reports on the subject offered such proof.
Emanuel’s claim is completely contradicted by the factual record. And to think he boasts about being an expert on Climategate because he was one of Oxburgh’s paint crew.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 11-24-2012, 02:29 PM
Location: Planet earth
2,510 posts, read 1,119,243 times
Reputation: 765
These supposed climate scientists are crooks and liars.

Just the email they have from Phil Jones, where he ADMITS deleting data from the set in an attempt to "Hide the Decline" makes any reference to the incomplete findings due to an intentionally falsified data set fraud. This whole thing is a scam.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 11-24-2012, 02:46 PM
Location: Planet earth
2,510 posts, read 1,119,243 times
Reputation: 765
These pathetic supposed "scientists" even have a Union with a publication on, "How Scientists Can Respond to Criticism and Personal Attacks".

Unbelievable! Science demands review, even and especially from the harshest critics. Prove your supposed science to people who really doubt it. The important word there being PROVE. Once you can PROVE it, it becomes science.

Every computer model on AGW showed a continued rise in temperature yet surprisingly, beginning in 1998, that rise in their models did not match the initial plateau and subsequent decline in average global temperatures.

SCAM FRAUD and LIES. That is all they have.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 11-24-2012, 02:54 PM
Location: Planet earth
2,510 posts, read 1,119,243 times
Reputation: 765
Where are all the tree hugging LIARS on C-D now? When asked to PROVE the claim of global warming, they attacked us and called names, but offered NOTHING more. So please explain why, if a person is actually a scientist, they need a Union? Why would that union come out with a strategy on deflecting criticism? Could it POSSIBLY be because they KNOW it is a LIE, yet because it meets the anti-capitalism, anti-rich, redistribution of wealth ideology template held by these proven LIARS, they are willing to cling to their obvious LIE?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 11-24-2012, 03:04 PM
Location: Planet earth
2,510 posts, read 1,119,243 times
Reputation: 765
From the UCS union pdf link:


Remember that you are not alone.
The Union of Concerned Scientists
has worked with many of the following
groups in defending scientists who have
been harassed. These organizations can help you
defend yourself against attacks.

Where to Look for Help

• The Center for Science and Democracy at the
Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) works to
restore the essential role of science, evidence-based
knowledge, and constructive debate in the U.S.
policy-making process. To be successful, we
must build the capacity of scientists to respond
to harassment. Learn more at UCS: Independent Science, Practical Solutions | Union of Concerned Scientists

• The American Association of University
Professors, with 47,000-plus members, works to
advance academic freedom and shared university
governance, to define fundamental values and
standards for higher education, and to ensure
higher education’s contribution to the common
good. The AAUP has worked with UCS to
defend researchers from political attacks.
See American Association of University Professors.

• The American Civil Liberties Union defends
individual rights and liberties guaranteed by the
U.S. Constitution. The ACLU has worked with
UCS to defend climate scientists from subpoenas
in Virginia. See American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

• The Climate Science Legal Defense Fund
believes that legal claims against one scientist or
institution can threaten science as a whole. The
fund has defended climate scientists who have
been dragged into litigation, and has acted
aggressively to protect the interests of science.
See Climate Science Legal Defense Fund.

• The Climate Science Rapid Response Team
is a matchmaking service that connects climate
scientists with lawmakers and the media. The
group is committed to providing high-quality
information quickly to media and government
officials. See Climate Science Rapid Response Team (CSRRT).

• Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility
is a national alliance of local, state, and
federal professionals who work on natural
resources. Among other objectives, PEER defends
and strengthens the legal rights of public employees
who speak out about resource management
and environmental protection. The organization
provides free legal assistance if needed. In addition,
PEER operates the Climate Science Legal
Defense Fund.

• Your scientific society can speak out in your
defense in the media or the courts.

• Your department head, organizational leadership,
faculty senate, public relations office,
or Freedom of Information Act representative
may be able to offer you additional support.

• A Scientist’s Guide to Talking with the Media.
This easy-to-use book from UCS draws on the
authors’ expertise in public relations and journalism
to help researchers talk about their work and
its importance in their own terms. The book provides
tips on how to translate abstract concepts
into concrete metaphors, craft sound bites, and
prepare for interviews. The authors explain how to
become a reporter’s trusted source on controversial
issues. See www.ucsusa.org/scientistsmediaguide
for the book and www.ucsusa.org/deskreference
for a desk reference describing the book.

• Google alerts. To set up key-word searches for
your name and related terms, go to www.google.
com/alerts. Google will e-mail you when the terms
show up in newspaper articles, major blogs, or
other locations on the Internet.

• Technorati. To search thousands of blogs for your
name or other pertinent information, go to www.
technorati.com. The site also provides information
on blogs’ popularity and readership.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 11-24-2012, 06:05 PM
Location: Central Illinois -
19,645 posts, read 13,281,618 times
Reputation: 12815
What's with all the propaganda? Who is going to read that crap?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.

Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top