Thousands of Scientists are Skeptical of Global Warming

[Poptech]

31,478 Scientists Reject ‘Global Warming’ Agenda (Petition Project)
4000 Scientists sign ‘The Heidelberg Appeal’ (Science & Environmental Policy Project)
1500 Scholars, Policy Experts and Theologians sign the ‘Cornwall Declaration on Environmental Stewardship’ (Cornwall Allliance)1100 Climate Realists sign ‘The Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change’ (ICSC)
700 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims (US Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works)
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)
170 Scientists, Economists and Theologians sign an open letter to the signers of ‘Climate Change: An Evangelical Call to Action’ (Cownwall Alliance)
116 Scientists Rebuke Obama as ‘Simply Incorrect’ on Global Warming (Cato Institute)
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)

[Poptech]

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, Former Director, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Bioenvironmental Division, USA
Adriano Mazzarella, Ph.D. Professor of Earth Sciences, University of Naples, Italy
Aksel C. Wiin-Nielsen, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Geophysical Science, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
Albrecht Glatzle, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Agricultural Biology, University of Hohenheim, Germany
Alexander Gumen, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Environmental Geology and Geophysics, University of Gomel, Russia

LIST TRIMMED

[Poptech]

R.G. Roper, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Science, Georgia Institute of Technology, USA
R. Perry Glaister, Ph.D. Geology, Canada
R. Tim Patterson, Ph.D. Professor of Earth Science, Carleton University, Canada

[[list trimmed]]

[Poptech]

Meteorologists:

"Scientists that study the earth’s atmosphere, climate, and weather" - Wordsmyth Dictionary

A.J. Colby, B.S. Atmospheric Science, AMS Certified, Meteorologist WKYC-TV, USA
Andre Bernier, B.S. Meteorology, Meteorologist WJW-TV, USA

[trimmed list]]

[Poptech]

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 Carlin, B.S. Physics, Ph.D. Economics, Senior Economist, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, USA
Alan Moran, Ph.D. Economics, Director of the IPA’s Deregulation Unit, Australia

[[trimmed list]]

[GIGObuster]

Oh Really?

greenman3610

32,000 leading scientists signed a petition against global warming?
Is that really true?
Well, no…
But to get to the bottom of this crock , we’ll have to go back in history, and meet someone who really was, at one time, a leading scientist.

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2004/05/oregonpetition.php

Still, why would 17,000 scientists agree with the far weaker statement above? Well, it looks like that involved misrepresentation by the OISM as well. It seems they were mailed this letter from Frederick Seitz which said:

Research Review of Global Warming Evidence

Below is an eight page review of information on the subject of "global warming," and a petition in the form of a reply card. Please consider these materials carefully.

The United States is very close to adopting an international agreement that would ration the use of energy and of technologies that depend upon coal, oil, and natural gas and some other organic compounds.

This treaty is, in our opinion, based upon flawed ideas. Research data on climate change do not show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful. To the contrary, there is good evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful.

Unfortunately, the “research review” they were sent is not a research review of global warming evidence, but just a review of the evidence against global warming. According to the “review”, the earth isn’t warming, it’s cooling:

Predictions of global warming are based on computer climate modeling, a branch of science still in its infancy. The empirical evidence actual measurements of Earth's temperature shows no man-made warming trend. Indeed, over the past two decades, when CO2 levels have been at their highest, global average temperatures have actually cooled slightly.

How was the “review” able to claim cooling? Simple. The authors presented the satellite data (which at the time showed slight cooling, but now shows significant warming) but dismissed the more extensive surface data because it had “substantial uncertainties”. The only uncertainty that they mention is the urban heat island effect and what they fail to mention is that the surface temperature estimated by GISS corrects for the urban heat island effect. The “review” is not honest.

As a researcher, when I see a “research review” I expect that it will cover all the relevant research. I can certainly understand how a scientist who was under the impression that it was a genuine review might be persuaded that there was no good evidence for global warming, especially because the vast majority of scientists who signed were not climate scientists. Furthermore, in his cover letter Seitz identified himself as a past president of the NAS and the typeface and format of the “review” matched that used by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. This report from PR Watch explains how the NAS was forced to correct the impression that it endorsed the “review”:

"The mailing is clearly designed to be deceptive by giving people the impression that the article, which is full of half-truths, is a reprint and has passed peer review," complained Raymond Pierrehumbert, an atmospheric chemist at the University of Chicago. NAS foreign secretary F. Sherwood Rowland, an atmospheric chemist, said researchers "are wondering if someone is trying to hoodwink them." NAS council member Ralph J. Cicerone, dean of the School of Physical Sciences at the University of California at Irvine, was particularly offended that Seitz described himself in the cover letter as a "past president" of the NAS. Although Seitz had indeed held that title in the 1960s, Cicerone hoped that scientists who received the petition mailing would not be misled into believing that he "still has a role in governing the organization."

The NAS issued an unusually blunt formal response to the petition drive. "The NAS Council would like to make it clear that this petition has nothing to do with the National Academy of Sciences and that the manuscript was not published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences or in any other peer-reviewed journal," it stated in a news release. "The petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy." In fact, it pointed out, its own prior published study had shown that "even given the considerable uncertainties in our knowledge of the relevant phenomena, greenhouse warming poses a potential threat sufficient to merit prompt responses. Investment in mitigation measures acts as insurance protection against the great uncertainties and the possibility of dramatic surprises."

Of course, some of the signatories might have signed it even if they were better informed about global warming research. The Scientific American did a check:

Scientific American took a random sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition---one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers---a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community. 

And I can’t help but share the Tech Central Station take on Scientific American’s check:

SciAm reported on the Oregon Petition against Kyoto back in October 2001, but rather than being encouraged by the extent of professional opinion supporting an optimistic reading of the evidence, the publication sniffed through the names until the editors found six (unnamed) signatories who apparently have since changed their minds. 

Gee, that makes it sound like they had to search through the entire 17,000 to find the six. And who wrote that highly misleading account of the Scientific American’s check? None other than Ross “no such thing as a Global Temperature” McKitrick.

[Face_Intentionally_Left_Blank]

Reported as no debate and a wall of names. When come back, bring debate.

[Der_Trihs]

@Poptech

Thousands of Scientists are Skeptical of Global Warming

To quote Albert Einstein when faced with similar empty argument by numbers, “If I were wrong, one would have been enough.”

[dragoncat]

Donald Trump is a scientist?

[running_coach]

@Face_Intentionally_Left_Blank

Reported as no debate and a wall of names. When come back, bring debate.

It’s also been posted numerous times on other boards.

[Der_Trihs]

Heh, note how the great majority are listed as “Economics” or “Political science” or “Business” or some such. Which means their opinion is little if any more authoritative on the subject than that of Bob the auto mechanic or Jane the bus driver. Just because you are an expert in one field doesn’t make you any more knowledgeable in another field than any other random layperson. Especially when the field in question isn’t even close to your own.

[Poptech]

@GIGObuster

Oh Really?

Yes really, all you have are lies,

Seitz in no way stated it was from the NAS and (shock) called himself a “past president of the NAS” which (shock) he was! What a crime! How dare someone state their credentials!

The petition is legitimate and so are all the names. Any fake names that were submitted were removed as well as any scientists who changed their mind. If any scientists have died they have noted it on the list. All the names are fully available on the website as well as the qualifications of the signers.

The scientific american check of 30 names (which have been corrected) is an absolute joke and there is a reason after all this years NO ONE has published a more thorough one.

[Poptech]

@Der_Trihs

Heh, note how the great majority are listed as “Economics” or “Political science” or “Business” or some such.

No they are not the majority, the majority are natural scientists.

@Der_Trihs

Which means their opinion is little if any more authoritative on the subject than…

Really so there is no WGIII to the IPCC report? So economists and political scientists had nothing to do with that report?

[campp]

I may be new here, but what’s the point of this post?
I could go off and find 10,000 names of people who don’t like the Beatles, but so what?

[Der_Trihs]

@Poptech

Yes really, all you have are lies,

Well, there’s also the fact that the whole exercise is meaningless. It doesn’t matter how many economists and lawyers and political science guys sign some right wing list; the polar ice melts just as fast. They do not “make their own reality”, no matter how much they want to believe it.

[Poptech]

@campp

I may be new here, but what’s the point of this post?
I could go off and find 10,000 names of people who don’t like the Beatles, but so what?

To prove their is no consensus on “man-made” global warming.

[Der_Trihs]

@Poptech

To prove their is no consensus on “man-made” global warming.

There is, like it or not. The real argument at this point is “how much” and “can anything be done”. Stamping your feet and saying “No!” won’t change reality.

[Biffy_the_Elephant_Shrew]

@campp

I could go off and find 10,000 names of people who don’t like the Beatles, but so what?

I knew it! The Beatles are a HOAX! Damn that Al Gore…

[Bootis]

@Poptech

To prove their is no consensus on “man-made” global warming.

One could list a hundred historians who deny the Holocaust too. Guess there’s no consensus on that either

[x-ray_vision]

@Poptech

To prove their is no consensus on “man-made” global warming.

Yes, there is.

http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/consensusD1.htm

Scientists Agree Human-induced Global Warming Is Real, Survey Says