AGW Alarmists should not fly first class

[intention]

@Lobohan

And finally, you’re taking potentially 40 names out of 700 as a win? What about the many thousands of professional climate scientists working in the field who think AGW is real?

I have asked before that you provide the list of the names of the “many thousands of professional climate scientists” that think AGW is real. So far … nothing. Provide the list of their names and quotations, and we’ll discuss it. At this point, we’re at forty to nothing, not including many other people on the 700 list who are climate scientists but that Kimstu’s list scoffs at …

PS - as I said the last time I asked, give names of individual climate scientists, not organizations whose three directors decided to sign on for whatever reason.

I await your list … but not with bated breath …

[GIGObuster]

@intention

Lobohan, you asked me to check the list for climate scientists. I’ll take your list for a start. Here’s one (emphasis mine):

OK, there’s the first one. He says, and he’s been involved intimately in the process, that the summary (the part of the IPCC report that is always quoted) is not written by scientists. He says that scientists can’t even explain the warming and cooling which has occurred in the 20th century. He says actions to reduce CO2 are futile, just as I said here.

Debunk away. Show us where he is wrong.

RealClimate: Lindzen in Newsweek

Lindzen claims that the known amount of ‘forcing’ on the system proves that CO2 will only have a small effect, yet makes plain in the subsequent paragraph that the total forcing (and hence what the planet should be reacting to) is quite uncertain (particularly before the satellite era). If the total forcing is uncertain, how can he say that he knows that the sensitivity is small? This issue has been dealt with much more seriously than Lindzen alludes to (as he well knows) and it’s clear that this calculation is simply too uncertain to constrain sensitivity on it’s own.

Among the more egregious of Lindzen’s assertions is this one:

Ten years ago climate modelers also couldn’t account for the warming that occurred from about 1050 to 1300. They tried to expunge the medieval warm period from the observational record—an effort that is now generally discredited. 

It’s remarkable that Lindzen is able to pack so many errors into two short sentences. First of all, doubts about the global scale of warmth associated with the “Medieval Climate Anomaly” date back well over a decade and certainly precede any known attempts to use climate models to simulate Medieval temperatures [e.g. Hughes and Diaz (1994), Was there a ‘medieval warm period’, and if so, where and when?; there are even earlier conference proceedings that were published coming to similar conclusions]. To the best of our knowledge, the first published attempt to use a climate model and estimated forcing histories to simulate the climate of the past millennium was described less than 7 years ago in this Science article by Tom Crowley, not 10 years ago– (a 43% error ). Crowley’s original study and the other similar studies published since, established that the model simulations are in fact in close agreement with the reconstructions, all of which indicate that at the scale of the Northern Hemisphere, peak Medieval warmth was perhaps comparable to early/mid 20th century warmth, but that it fell well short of the warmth of the most recent decades. Not only has the most recent IPCC report confirmed this assessment, it has in fact extended it further back, concluding that the large-scale warmth of recent decades is likely anomalous in at least the past 1300 years. So we’re puzzled as to precisely what Lindzen would like to have us believe was “expunged” or “discredited”, and by whom?

Finally, we find it curious that Lindzen chose to include this very lawyerly disclaimer at the end of the piece:

[Lindzen's] research has always been funded exclusively by the U.S. government. He receives no funding from any energy companies. 

Richard, one thinks thou dost protest too much! A casual reader would be led to infer that Lindzen has received no industry money for his services. But that would be wrong. He has in fact received a pretty penny from industry. But this isn’t for research. Rather it is for his faithful advocacy of a fossil fuel industry-friendly point of view. So Lindzen’s claim is true, on a technicality. But while the reader is led to believe that there is no conflict of interest at work behind Lindzen’s writings, just the opposite is the case.

RealClimate: Will-full ignorance

4. the decline of global temperatures from 1940 to 1970
   This is one statement that we can agree with — there was cooling in the 1940s to 1970s. But the cooling is a small variation superimposed on the overall warming of the last century. As many of us have explained many times over, no one is claiming that CO2 is the only influence on climate. Indeed, far from being an embarrassment to climate scientists, this short period of cooling is in good agreement with model calculations that include the other natural and anthropogenic influences (see e.g. the IPCC assessment report Figure 12.7, and the paper by Delworth and Knutson in Science).

[Lobohan]

@intention

Lobohan, you asked me to check the list for climate scientists. I’ll take your list for a start. Here’s one (emphasis mine):

OK, there’s the first one. He says, and he’s been involved intimately in the process, that the summary (the part of the IPCC report that is always quoted) is not written by scientists. He says that scientists can’t even explain the warming and cooling which has occurred in the 20th century. He says actions to reduce CO2 are futile, just as I said here.

Debunk away. Show us where he is wrong.

I don’t have to.

@intention

Here’s another climate scientist officially approved by your list. Emphasis mine:

Debunk away …

I don’t have to.

You’ve presented two. Get one of those worthies to do some science to change the consensus. Because from where I sit, they seem to be trying to change public opinion. Which is a sure sign they don’t have the chops to back up their claims.

Also, David Legates and Richard Lizden have both worked for Exxon.

[GIGObuster]

@intention

Lobohan, these are examples of why attacking Inhofe is a simplistic red herring to distract people. Either what Lindzen and Legates say is true, or it isn’t. Science is science, whether or not you can prove that Inhofe is the devil incarnate.

Once again, in the spirit of friendly rivalry, I say again that your continuous attacks on me merely provide me with an opportunity to publicise the science that supports AGW skepticism … for which I sincerely thank you.

Actually the consensus of dopers is not very kind to you…

Just like in the research and academic world.

I can’t complain, I’m learning a lot, and learning how little support the deniers have is really comforting.

[Lobohan]

@intention

Lobohan, these are examples of why attacking Inhofe is a simplistic red herring to distract people. Either what Lindzen and Legates say is true, or it isn’t. Science is science, whether or not you can prove that Inhofe is the devil incarnate.

You obviously are so drummed up in this you’re having trouble thinking straight.

You are saying that there is a list of 700 names of scientists that don’t believe in AGW. You are saying that to bolster your claim and provide some ammo against the thousands of working climate scientists who find the evidence for AGW to be compelling.

Your list, the list you’re holding in your hot little hands and saying is evidence that AGW is a crock, that list is a fraud. It is full of lies, mis-quotations and people who don’t have the credentials to weigh in on the subject in any meaningful way.

The list is garbage. I expect you to stipulate that the list is garbage. Tell me that you aren’t going to point to Inhofe’s list as evidence for a groundswell against AGW. Or not, frankly I don’t see that you have much integrity left at this point.

Once again, in the spirit of friendly rivalry, I say again that your continuous attacks on me merely provide me with an opportunity to publicise the science that supports AGW skepticism … for which I sincerely thank you.

I ain’t your friend, pal. My friends don’t hold up fraudulent papers with known lies as evidence for what they’re arguing for.

@intention

I have asked before that you provide the list of the names of the “many thousands of professional climate scientists” that think AGW is real. So far … nothing. Provide the list of their names and quotations, and we’ll discuss it. At this point, we’re at forty to nothing, not including many other people on the 700 list who are climate scientists but that Kimstu’s list scoffs at …

PS - as I said the last time I asked, give names of individual climate scientists, not organizations whose three directors decided to sign on for whatever reason.

I await your list … but not with bated breath …

Go to a journal search page and enter climate change. I’ll bet that you’ll find a hundred articles for for each one against.

[GIGObuster]

@intention

Here’s another climate scientist officially approved by your list. Emphasis mine:

Debunk away …

Legates was noted also at Media Matters:

http://mediamatters.org/mobile/research/200705040001

• David R. Legates: As Media Matters has noted (here and here), Legates is associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research at the University of Delaware. His 2006 report, “Climate Science: Climate Change and Its Impacts,” was published by the National Center for Policy Analysis, a conservative think tank that has received substantial funding from energy interests such as ExxonMobil Corp. The report concluded that “the science does not support claims of drastic increases in global temperatures over the 21st century, nor does it support claims of human influence on weather events and other secondary effects of climate change.”

  Legates’ report claimed that “average summer air temperatures at the summit of the Greenland Ice Sheet, have decreased at the rate of 4 degrees F per decade since measurements began in 1987.” Legates attributed this finding to a 2004 report by climate scientist Petr Chylek of the Los Alamos National Laboratory. But Legates ignored a study published by Chylek a year later that attributed this cooling trend to local climate patterns – specifically, the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO). Chylek then analyzed the temperature record in the Danmarkshavn region of Greenland – an area on the northeastern coast apparently unaffected by the NAO – and found that the warming rate there was 2.2 times faster than the global average. This corresponds with United Nations climate change models that show Greenland warming at a faster rate than the rest of the planet and partially explains the rapid deterioration of the Greenland ice sheet in recent years.

[intention]

@Lobohan

You obviously are so drummed up in this you’re having trouble thinking straight.

You are saying that there is a list of 700 names of scientists that don’t believe in AGW. You are saying that to bolster your claim and provide some ammo against the thousands of working climate scientists who find the evidence for AGW to be compelling.

Your list, the list you’re holding in your hot little hands and saying is evidence that AGW is a crock, that list is a fraud. It is full of lies, mis-quotations and people who don’t have the credentials to weigh in on the subject in any meaningful way.

The list is garbage. I expect you to stipulate that the list is garbage. Tell me that you aren’t going to point to Inhofe’s list as evidence for a groundswell against AGW. Or not, frankly I don’t see that you have much integrity left at this point.

No list is “garbage”. It contains some true things, some not so true things, and some that are not true at all. I’ve given you two things, so you can show me why they are garbage. Get on with it and stop moaning.

@Lobohan

I ain’t your friend, pal. My friends don’t hold up fraudulent papers with known lies as evidence for what they’re arguing for.

Didn’t say you were my friend. I offered advice “in the spirit of friendly rivalry”. Surely you can distinguish between the two.

And if there are “lies” start pointing out the lies. You keep saying that there are “lies” … point them out.

@Lobohan

Go to a journal search page and enter climate change. I’ll bet that you’ll find a hundred articles for for each one against.

I’ve already provided my list. I’m waiting for you to provide yours. So far … nothing.

[intention]

Thanks, GIGObuster, rather than rave about Inhofe you actually discuss the science.

@GIGObuster

Legates’ report claimed that “average summer air temperatures at the summit of the Greenland Ice Sheet, have decreased at the rate of 4 degrees F per decade since measurements began in 1987.” Legates attributed this finding to a 2004 report by climate scientist Petr Chylek of the Los Alamos National Laboratory. But Legates ignored a study published by Chylek a year later that attributed this cooling trend to local climate patterns – specifically, the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO). Chylek then analyzed the temperature record in the Danmarkshavn region of Greenland – an area on the northeastern coast apparently unaffected by the NAO – and found that the warming rate there was 2.2 times faster than the global average. This corresponds with United Nations climate change models that show Greenland warming at a faster rate than the rest of the planet and partially explains the rapid deterioration of the Greenland ice sheet in recent years.

First, it is not true as your cite claims that Chylek found cooling in 2004, and then attributed it to the NAO in 2005. The abstract of the 2004 paper says:

The Greenland coastal temperatures have followed the early 20th century global warming trend. Since 1940, however, the Greenland coastal stations data have undergone predominantly a cooling trend. At the summit of the Greenland ice sheet the summer average temperature has decreased at the rate of 2.2 °C per decade since the beginning of the measurements in 1987. This suggests that the Greenland ice sheet and coastal regions are not following the current global warming trend. A considerable and rapid warming over all of coastal Greenland occurred in the 1920s when the average annual surface air temperature rose between 2 and 4 °C in less than ten years (at some stations the increase in winter temperature was as high as 6 °C). This rapid warming, at a time when the change in anthropogenic production of greenhouse gases was well below the current level, suggests a high natural variability in the regional climate. High anticorrelations (r = –0.84 to–0.93) between the NAO (North Atlantic Oscillation) index and Greenland temperature time series suggest a physical connection between these processes. Therefore, the future changes in the NAO and Northern Annular Mode may be of critical consequence to the future temperature forcing of the Greenland ice sheet melt rates.

So the issue of the NAO, which your cite claims that Legates ignored, was specifically discussed in the study that Legates cited.

Your beef seems to be that Legates didn’t use the 2005 study by Petr Chylek, published in June 13, 2006 Geophysical Research Letters. However, this Chylek 2005 study was not about the subject of Legates study, which was the Greenland Ice Sheet. It was about a single temperature station in Greenland, Danmarkshavn. Do you want him to include studies about Svalbard or Reykjavik as well? The 2005 Chylek study was not in any way concerned with the subject of Legates study … so why should he reference it? Legates was studying an area thousands of feet higher and hundreds of miles away from Danmarkshavn. They are in totally different climate zones.

Legates also didn’t use (because it wasn’t published then) the 2006 study by Petr Chylek, June 13, 2006, Geophysical Research Letters. That study concludes:

Although there has been a considerable temperature increase during the last decade (1995 to 2005) a similar increase and at a faster rate occurred during the early part of the 20th century (1920 to 1930) when carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases could not be a cause. The Greenland warming of 1920-1930 demonstrates that a high concentration of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is not a necessary condition for a period of warming to arise. The observed 1995-2005 temperature increase seems to be within natural variability of Greenland climate. A general increase in solar activity [Scafetta and West, 2006] since 1990’s can be a contributing factor as well as the sea surface temperature changes of tropical ocean [Hoerling et al., 2001]
…
To summarize, we find no direct evidence to support the claims that the Greenland ice sheet is melting due to increased temperature caused by increased atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide.

Read that again. They found no evidence that the Greenland Ice Sheet is melting from CO2. Temperatures warmed faster from 1920 to 1930 than in the recent warming period. They found that natural variability is the likely cause for the changes in temperature.

Now, that’s Chylek et. al, not Legates … so what is the problem with Legates claims? Seems like Chylek agrees about the Greenland Ice Sheet, both in his 2004 and his 2006 studies.

Chyleks 2005 study was about an entirely different area, a single station on the coast. Perhaps you can explain why Legates should have quoted it, before you bust him for not quoting it.

Finally, Chylek’s 2005 study seems quite mundane. He finds that the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) affects stations on the west coast of Greenland, but not Danmarkshavn on the Northeast Coast.

So I went to look at the temperature record that he used for Danmarkshavn. Nothing out of the ordinary, dropping from the fifties to the eighties, rising to until early this century, dropping since then … and Chylek’s paper finds the same:

@Chylek et. al

Temperature changes at Godthaab Nuuk on the west coast
of Greenland are highly anti-correlated with the NAO index
(r = 0.83) with almost no correlation to the global
temperature changes (r = 0.05). On the other hand
temperature records at Danmarkshavn, on the northern part
of the east coast, are highly correlated with global
temperature changes (r = 0.91) with almost no correlation
to the NAO index (r = 0.09)

Now, what is there in any of that that has the slightest bearing on the Greenland Ice Sheet? The 2005 paper says nothing about the Greenland Ice Sheet at all. Why should Legates cite a paper showing that a single station on the northeast coast of Greenland is acting like the rest of the planet, when he’s discussing the Greenland Ice Sheet?

Now, if I were like Lobohan I’d be screaming about “lies” and “hoaxes” and the like. I’m not, that kind of response to a citation is nonsense.

But I will say that if that’s the worst you can find about Legates, he’s untouched. Not only is he untouched, but your own cited climate scientist, Chylek, agree that CO2 has little to do with what’s happening in Greenland.

[Lobohan]

@intention

No list is “garbage”. It contains some true things, some not so true things, and some that are not true at all. I’ve given you two things, so you can show me why they are garbage. Get on with it and stop moaning.

So you are stipulating that Inhofe’s list, which has hundreds of fake names and willfully misquotes people is still a fine piece of evidence that there is a large group of scientists against AGW? As I said, since it is full of dishonest lies and fraud the onus is on you to show that it has any value.

Now that we’ve settled that, you need to re-read my last couple of posts, because you didn’t appear to understand them.

Didn’t say you were my friend. I offered advice “in the spirit of friendly rivalry”. Surely you can distinguish between the two.

It was a joke. Don’t they have jokes in Fiji?

there are “lies”.

Misrepresenting someone’s stance by omitting sections of their quote is a lie, isn’t it?

I’ve already provided my list. I’m waiting for you to provide yours. So far … nothing.

http://www.nature.com/search/executeSearch?sp-q-1=NATURE%2CNEWS&sp-q=climate+change&sp-c=25&sp-m=0&sp-s=date_descending&include-collections=journals_nature%2Ccrawled_content&exclude-collections=journals_palgrave%2Clab_animal&sp-a=sp1001702d&sp-sfvl-field=subject|ujournal&sp-x-1=ujournal&sp-p-1=phrase&sp-p=all&submit=go

[Lobohan]

@intention

Thanks, GIGObuster, rather than rave about Inhofe you actually discuss the science.

I only harp on Inhofe because you aren’t willing to admit that you posted a fraudulent document as evidence for your side.

Do you stipulate that the document you used as evidence for there being a huge number of scientists against AGW is fraudulent?

And thus your claim that there is a large number of scientists against AGW remains unproved?

Are you honest enough to do this or are you simply going to deflect and ignore?

Well buddy?

[heatmiserfl]

Anyone interested in looking at that list of ‘skeptics’? I looked up the very first guy, Donald G. Baker. First, he’s older than the hills. Second, he may have been a skeptic at one point but he has changed his mind. Why? Because his own research on soil temperatures supports GW.

Don Baker says for a long time he was a global warming skeptic. But his research has convinced him. Baker says he and his colleagues have measured a three-degree soil temperature rise over the past four decades at depths where, in a more stable climate, the temperatures would be expected to be unchanged.

“That’s one thing that has made me change mind as to what’s going on at the surface,” Baker says.

What’s going on at the surface, Baker now believes, is global warming influenced in part by human activity.

MPR: U of M climatologist took the earth's temperature

See how easy it is to show that the denier industry is full of BS?

[GIGObuster]

@intention

Now, if I were like Lobohan I’d be screaming about “lies” and “hoaxes” and the like. I’m not, that kind of response to a citation is nonsense.

But I will say that if that’s the worst you can find about Legates, he’s untouched. Not only is he untouched, but your own cited climate scientist, Chylek, agree that CO2 has little to do with what’s happening in Greenland.

RealClimate: Historical climatology in Greenland

[Response: Check out the GISTEMP site and see for yourself. As a function of the NAO trend through to about 1996 there was a significant cooling pattern over Greenland (look at annual mean trends from 1950 to 1996 for maximum effect), but the longer you average over the less that is seen (though since there is still a positive NAO trend it is still a factor). So 1900-2005 doesn’t show it for instance. Short time periods are always more variable. - gavin]

And what about more recent research?

Even when critical of exaggerations, researchers point out that:

RealClimate: On straw men and Greenland: Tad Pfeffer Responds

We agree that the media coverage of our paper (as well as others before it) has undesirable side effects. Wherever we had the opportunity we pressed media writers not to use terms like “exaggerated” or “high sea level forecasts debunked,” and we have consistently stressed that our results indicate a very significant sea level rise and are no justification for any kind of complacency. We have stressed that even our low end scenario of 0.8 m of SLR would have tremendous consequences. However, we stand by our statements that sea level rise at rates of substantially more than 2 m this century were in fact put forward as a likely possibility.

[intention]

@Lobohan

So you are stipulating that Inhofe’s list, which has hundreds of fake names and willfully misquotes people …

Please give us a list of the “hundreds of fake names” and the “wilful misquotations”, and we’ll discuss it.

[Lobohan]

@intention

Please give us a list of the “hundreds of fake names” and the “wilful misquotations”, and we’ll discuss it.

There are willful misquotations in this thread, you’ve discussed them.

As for the hundreds of fake names you’ve yourself suggested that 40 of the seven hundred are identified as actual climate scientists. The list is obviously suspect because of the:

1. Misquotations.

2. The inclusion of people without the credentials to weigh in. Like you, for instance.

[intention]

@Lobohan

I asked for a list of your claimed “thousands” of scientists who support the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming (AGW). You offer the following

http://www.nature.com/search/executeSearch?sp-q-1=NATURE%2CNEWS&sp-q=climate+change&sp-c=25&sp-m=0&sp-s=date_descending&include-collections=journals_nature%2Ccrawled_content&exclude-collections=journals_palgrave%2Clab_animal&sp-a=sp1001702d&sp-sfvl-field=subject|ujournal&sp-x-1=ujournal&sp-p-1=phrase&sp-p=all&submit=go

Looking at the URL, I find for the first item:

Evidence for warmer interglacials in East Antarctic ice cores

Stable isotope ratios of oxygen and hydrogen in the Antarctic ice core record have revolutionized our understanding of Pleistocene climate variations and have allowed reconstructions of Antarctic temperature over the past 800,000 years (800 kyr; refs 1, 2). The relationship between the D/H ratio of mean annual precipitation and mean annual surface air temperature is said to be uniform 10% over East Antarctica3 and constant with time 20% (refs 3–5). In the absence of strong independent temperature proxy evidence allowing us to calibrate individual ice cores, prior general circulation model (GCM) studies have supported the assumption of constant uniform conversion for climates cooler than that of the present day3, 5. Here we analyse the three available 340 kyr East Antarctic ice core records alongside input from GCM modelling. We show that for warmer interglacial periods the relationship between temperature and the isotopic signature varies among ice core sites, and that therefore the conversions must be nonlinear for at least some sites. Model results indicate that the isotopic composition of East Antarctic ice is less sensitive to temperature changes during warmer climates. We conclude that previous temperature estimates from interglacial climates are likely to be too low. The available evidence is consistent with a peak Antarctic interglacial temperature that was at least 6 K higher than that of the present day —approximately double the widely quoted 3 1.5 K (refs 5, 6).

Since this says nothing about anthropogenic global warming (unless you think there was AGW 120,000 years ago), your list is immaterial. In fact, it’s just a clumsy dredge of Nature for articles about climate change.

Nice try, though … still waiting for your list of “thousands” of scientists and quotes showing that they support AGW.

Oh, and you kept claiming that quotations on the list of 700 contained lies. For the third time I ask you to point out which of the quotations are “lies”. After asking three times, if you don’t come up with evidence to back up your claim, I think I’m justified in assuming that once again you are just making things up.

[intention]

@Lobohan

There are willful misquotations in this thread, you’ve discussed them.

As for the hundreds of fake names you’ve yourself suggested that 40 of the seven hundred are identified as actual climate scientists. The list is obviously suspect because of the:

1. Misquotations.

2. The inclusion of people without the credentials to weigh in. Like you, for instance.

I have said that a citation someone provided claimed that only 40 were climate scientists. I have repeatedly argued that that list was incorrect, giving examples of people that are obviously climate scientists who are not acknowledged as such in the citation. I have shown many more problems with the citation you endorsed than you have with the 700 list, so it’s you that are endorsing a list full of misrepresentations. Not sure why you bring this up again, but if you are arguing that we should only accept the forty climate scientists approved of by the citation that you endorsed, the citation that you said “seriously discredited” the 700 list, I’m one of the climate scientists they endorsed …

We discussed only one “misquotation” on the list, by Dr. Joanne Simpson. She has not said that she was misquoted, you have. I read her entry, and the full text, and I find that there was no misquotation, although YMMV. The 700 list said that she was skeptical about AGW, viz:

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.

Her full quote was:

Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receive any funding, I can speak quite frankly. For more than a decade now “global warming” and its impacts has become the primary interface between our science and society. A large group of earth scientists, voiced in an IPCC[1] statement, have reached what they claim is a consensus of nearly all atmospheric scientists that man-released greenhouse gases are causing increasing harm to our planet. They predict that most icepacks including those in the Polar Regions, also sea ice, will continue melting with disastrous ecological consequences including coastal flooding. There is no doubt that atmospheric greenhouse gases are rising rapidly and little doubt that some warming and bad ecological events are occurring. However, 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. We only need to watch the weather forecasts. However, a vocal minority of scientists so mistrusts the models and the complex fragmentary data, that some claim that global warming is a hoax. They have made public statements accusing other scientists of deliberate fraud in aid of their research funding. Both sides are now hurling personal epithets at each other, a very bad development in Earth sciences. The claim that hurricanes are being modified by the impacts of rising greenhouse gases is the most inflammatory frontline of this battle and the aspect that journalists enjoy the most. The situation is so bad that the front page of the Wall Street Journal printed an article in which one distinguished scientist said another distinguished scientist has a fossilized brain. He, in turn, refers to his critics as “the Gang of Five”.

Few of these people seem to have any skeptical self-criticism left, although virtually all of the claims are derived from either flawed data sets or imperfect models or both. The term “global warming” itself is very vague. Where and what scales of response are measurable? One distinguished scientist has shown that many aspects of climate change are regional, some of the most harmful caused by changes in human land use. No one seems to have properly factored in population growth and land use, particularly in tropical and coastal areas.

What should we as a nation do? Decisions have to be made on incomplete information. In this case, we must act on the recommendations of Gore and the IPCC because if we do not reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and the climate models are right, the planet as we know it will in this century become unsustainable. But as a scientist I remain skeptical.

Does that sound to you like a contradiction to the quote in the list of 700? And if so, why? First, note that she clearly indicates (as I have repeatedly stated) that there is pressure on scientists not to speak out for fear of losing funding. Next she says (as I have often said) that the models can’t be trusted. She does think that we should take actions to reduce greenhouse gases on the chance that the models are right … me, I disagree. But she remains skeptical about the science … as am I.

Now, how is the shortened quote in the 700 list a misrepresention about the science (and the lack thereof) behind AGW? Or as Joanne Simpson says,

<blockquote>Few of these people seem to have any skeptical self-criticism left, although virtually all of the claims are derived from either flawed data sets or imperfect models or both.</blockquote>

Doesn’t sound like someone who is impressed with the science, which is the point of the 700 list …

[elucidator]

…if you don’t come up with evidence to back up your claim, I think I’m justified in assuming that once again you are just making things up.

So, the seismic shift in your thinking will go from being 100% sure you’re right to being 100% absitively and posolutely sure you’re right? Wow.

[intention]

@GIGObuster

RealClimate: Historical climatology in Greenland
And what about more recent research?

Even when critical of exaggerations, researchers point out that:
RealClimate: On straw men and Greenland: Tad Pfeffer Responds

I don’t understand your argument here. What is it that Legates said about the Greenland Ice Cap that Chylek contradicted? Both of them agree that CO2 has nothing to do with the changes on the Ice Cap.

And more to the point, this discussion is not about whether the scientists in the 700 list are right. That discussion would be endless.

It is about the oft repeated claim that the scientists have been misquoted or misrepresented by the quotes in the 700 list.

Let me give you the Legates quote again from the 700 list, and you can point out the misquotations or the misrepresentations:

Climatologist Dr. David R. Legates, the Delaware State Climatologist and the Director, Center for Climatic Research at the University of Delaware, has authored or coauthored 45 peer-reviewed scientific studies. Legates also expressed climate skepticism in 2007. “Scientific debate continues regarding the extent to which human activities contribute to global warming and what the potential impact on the environment might be. Importantly, much of the scientific evidence contradicts assertions that substantial global warming is likely to occur soon and that the predicted warming will harm the Earth’s biosphere,” Legates wrote in a May 15, 2007 study entitled “Climate Science: Climate Change and Its Impacts.” “Sea levels have been rising - in fact, they have been rising since the end of the last ice age 20,000 years ago - but there is no evidence of an
accelerating trend. The complexity of the climate and the limitations of data and computer models mean projections of future climate change are unreliable at best. In sum, the science does not support claims of drastic increases in global temperatures over the 21st century, nor does it support claims of human influence on weather events and other secondary effects of climate change,” Legates concluded. Legates has also served as Coordinator of the National Geographic sponsored Delaware Geographic Alliance and served as the Associate Director for the NASA sponsored Delaware Space Grant Consortium. (LINK) Legates has also clashed with the Governor of Delaware in 2007 because of the Governor disagreed with his skeptical views on global warming. (LINK)

Let me boil down his arguments:

1. Debate continues about the AGW hypothesis and the effect of CO2.

2. There is no evidence of an increased rate of sea level rise.

3. Climate models are unreliable.

4. Science does not support claims of drastic temperature increases or human influence on weather events.

Now, your claim is that these are misrepresentations or misquotations of Legates position. At issue here is not whether he is right or wrong, but whether the 700 list is misrepresenting his position as you and Lobohan and others continually insist. I see no misrepresentation or misquotation there, please point them out. Lobohan, don’t hesitate to chime in on where this misrepresents Legates position.

[GIGObuster]

@intention

Oh, and you kept claiming that quotations on the list of 700 contained lies. For the third time I ask you to point out which of the quotations are “lies”. After asking three times, if you don’t come up with evidence to back up your claim, I think I’m justified in assuming that once again you are just making things up.

I don’t go much for the specific lies, (Although I pointed already the one directed at Gore) I do think the 40 honest to goodness or close to goodness climate change skeptics that remain after the purge just can not make much headway in the current consensus.

Logicalscience

According to Eli Rabett there are roughly 20,000-ish climatologists that are members of the AGU. About 5,000 of those are Europeans taking part in a mostly American club. There are no stats on worldwide climatologists yet. But as Professor Eli also says: “if you ain’t a member of the AGU you ain’t no damn climate scientist in the US”. Well applying Arnold’s ignorable 2% to 20,000 AGU members means we can ignore, at a bare minimum, 400 climate change skeptics worldwide. So will Marc Morano be able to come meet Arnold’s standards? With more than 388 missing AGU skeptics to locate and an exiguous amount of anti-consensus papers in peer review from 1993-2003, my guess is a big fat no.

Of course that was when the list consisted of 400 “Prominent Scientists” the lie as demonstrated is that just about 40 of them could be described as prominent scientists (seen that several mentioned were retired it qualifies as an Obi wan Kenobi lie: “Prominent” ‘from a certain point of view’)

So out of 700 we get 40 and that means you should continue to peddle that list?

Like even the Governator said: “Well, as I said, that I believe the scientists. It is like when my child is sick and has a huge fever, and I go to 100 doctors, and 98 doctors says this child needs immediate medical care, and 2 say no, forget it, go home and just relax, I go with the 98. It’s as simple as that.”

[Lobohan]

@intention

Looking at the URL, I find for the first item:

Since this says nothing about anthropogenic global warming (unless you think there was AGW 120,000 years ago), your list is immaterial. In fact, it’s just a clumsy dredge of Nature for articles about climate change.

Nice try, though … still waiting for your list of “thousands” of scientists and quotes showing that they support AGW.

My point, silly billy, is it is the current consensus. Asking for a list of scientists that support is is the same as looking for journal articles on the subject. I’m not gong to waste time looking for a list of scientists who support the current consensus. Would you ask me for a list of scientists that support heliocentrism? It’s up to the guys who dispute it to come up with the support for their position. So, with all due respect, go and search journal articles to find your own list to counter the pathetic handful of fringers you can manage to dredge up. Fair?

Oh, and you kept claiming that quotations on the list of 700 contained lies. For the third time I ask you to point out which of the quotations are “lies”. After asking three times, if you don’t come up with evidence to back up your claim, I think I’m justified in assuming that once again you are just making things up.

Misquoting someone is a lie. Putting a university economics teacher with no background on climate science on a list of “scientists who oppose AGW” is a lie.

Also, it says little for your credibility since you support such a biased, lie filled document.

Check out here for a detailed breakdown of the 700:
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/uploads/attachments/Credibility_Chart.pdf
From:

Ranking Member’s Senate Minority Report on Global Warming Not Credible, says...

CFI’s Office of Public Policy undertook an assessment of the 687 people listed as “dissenting scientists” in the January 2009 version of the ‘Inhofe list’. Their conclusions:

* Slightly fewer than 10 percent could be identified as climate scientists.
* Approximately 15 percent published in the recognizable refereed literature on subjects related to climate science.
* Approximately 80 percent clearly had no refereed publication record on climate science at all.
* Approximately 4 percent appeared to favor the current IPCC-2007 consensus and should not have been on the list.

But you don’t care about facts, right?
If you are still unable or unwilling to face reality, I’ll give you a lie even someone as uninterested in facts as yourself can’t dispute:

The title:
U. S. Senate Minority Report:
More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent Over
Man-Made Global Warming Claims
Scientists Continue to Debunk “Consensus” in 2008 &
2009