Global Warming Consensus Disproved Again:
Denial Study Part III



There is an obvious scientific consensus on climate change that supports the IPCC. Thanks to propaganda tactics outlined in Frank Luntz's famous memo there has been a massive effort by vested industrial and political interests in hopes of falsely convincing the public that no such consensus exists.

Round I: Benny Peiser

First there was Benny Peiser who claimed he found 34 abstracts out of 1,247 peer-review journals/abstracts that disagreed with the consensus. One of Peisers most obvious errors was including a paper that promoted carbon sequestration and alternative energy through micro-algae biodiesel as one of his 34 'consensus busting' papers. It took him two years to admit he was 97% wrong.

Round II: An Illegitimate Journal

Then there was a survey published in a very small journal edited by none other than Benny Peiser that also rejected the consensus. This journal is not listed in the ISI index's master list of 14,450 peer review journals. A journal that does not make this list is in all probability not a legitimate journal. The surveys credibility was strongly attacked by many scientists that do have publications in top journals.

Round III: A Study of Misrepresentation

Now there is a study produced by the Exxon Mobil funded Hudson Institute. WorldNetDaily is touting this as proof that "500 scientists refute global warming dangers". So I downloaded the PDF of the study and took a quick scan of who these 500 scientists were. A few familiar names popped up. The first of which is the weather channels Heidi Cullen from Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory (LDEO). She is listed as publishing skeptical material which is kind of peculiar since she made newspaper headlines for chastising skeptics on her blog:

“If a meteorologist has an American Meteorological Society Seal of Approval which is used to confer legitimacy to TV meteorologists, then meteorologists have a responsibility to truly educate themselves on the science of global warming . . . . If a meteorologist can’t speak to the fundamental science of climate change, then maybe the AMS shouldn’t give them a Seal of Approval. Clearly, the AMS doesn’t agree that global warming can be blamed on cyclical weather patterns. It’s like allowing a meteorologist to go on-air and say that hurricanes rotate clockwise . . . It’s not a political statement . . . it’s just an incorrect statement.”

Obviously there are some pretty major flaws with the Hudson's consensus debunking study. Despite this, I kept on scanning the document. Apparently almost half of the contributors to realclimate.org are skeptics:

Gavin A. Schmidt, University of Virginia
Michael E. Mann, University of Massachusetts
Thibeault De Garidel-Thoron, Rutgers University
Stefan Rahmstorf, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Germany

The Hudson Institute did have a curious disclaimer though:

The List of More Than 500 Scientists Documenting Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares**
**Citation of the work of the following scientists does not imply that they necessarily support our conclusions.

At this point I'm literally left speechless. This report is claiming that some of the ardent supporters of the consensus on climate change are publishing consensus debunking work. This is a blatant attempt to confuse and take advantage of the layman with highly technical gobbledy-gook. The fact that something this ridiculous has the name of one of Ronald Reagan's advisers on it makes it all the more bizarre.


Sources:
Hudson Institute,Press Release: Analysis Finds Hundreds of Scientists Have Published Evidence Countering Man-Made Global Warming Fears

Attacking the Consensus Again:
Is it Benny Peiser Jr.?



Apparently there's a paradigm shifting paper coming out in an 'scientific journal'. Straight from the Senator Inhofe (Minority Chairman of Environmental and Public Works) press blog:

LESS THAN HALF OF ALL PUBLISHED SCIENTISTS ENDORSE GLOBAL WARMING THEORY; COMPREHENSIVE SURVEY OF PUBLISHED CLIMATE RESEARCH REVEALS CHANGING VIEWPOINTS

In order for this to be true this massive list of sourced and web-linked quotes from scientists, 21 National Academies and pretty much every major scientific organization would have to be wrong. So let look at this study a little closer:

The results have been submitted to the journal Energy and Environment

They also claim that the IPCC is unreliable but their literature review is far more reliable:

But does the IPCC represent a consensus view of world scientists? Despite media claims of "thousands of scientists" involved in the report, the actual text is written by a much smaller number of "lead authors." By contrast, the ISI Web of Science database covers 8,700 journals and publications, including every leading scientific journal in the world.

Well after checking Sourcewatch.org it seems that the journal's editor is Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen who happens to be a climate skeptic. It would also appear that Energy and Environment is not included in Journal Citation Reports, which lists the impact factors (science speak for how frequently something is referenced/used/cited) for the top 6000 peer-reviewed journals. Ontop of this the journal does not appear on the ISI index's master list of 14,450 peer review journals. The American Chemical Society, a very large and very influential scientific society, published an article harshly criticizing Energy and the Environments credibility.

A while back a social anthropologist named Benny Peiser (who specializes in "contemporary thought and societal evolution") reviewed climate change abstracts and claimed he found 34 that disagreed with the consensus. One of the abstracts discussed the need for alternative energy and carbon sequestration. Amazingly Benny thought that debunked the consensus. After 2 years later Benny finally admitted that he was 97% wrong. Interestingly enough, Benny is also an editor of Energy and Environment. Will this be a repeat? Given that the all of academies of the G8 countries endorsed the IPCC recently it is highly unlikely that there has been such a massive paradigm shift. Will report more when I get my hand on the unpublished paper.

Sources:
Will edit in bibliography of the links later.

Fred Thompson Mocks Global Warming












Every major scientific society is agreement and only 10% of the public doesn't think global warming is a serious problem. Despite this, the Washington Post just reported that Fred Thompson mocked the concept global warming:

"It seems scientists have noticed recently that quite a few planets in our solar system seem to be heating up a bit, including Pluto. . . . This has led some people, not necessarily scientists, to wonder if Mars and Jupiter, non signatories to the Kyoto Treaty, are actually inhabited by alien SUV-driving industrialists who run their air-conditioning at 60 degrees and refuse to recycle,"

This has been covered many many times before and yet this argument still pops up among "the best and the brightest" of us. We hope to have our own rebuttal to the all too common "global warming on mars" argument soon enough.

Source:
Washington Post, In Online Writings, Thompson Flashes His Conservative Credentials, John Solomon, Friday, July 27, 2007; A06

Skeptics/Deniers Less than 10%


The NY Times published a survey of Americans between the ages of 17-27. Some of the results:

53. Which comes closer to your view: 1. Global warming is a very serious problem and should be one of the highest priorities for government leaders OR 2. Global warming is serious but does not need to be a high priority OR 3. Global warming is not serious and can be addressed years from now.

• Very Serious and should be one of the highest priorities for government leaders
  All adults 52% Age 17-27 54%
  

• Serious, but does not need to be a high priority now
  All adults 37% Age 17-27 35%

• Not serious and can be addressed years from now.
  All adults 8% Age 17-27 10%

• Don't know/No answer
  All adults 3% Age 17-27 1%

Looks like the deniers are officially minimized among the general population.

Source:
NYT's, Young Americans Are Leaning Left, New Poll Finds, ADAM NAGOURNEY and MEGAN THEE, June 27, 2007

A Quote from the 200 Deutsch Mark



That's German currency for those that don't get out of the country.

"Laypeople frequently assume that in a political dispute the truth must lie somewhere in the middle, and they are often right. In a scientific dispute, though, such an assumption is usually wrong." - 1908 Nobel Laureate Paul Ehrlich (March 14, 1854 – August 20, 1915)

Looks like after a hundred years nothing has changed.

Source:
Woods Hole Research Center, What the Skeptics Don't Tell You

The Pentagon: AGW threat "vastly eclipses that of terrorism"



A "suppressed" report was supposedly leaked to the Guardian UK back in 2004. I missed this article at the time but it is worth revisiting:

The document predicts that abrupt climate change could bring the planet to the edge of anarchy as countries develop a nuclear threat to defend and secure dwindling food, water and energy supplies. The threat to global stability vastly eclipses that of terrorism

....

Already, according to Randall and Schwartz, the planet is carrying a higher population than it can sustain. By 2020 'catastrophic' shortages of water and energy supply will become increasingly harder to overcome, plunging the planet into war. They warn that 8,200 years ago climatic conditions brought widespread crop failure, famine, disease and mass migration of populations that could soon be repeated.

Randall told The Observer that the potential ramifications of rapid climate change would create global chaos. 'This is depressing stuff,' he said. 'It is a national security threat that is unique because there is no enemy to point your guns at and we have no control over the threat.'

Source:
The Observer, Now the Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us, Mark Townsend and Paul Harris in New York
Sunday February 22, 2004

The Consensus on Climate Change/Global Warming


For what is probably the most definitive list of quotes supporting the IPCC please go here. If you know of any others I need to add please post.

Al Gore was too late!!!!!!!!!!!

glumbert.com - Global Warming in 1958

For everyone that says global warming is a "recent theory" here is video proof from 1958 that the science has been around for a long time.

Source:
The Unchained Goddess, 1958

Alexander Cockburn

Living in upside down land



Alexander Cockburn writes for Counterpunch, The Nation, and the Los Angeles Times. He is a climate change skeptic and some of his claims are the complete opposite of reality. Cockburn wrote the following in a recent article:

Geologists are particularly skeptical. Peter Sciaky, a retired geologist, writes to me thus:

"No environmental conference, such as Kyoto, has ever invited a geologist, a paleontologist, a paleoclimatologist. It would seem beneficial for any scientific investigatory to include such scientific disciplines.
....*snip* ....
I do not know a single geologist who believes that it is a man-made phenomenon."

No geologists, paleontologist or peleoclimatologist believe in man-made global warming!??!? Well the two biggest geological societies are the US Geological Survey (USGS) and the 45,000+ member strong American Geophysical Union (AGU). The USGS claims that the IPCC is the "The most authoritative report on this issue". And it might be hard to imagine why a USGS geologist would be excluded from environmental meetings when their Earth Surface Dynamics Program "focuses on understanding the likely consequences of climate change, especially by studying how climate has changed in the past." The AGU released an official statement in 2003 saying that:

Human activities are increasingly altering the Earth's climate. These effects add to natural influences that have been present over Earth's history. Scientific evidence strongly indicates that natural influences cannot explain the rapid increase in global near-surface temperatures observed during the second half of the 20th century.

It looks like Cockburns expert witness is in upside down land. But just in case the society representing 45,000+ people (and all of the papers published by the AGU) aren't good enough lets look at how many geos and paleos there are at the blog realclimate.org:

• Michael E. Mann Ph.D. in Geology & Geophysics from Yale University
• Caspar Ammann Ph.D. Paleoclimatology
• Eric Steig PhD in Geological Sciences at the University of Washington
• Thibault de Garidel Ph.D. in Geosciences at CEREGE, Université Paul Cézanne (a.k.a. Aix-Marseille III)
• Raymond S. Bradley is Director of the Climate System Research Center (www.paleoclimate.org) at the University of Massachusetts. Ph.D paleoclimatology

No shortage of paleos and geos there. In fact they are in the majority and not the minority. Lets take a sample at one more place. One February 2, 2007 Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution made a group of scientists available to comment on many of the subjects covered in the summary report issued by the International Panel on Climate Change on February 2, 2007. Their name and department is listed below:

Dr. Scott Doney, Marine Chemistry & Geochemistry
Dr. Sarah Das, Geology & Geophysics
Dr. Andrey Proshutinsky, Physical Oceanography
Dr. Peter Winsor, Physical Oceanography
Dr. Karen Bice, Geology & Geophysics
Dr. Scott Doney, Marine Chemistry & Geochemistry
Dr. Dan McCorkle, Geology & Geophysics
Dr. William Curry, Geology & Geophysics
Dr. Lloyd Keigwin, Geology & Geophysics
Dr. Jerry McManus, Geology & Geophysics
Dr. Delia Oppo, Geology & Geophysics
Ruth Curry, Physical Oceanography
Dr. Terry Joyce, Director, WHOI Ocean & Climate Change Institute
Dr. Ray Schmitt, Physical Oceanography
Dr. Jeff Donnelly, Geology & Geophysics
Dr. Olivier Marchal, Geology & Geophysics

It looks like once again Cockburn is living in upside down land. Seriously, could these skeptics get any worse?

Update #1: Special thanks to N. Johnson for notifying me that some of the names were repeated on the official WHOI roster due to expertise in multiple fields. The duplicate names have been removed.

Update #2: And lets not forget chapter 6 of the IPCC's fourth assessment report which is titled "Palaeoclimate" that has over 50 authors. There are two lead coordinating authors and they are Eystein Jansen and Jonathan Overpeck. Jansen is a professor in the Dept. of Geology at University of Bergen. His Ph.D. is in marine geology. The other lead coordinating author Jonathan Overpeck is a Professor of Geosciences who specializes in paleoclimatology. Again it would seem that Cockburns key witness is in upside down land. I think I'll let the readers analyze the rest.


Sources:
Counterpunch, June 9 / 10, 2007, Sources and Authorities, Dissidents Against Dogma, ALEXANDER COCKBURN
WHOI media release Scientific Experts Available to Respond to International Climate Report

Vatican starts fighting climate change


The Catholic News Service is reporting that the Paul VI audience hall is going to be powered completely by solar power. Pier Carlo Cuscianna, the head of the Vatican's department of technical services, wrote in a May 23 article in the Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano that safe guarding the environment was "one of the most important challenges of our century." From CNS:

The Italian engineer said appeals by Popes Benedict XVI and John Paul II to respect nature inspired him to help power the Vatican's energy needs with renewable resources.

He recalled how, in his 2007 World Day of Peace message, Pope Benedict warned of "the increasingly serious problem of energy supplies" that was leading to "an unprecedented race" for the earth's resources.

Cuscianna also found inspiration from Pope John Paul's 1990 peace message, dedicated in its entirety to the need to respect God's creation.

"We cannot continue to use the goods of the earth as we have in the past," the pope wrote, calling for "a new ecological awareness" that leads to "concrete programs and initiatives."

Source:
Catholic News Service, VATICAN LETTER May-25-2007 (730 words) Going green: Vatican expands mission to saving planet, not just souls, Carol Glatz and Alicia Ambrosio

The Arnold Challenge!!!!!
Part of the: Common Arguments by Skeptics and Deniers series


Arnold Schwarzenegger recently 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.

Well lets see if the skeptics can meet even these standards. Arnold claims that the dissenting 2% can be ignored. Marc Morano claims that this list of 12 skeptics is just the "tip of the iceberg" and:

A more detailed and comprehensive sampling of scientists who have only recently spoken out against climate hysteria will be forthcoming in a soon to be released U.S. Senate report.

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.

Source:
Council on Foreign Relations Board Meeting, Thursday, 04/12/2007
Marc Morano – Marc_Morano@EPW.Senate.Gov - 9:14 PM ET Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics Growing Number of Scientists Convert to Skeptics After Reviewing New Research
Rabett Run, How many climate scientists are there mommy?, Friday, November 10, 2006
Science, BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER:The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change, Naomi Oreskes

New G8 Statement on climate change

A new joint statement was released today:

The problem is not yet insoluble, but becomes more difficult with each passing day. A goal of confining global warming to an average of 2 centigrade degrees above pre-industrial levels would be very challenging, and even this amount of warming would be likely to have some severe impacts. . . .

We call on world leaders, especially those meeting at the G8 Summit in June 2007, to:
• Set standards and promote economic instruments for efficiency, and commit to promoting energy efficiency for buildings, devices, motors, transportation systems
and in the energy sector itself.
• Promote understanding of climate and energy issues and encourage necessary behavioural changes within our societies.
• Define and implement measures to reduce global deforestation.
• Strengthen economic and technological exchange with developing countries, in order to leapfrog to cleaner and more efficient modern technologies.
• Invest strongly in science and technology related to energy efficiency, zero-carbon energy resources and carbon-removing technologies.

It is signed by 13 countries

• Academia Brasileira de Ciéncias,Brazil
• Académie des Sciences, France
• Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy
• Russian Academy of Sciences, Russia
• National Academy of Sciences, United States of America
• Royal Society of Canada, Canada
• Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina, Germany
• Science Council of Japan, Japan
• Academy of Science of South Africa, South Africa
• Chinese Academy of Sciences, China
• Indian National Science Academy, India
• Academia Mexicana de Ciencias, Mexico
• Royal Society, United Kingdom



Source:
National Academy of Sciences: 2007 Joint science academies’ statement on growth and responsibility: sustainability, energy efficiency and climate protection

Newt Gingrich says climate change is real

former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich may agree on little politically, but they agreed Tuesday on this: Global warming is no hoax.

Whether this is lip service or real it's good to see leaders of the GOP that were formally anti-ivory tower coming around.

Source:
WMUR, Climate Change Real, Kerry, Gingrich Say, Partisan Heavyweights Debate Climate Change Solutions

Six Admirals & Five Generals: There will be wars over water


From CNN:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Global warming poses a "serious threat to America's national security" and the U.S. likely will be dragged into fights over water and other shortages, top retired military leaders warn in a new report.

The report says that in the next 30 to 40 years there will be wars over water, increased hunger instability from worsening disease and rising sea levels and global warming-induced refugees. "The chaos that results can be an incubator of civil strife, genocide and the growth of terrorism," the 35-page report predicts.

The actual report can be found here or direct to the PDF. It will be interesting to see how many leading scientists endorse this report.

Source:
CNN, Ex-generals: Global warming threatens U.S. security, 10:27 a.m. EDT, April 15, 2007
Military.com, Military: Global Warming may Cause War, Associated Press, April 17, 2007

Worldwide Consensus on Climate Change



Looking at the chart above, the worldwide consensus on climate change appears to be 90% for laymen. And the scientific consensus among those actually working in the field appears to be about as uniform on this topic as it is on the dangers of tobacco. (Likely of no small coincidence) Unfortunately the policy of our current administration is still "deny, suppress, and do nothing".

Source:
World Public Opinion.org 30-Country Poll Finds Worldwide Consensus that Climate Change is a Serious Problem, Saturday January 06th, 2007

A Quote for the New Year

“What keeps me going is my belief that there is still a chance of avoiding catastrophe.” -Dr. John P. Holdren, Harvard professor, president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science

Source:
NYT's, Middle Stance Emerges in Debate Over Climate, ANDREW C. REVKIN, January 1, 2007