There is no consensus

Lots of reputable scientists are skeptical that manmade CO2 emissions are causing global warming. So claims that there's a scientific consensus is exaggerated. A widely cited series The Deniers by the National Post profiles scientists who are skeptical of anthropogenic global warming.

Comments 1 to 25 out of 149:

1. roverdc at 17:32 PM on 27 September, 2007
   Concensus only has meaning if there is no pressure to conform in either direction. In the climate debate this is extremely far from being true. How far could we reasonably expect a questioner to go in an IPCC panel when that instantly collects a denialist label and probably guarantees a dead end to even the most able career? In the current climate it is reasonable to assume the dissent camp is at least ten times the admitted size. I know that as an admittedly uninformed questioner I get some pretty vitriolic responses from the eco faithful.
2. Wondering Aloud at 06:54 AM on 10 November, 2007
   Roverdc hits the nail on the head. To say there is bias in the science at this point is a wild understatement. What the public hears is claims that "all scientists except a few kooks agree that catastrophic global warming is immenent and caused by your car.". This is what they think you mean by consensus.
   
   Is it safe to say the real consensus is closer to the view of those so called deniers in the National Post series or to the alarmist panic that is being widely circulated through things like "An Inconvenient Truth"?
3. Will Nitschke (www.capitaloffice.com.au) at 16:22 PM on 21 December, 2007
   The fact that there are so many Academies of Science endorsing the global warming position is probably the strongest argument for supporting it. The question to ask is how mature is this field? If the answer is 'very mature' then this type of support has high credibility. If the answer is 'immature' then it's significance is considerably less.
   
   Here is a link to US Senate Committee on the Environment that lists in detail 400 scientists who disagree with the anthropomorphic global warming hypothesis:
   
   http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport
   
   That there are so many when we repeatedly hear on the news and radio that the actual number of dissenters is 'miniscule' will have the tendency to turn believers into sceptics.
   
   I would also feel more confident if the 'hockey stick' graphics that predict rapid change and global catastrophe would not all be linked back to a small handful of researchers and students who work together and presumably have the same preconceptions and modus operandi. If there are no 'hockey sticks' then the small increase in global temperature over the last century does not statistically look different from what one would expect from natural variation.
4. paledriver at 04:57 AM on 10 January, 2008
   that list of 400 is about as big a hoax as the "Petition Project" was.
   Here's one of many sites exposing it.
   http://gristmill.grist.org/user/Andrew%20Dessler
   would you like to try again, Mr. Nitschke?
5. paledriver at 10:07 AM on 10 January, 2008
   sorry about the double post, and for the unintended smarmy tone.
6. Wondering Aloud at 06:52 AM on 16 January, 2008
   I think I'd put the list on the petition project up against the IPCC list, many of whom disagree with IPCC conclusions, any day of the week. The listed expose here paledriver is pure rubbish.
   
   Maybe you should investigate the actual list rather than the fake and distorted claims about it.
7. paledriver at 01:27 AM on 20 January, 2008
   The Marshall Institute co-sponsored with the OISM a deceptive campaign -- known as the Petition Project -- to undermine and discredit the scientific authority of the IPCC and to oppose the Kyoto Protocol. Early in the spring of 1998, thousands of scientists around the country received a mass mailing urging them to sign a petition calling on the government to reject the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was accompanied by other pieces including an article formatted to mimic the journal of the National Academy of Sciences. Subsequent research revealed that the article had not been peer-reviewed, nor published, nor even accepted for publication in that journal and the Academy released a strong statement disclaiming any connection to this effort and reaffirming the reality of climate change. The Petition resurfaced in 2001.
   
   They openly lied about endorsement from National Academy of Sciences, were caught, the Academy issues a statement disclaiming any connection, they re-release it again anyways, and you're foolish and gullible enough to buy it and defend it.
   
   Would you like me to post a sample of the signers? That would be embarrassing for you.
8. paledriver at 01:35 AM on 20 January, 2008
   i will anyways.........................
   The term "scientists" is often used in describing signatories. The petition requests signatories list their degree (B.S., M.S., or Ph.D.) and to list their scientific field.[3] The distribution of petitions was relatively uncontrolled: those receiving the petition could check a line that said "send more petition cards for me to distribute".
   
   The Petition Project itself used to state:
   “ Of the 19,700 signatures that the project has received in total so far, 17,800 have been independently verified and the other 1,900 have not yet been independently verified. Of those signers holding the degree of PhD, 95% have now been independently verified. One name that was sent in by enviro pranksters, Geri Halliwell, PhD, has been eliminated. Several names, such as Perry Mason and Robert Byrd are still on the list even though enviro press reports have ridiculed their identity with the names of famous personalities. They are actual signers. Perry Mason, for example, is a PhD Chemist.[2] ”
   
   In May 1998 the Seattle Times wrote:
   “ Several environmental groups questioned dozens of the names: "Perry S. Mason" (the fictitious lawyer?), "Michael J. Fox" (the actor?), "Robert C. Byrd" (the senator?), "John C. Grisham" (the lawyer-author?). And then there's the Spice Girl, a k a. Geraldine Halliwell: The petition listed "Dr. Geri Halliwell" and "Dr. Halliwell."
   
   Asked about the pop singer, Robinson said he was duped. The returned petition, one of thousands of mailings he sent out, identified her as having a degree in microbiology and living in Boston. "It's fake," he said.[15]
   ”
   
   In 2005, Scientific American reported:
   “ Scientific American took a 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.[16] ”
   
   In a 2005 op-ed in the Hawaii Reporter, Todd Shelly wrote:
   “ In less than 10 minutes of casual scanning, I found duplicate names (Did two Joe R. Eaglemans and two David Tompkins sign the petition, or were some individuals counted twice?), single names without even an initial (Biolchini), corporate names (Graybeal & Sayre, Inc. How does a business sign a petition?), and an apparently phony single name (Redwine, Ph.D.). These examples underscore a major weakness of the list: there is no way to check the authenticity of the names. Names are given, but no identifying information (e.g., institutional affiliation) is provided. Why the lack of transparency?[17]
9. Wondering Aloud at 13:59 PM on 21 January, 2008
   I have the article you claim was "formatted to mimic..." sitting right here. It doesn't look like it is anything of the sort. In fact it clearly lists Author and who puplished it. It looks like a review of literature type paper which...it is.
   
   As for mass mailing as it was done with a tiny budget it was nothing of the sort. In fact I never even got one despite being on one of the main mailing lists they supposedly used. How many copies of this supposed mass mailing did you get?
   
   
   Aren't you bothered by a clear attempt by the "enviros" to commit fraud with fake names? Shouldn't you question why they think this is needed or something to be proud of. Is it ok to be dishonest as long as they are on your side?
   
   A sample of 30 in which some back down (people get fired for being skeptics in this field you know)is instantly credible to you while you arm wave away 17,000
   
   You are pointing out 1 fake signature out of 19,000! Really? It was caught, we had thousands of Fake names on our voting list in one nearby city alone.
   
   You are avoiding the main issue. Consensus is not science but if it was the supposed 2500 scientists of the IPCC report have every failing you mention of the petition project and more important the people who signed the petition agreed with what it said. The same can not be said for the IPCC and its supposed 2500. Counted in that IPCC number are hundreds of non scientists, NGO reps (these are people with an agenda)and most importantly reviewers, many of whom don't even agree with the conclusions of the IPCC report. In fact most of the famous "deniers" are included in the 2500 IPCC counts.
   
   Someone made the mistake of asking them after the second IPCC report (surveyed participants) and found that over 60% did not agree with the summary for policy makers.
   
   Maybe we should stop pretending numbers and NGOs are scientists and that consensus is science. It's that claim that raises huge red flags for me.
10. Wondering Aloud at 04:09 AM on 22 January, 2008
    Wow, that was terrible punctuation. Darn Packers
11. paledriver at 06:42 AM on 22 January, 2008
    I'm sorry. Are you a Packer fan?
    
    Picked another losing cause?
    
    
    I'm sorry again,but I couldn't help myself on that one.
    Great game though.
12. paledriver at 06:49 AM on 22 January, 2008
    Let's take a look at the "Inhofe 400"
    Meteorologist George Waldenberg was named.
    In response to his inclusion ,Mr. Waldenberg sent an email to Senator Inhofes' staff that began
    "Marc, Matthew:
    
    Take me off your list of 400 (Prominent) Scientists that dispute Man-Made Global warming claims. I've never made any claims that debunk the "Consensus".
    
    You quoted a newspaper article that's main focus was scoring the accuracy of local weathermen. Hardly Scientific ... yet I'm guessing some of your other sources pale in comparison in terms of credibility.
    
    You also didn't ask for my permission to use these statements. That's not a very respectable way of doing "research".
    
    One shining example. I have many more.
13. Wondering Aloud at 07:45 AM on 22 January, 2008
    Again? now its one out of 400 and who the heck was talking about the Inhofe 400?
    
    The point remains it is not a popularity contest despite all the attempted score keeping by the IPCC fans. Also many of the prominent scientists counted in that score are in fact the so called deniers.
14. paledriver at 08:35 AM on 22 January, 2008
    the point remains that the deniers flesh out their "petitions" and "lists" with fakes, fraudulent claims, and people who in no way have made any claims against the consensus and pointedly say so.
    I've pointed out one of many, (which I've linked to above)
    And the "400" was brought up on post#3, which is why I even referred to fraudulent "Petition Project" in the first place.
15. paledriver at 08:41 AM on 22 January, 2008
    p.s. I'm not claiming that there's no dissent.
    Just that there IS a consensus. An overwhelming one.
16. Wondering Aloud at 09:50 AM on 22 January, 2008
    Well that awful Inhofe 400 is now over 420 as in the time it took for you to complain about the one that didn't sign 20 more "scientists" did. But, it isn't important.
    
    My problem with this is, it isn't an election, you claim the skeptics inflate their numbers, maybe so, beyond question the AGW catastrophy folks inflate theirs. At least two of the best known "deniers" are IPCC lead authors. Dozens of others are listed as contributers or reviewers, several have been so disgusted with the process they withdrew and asked their names be removed. This means they are counted on both sides.
    
    What is that overwelming consensus? Here is what is presented as that consensus: Human CO2 emissions will cause massive catastrophic warming, It will cause disaster in the near future ruining the world for our children. This warming will lead to massive flooding, drought, wide scale starvation, wars, plagues, melting of the polar ice, flooding of huge areas of the world...
    
    
    Refer to my post number 2 above. Which is closer to the consensus? Al Gore with 23 feet of sea level rise this century or the "deniers" with 15-20 cm ?
    Al Gore with his talk of "unprecidented warming". Or the "deniers" claims that the world seems to have wamed about .6-.7 C over the last century and that may be somewhat due to human activity.
    
    Most of the "deniers" probably don't even have that much trouble with the consensus as stated in the first paragraph of the original post. They are vilified largely because they refuse to accept the supposed consensus I just described.
    
    In general I agreed with the stated consensus in the original post, though based on the recent data and the trouble with the historical record I think now I would not use the word "most".
17. paledriver at 10:15 AM on 22 January, 2008
    420?
    In the original 400 I found many who were completely unqualified, some of whom are skeptical, some of whom are not. Many who are qualified who are either not actually skeptical, are skeptical only of some proposed solutions or who have actually stated their agreement WITH the consensus. The list was not made to hold up to close scrutiny.
    I imagine it's the same with the additional 20.
18. paledriver at 08:21 AM on 24 January, 2008
    addressing claims about the IPCC...............
    "John McLean and the NRSP
    
    Category: Global Warming
    Posted on: December 20, 2007 1:02 PM, by Tim Lambert
    
    Hey, remember John McLean? The guy who kept steering Andrew Bolt into brick walls? Well he's teamed up with Tom Harris of the NRSP to accuse the IPCC of lying about the scientific support for its reports:
    
    In total, only 62 scientists reviewed the chapter in which this statement appears, the critical chapter 9, "Understanding and Attributing Climate Change". Of the comments received from the 62 reviewers of this critical chapter, almost 60% of them were rejected by IPCC editors. And of the 62 expert reviewers of this chapter, 55 had serious vested interest, leaving only seven expert reviewers who appear impartial.
    
    First, there were much more than 62 reviewers for chapter 9. McLean and Harris have only counted the reviewers of the second order draft and ignored the more numerous comments on the first order draft.
    
    Second, they mislead by giving the impression that 60% of the reviewers disagreed with the IPCC, but half of the comments (572 of them!) were made by Vincent Gray, with 97% of them rejected. Only 16% of the comments by other reviewers were rejected. Gray was also responsible for most the rejected comments on the first order draft. Examples of Gray's rejected comments include:
    
    Insert after "to" "the utterly ridiculous assumption of"
    
    Insert after "Bayesian" "(or super-guesswork)"
    
    Insret before "Calibrated" "Bogus"
    
    Dave Semeniuk has a more detailed analysis of Gray's comments -- 50 of them were Gray repeatedly asking for "anthropogenic" to be replaced with "human-induced".
    
    Third, as Richard Littlemore points out, it is pretty dodgy for the NRSP to complain about "vested interest" when their own vested interest is so blatant. But how did McLean and Harris come up with their claim that 55 of the reviewers had "serious vested interest"? McLean gives details in a piece published by the SPPI (an oil industry funded think tank that apparently does not count as a vested interested to McLean). Scientists were declared to have a vested interest if they were an IPCC author, or an IPCC author of a previous assessment, or if any of their work was cited by the report, or if they worked for a government, or if they work for an organization that gets government funding, or if they have a "possible commercial vested interest in the claim of man-made warming". Basically that leaves amateurs like Gray and McKitrick. In one of his comments Gray asked them to cite one of his Energy and Environment papers. Fortunately it was rejected, or he would have been ruled out as well.
    
    John Mashey examined McLean's background and it seems that while the National Post awarded him a PhD he actually has no scientific qualifications at all, just a Bachelor of Architecture. Which makes McLean's rant against a critic, which was captured by Nexus 6 particularly funny."
    
    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/12/john_mclean_and_the_nrsp.php
19. Wondering Aloud at 01:07 AM on 16 February, 2008
    It appears you have proved my point.
20. paledriver at 11:09 AM on 25 February, 2008
    it took you 23 days to come up with that?
21. Wondering Aloud at 03:07 AM on 26 February, 2008
    You mean I should have quickly pointed out that you had proven my point? Not allow you time to elaborate or correct?
22. paledriver at 10:02 AM on 26 February, 2008
    please, for my age addled mind, explain how I've proved your point.
23. Wondering Aloud at 02:05 AM on 28 February, 2008
    My point is the consensus, such as it is, is closer to the denialist view than the popular view of Al Gore etc.
    
    The claim that there is some vast number of scientists that constitute a consensus and that agree with catastrophic warming is not only not science it isn't even correct. We constantly see people pointing out IPCC to supposedly prove this supposed consensus. IPCC isnt all qualified scientists any more than any of these lists are. But more important than that, despite the fact that a pro warming bias is built into the entire IPCC process, the actual body of the IPCC report in fact supports my position rather than that of Al Gore.
    
    When I pointed out that the petition project and other similar things like the Heidelberg appeal all had one thing the IPCC didn't have; the consent and agreement of the people involved. (This is something lacking in the lists of academies etc. in the original post as well.) You ignored it completely as if tiny politically active committees somehow spoke for all.
    
    Personal attacks on a handful of people, each of which is questionable in itself does nothing to refute my stated point. It appears rather to be a deliberate attempt to obfuscate the issue.
24. Wondering Aloud at 06:25 AM on 28 February, 2008
    The deniers series in the National post has grown much larger. It is still a good series can you update the link so it doesn't just lead to the first 10.
25. frankbi at 21:00 PM on 4 March, 2008
    Yeah, Vincent Gray made a lot of noise, ergo there's no consensus.
    
    Genius logic!

1  2  3  4  5  6  Next

Post a Comment

Foul language, trolling, personal attacks or non-relevant links will be deleted.

You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or if you're new, register here.

• Obama is wrong on Cap and Trade (2009-07-03, The Cobourg Skeptic)
• The Climate Change Climate Change (2009-06-28, The Wall Street Journal)
• Report debunking UN's global warming alarmism is backed by 31,478 U.S. scientists... (2009-06-23, Bonjour Planet Earth)
• Understanding global warming (2009-06-23, Tulane Hullabaloo)
• Global warming: The science is not settled (2009-06-23, Cleveland.com)
• Obama using scare tactic to pass cap and trade (2009-06-22, Skeptic's Corner)
• Global Warming Conference: The Science of Climate Change (2009-06-03, The Heritage Foundation)
• Global Warming Conference: The Science of Climate Change (2009-06-03, The Heritage Foundation)
• A tale of two worlds (2009-05-28, The Australian)
• Scientist Dissents: Gore’s 'laughable' claims are 'appallingly riddled with mistakes and outlandish exaggerations' (2009-04-13, Climate Depot)
• The Heat From a Global Warming Column (2009-03-21, Washington Post)
• Nobody listens to the real climate change experts (2009-03-16, Telegraph.co.uk)
• Lorne Gunter: The real deniers (2009-03-10, National Post)
• Greenland's Ice Armageddon Comes To An End (2009-03-01, The Resilient Earth)
• Another source debunks the global-warmng scare (2009-02-22, Climate Change Fraud)
• Global warming rebuttal (2009-02-16, Bedford Republican Committee)
• The Earth has cooled since 1998 (2009-02-16, Dirty Democrats)
• What do the Global Warming Skeptics Have to Say? (2009-01-22, Skeptics Global Warming)
• GLOBAL WARMING DOOM, GLOOM HAVEN'T OCCURRED (2009-01-17, The Wichita Eagle)
• No proof man is causing Earth’s warming trend (2009-01-15, Not In My Green House)
• We Are Entering An Ice Age (2009-01-13, The Revolution Part II)
• Professor denies global warming theory (2009-01-13, The Daily Princetonian)
• Ten Global Warming Truths to Keep Us Sane in 2009 (2009-01-09, Heartland Institute)
• WARMING, OR HOT AIR? (2008-12-29, Urgent Agenda)
• 2008 was the year man-made global warming was disproved (2008-12-29, Telegraph.co.uk)