Joined: Oct 15, 2005 Posts: 1472 Location: Portland, Oregon
Posted: Tue Jul 04, 2006 4:24 pm Post subject: Which Scientists Dont Believe GW is Man Made
I'm still trying to get an answer on this one- Graeme researched this and found a list of the top scientific organizaions and academies that endorse the concept that CO2 released by human activity is changing climate.
* Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil)
* Royal Society of Canada
* Chinese Academy of Sciences
* Academié des Sciences (France)
* Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
* Indian National Science Academy
* Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
* Science Council of Japan
* Russian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Society (United Kingdom)
* National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
* Australian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
* Caribbean Academy of Sciences
* Indonesian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Irish Academy
* Academy of Sciences Malaysia
* Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
* Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
And additional statements are from these societies:
* NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
* National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
* National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
* State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)
* Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
* Royal Society of the United Kingdom (RS)
* American Geophysical Union (AGU)
* National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
* American Meteorological Society (AMS)
* Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)
I would like to hear from those of you who disagree with the man made CO2/GW connection and let me know what scientists, organizations and academies disagree with this viewpoint.
Posted: Tue Jul 04, 2006 5:42 pm Post subject: Re: Which Scientists Dont Believe GW is Man Made
You are looking for consensus statments....which in terms of science is unimportant. If there is only one scientist with a different viewpoint that happens to be right.....then bottom line is the "consensus of opinion" is neither here nor there. An example would be Wegner who was alone in the forest proposing the theory of "moving continents" back in the 1800's....his career was ruined by the "consensus" and it wasn't until around 1975 the J. Tuzo Wilson came up with the theory of Plate Tectonics...which noone would now agree with. There are lot's of examples of this in the history of evolution of thought.
The list provided is from places that endorse a particular viewpoint, one that is heavily politicized and one that provides about $2 billion in funding each year....none of which goes to those who might suggest there are some problems with the current AGW theories.
I put this list up on another thread sometime ago, these are the most vocal of the scientists who point out inadequacies or problems in the various research:
Quote:
Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Dr. Tim Patterson, Professor - Dept of Earth Sciences (Paleoclimatology) - Carleton University, Ottawa
Dr. Tim Ball, Environmental Consultant - 32 years climatology Professor - University of Winnipeg
Dr. Paul Copper, FRSC, Professor of Geology, Department of Earth Sciences, Laurentian University, Sudbury, Canada
Dr. James O'Brien, Robert 0. Lawton Distinguished Professor of Meteorology and Oceanography; Director, Center for Ocean-Atmospheric Prediction Studies, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL
Dr. Madhav Khandekar, Environmental Consultant - 25 years with Environment Canada in Meteorology
William Kininmonth, Managing Director, Australasian Climate Research, Kew, Australia
Dr. Vincent Gray, IPCC Expert reviewer and author of "The Greenhouse Delusion", Wellington, New Zealand
Dr. Ian Clark, Professor, Isotope Hydrogeology and Paleoclimatology, Department of Earth Sciences (arctic specialist), University of Ottawa
Dr. Tad Murty, Climate researcher. Previously Senior Research Scientist for Fisheries and Oceans (DFO); conducted official DFO climate change/sea level review for the Pacific and Arctic coasts of Canada; Former Director of the National Tidal Facility of Australia; Current editor - "Natural Hazards"
Dr. Kenneth Green, Director, Centre for Studies in Risk, Regulation, and Environment, The Fraser Institute, Vancouver, B.C.
Dr. Fred Michel, Professor - Dept of Earth Sciences (Permafrost specialty) Carleton University, Ottawa
Dr. Sallie Baliunas, Astrophysicist - Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics - specialist in understanding the Sun/climate connection.
Dr. Willie Soon, Astrophysicist - Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics - specialist in understanding the Sun/climate connection.
Dr. Chris Essex, Professor of Applied Mathematics, University of Western Ontario - focuses on underlying physics/math to complex climate systems.
Dr. Ian Plimer, Professor and Chair, Department of Geology, The University of Melbourne, Australia
Dr. Fred Singer, President of The Science & Environmental Policy Project, Distinguished Research Professor at George Mason University, Professor Emeritus of environmental science at University of Virginia.
Dr. Pat Michaels, Research Professor - Dept of Environmental Sciences - University of Virginia
Dr. Roger Peilke, Professor and Colorado State Climatologist; Current President of the American Association of State Climatologists
Dr. Gary D. Sharp, Scientific Director, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, California
Professor Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, Professor at the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection (CLOR), Warsaw, Poland; Chairman of the scientific council of CLOR
Dr. William M. Gray, Professor of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University
Dr. Fred Seitz, Past President, U.S. National Academy of Sciences, President Emeritus, Rockefeller University, New York, NY
George Taylor, Oregon State Meteorologist, Oregon Climate Service, Oregon State University and the Past President of the Association of State Meteorologists.
Dipl.-Ing. Peter Dietze, energy and climate consultant, officialscientific IPCC TAR Reviewer
Dr. Sherwood Idso, President of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change
Dr. Art Robinson of OISM, Founder - Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine - focus on climate change and CO2
Dr. Robert Balling, Director - Office of Climatology, Arizona State University
Dr. Chris de Freitas, Professor, School of Geography and Environmental Science, University of Auckland, New Zealand
Dr. Peter Chylek, Professor of Physics and Atmospheric Science - Dalhousie University
Hans Erren, MSc, Geophysical consultant, The Hague, The Netherlands. - focusses on data processing, climate sensitivity and the history of climate science.
Dr. Ross McKitrick, Professor of environmental economics at the University of Guelph - also expert in the science
Dr. Kenneth Green, Chief Scientist, Director of Risk and Environment Centre, Fraser Institute, Vancouver, British Columbia
Dr. Hugh W. Ellsaesser, Atmospheric Consultant - previously with the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, CA
Dr. Asmunn Moene, Former head of the National ForecastingCenter,Meteorological Institute,Oslo,Norway
Prof. Dr. Kirill Ya. Kondratyev, Academician, Counsellor RAS, Research Centre for Ecological Safety, Russian Academy of Sciences and Nansen International Environmental and Remote Sensing Centre, St.-Petersburg, RUSSIA
David Nowell, M.Sc. (Meteorology), Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, Canadian member and Past Chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa
Dr. Jan Veizer, NSERC/Noranda/CIAR Industrial Chair in Earth System Isotope and Environmental Geochemistry and Professor - Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
Their are a number of think tanks that argue against various parts of the theories including CATO institute, Marshall Institute, Frazer Institute, Institute for CO2 research etc. but they are often denigrated simply because they are forced to get funding from industry.
There are many, many more scientists who continue to point out problems or missing pieces to the current understanding of climate science. I was just looking at one today:
The role of river-suspended material in the global carbon cycle: 2006, Gislason, S.R., Oelkers, E.H., and Snorrason, A., Geology, V. 34, Pg. 49 - 52.
In which they concluded :
Quote:
The results presented in this study show that suspended Ca flux to the ocean is far more dependent on discharge than is dissolved Ca flux. As river discharge is a direct function of temperature and rainfall, this result demonstrates that suspended material transport provides a stronger negative feedback for the stabilization of Earth's termperature through the Greenhouse effect. Model's of past atmospheric CO2 taking account of mantle degasing, weathering, sedimentation, diagensis, and metamorphis, need to include this additional feedback to accurately predict global climate evolution
So although they don't say "humans don't create global warming" what they do is put some doubt on the general circulation models simply because a very important variable was not taken into account. If the past-match models don't work then the projection that current temperatures are due to anthropogenic CO2 are in question. The literature is loaded with this sort of thing.
In this same issue a paper titled
Expansion of alpine glacier in Pacific North America in the first millenium A.D., 2006, Reyes et al, pg. 57-60
gives very good proof for the existence of the Little Ice Age following the Mideval Warm Period based on lichenometry and radiocarbon dates. The MWP and LIA were both argued by Mann in his Hockey Stick analysis and subsequently by the IPCC to be only local perturbations. This paper adds to the overwhelming proof in the literature that these events were global in extent.
Joined: Oct 15, 2005 Posts: 1472 Location: Portland, Oregon
Posted: Tue Jul 04, 2006 6:32 pm Post subject: Re: Which Scientists Dont Believe GW is Man Made
Thanks Rockdoc...I often hear from people who ask me that question. Who disagrees with the Human activity CO2/GW connection? Although it is evident that the large majority of academies and organizations endorse the connection, there is a strong vocal minority.
I undertsand why some would question the connection in light of other periods of natural c ycles of cooling and heating. Its also important that theories are always questioned.
However, I am reminded of the "debate" that takes place about evolution. Again, even though the overwhelming majority of scientists endorse the theory, there is a vocal minority faction that endorse the idea of intelligent design. Because it is impossible to fully and completely prove the theory of evolution, there can always be a critique of the theory...that's science. And therefore, in the public arena, dissenters can sway public opinion that evolution is not a proven theory, and that other theories are more plausible.
So, the question you have to answer is...if you, and the vocal minority of dissenters are wrong, will you have allowed the greatest catastrophe affecting mankind to happen without doing anything? Or are you so sure, that you are willing to bet the future of mankind?
Joined: Aug 14, 2005 Posts: 368 Location: Mississippi Delta
Posted: Tue Jul 04, 2006 6:36 pm Post subject: Re: Which Scientists Dont Believe GW is Man Made
Of course, it's easy to point out instances in the history of scientific thought in which the educated consensus turned out to be wrong. That's the nature of scientific progress. That is far from evidence that a current instance is wrong. We have to assume that there is more evidence for a position that has high consensus at present than there is for any particular counter argument. Indeed, you have to assume that the detractors have at least equal probability of being eventually proved wrong.
As far as funding is concerned, I am probably not the only person here with a scientific background that got a chuckle out of the line, "forced to get funding from industry."
Joined: Feb 01, 2005 Posts: 197 Location: Southern Ontario
Posted: Tue Jul 04, 2006 7:18 pm Post subject: Re: Which Scientists Dont Believe GW is Man Made
And in every instance where scientific consensus was wrong, consensus was reached based on incomplete information and popular opinion. The fact of the matter is that we really don't know for certain that GW is man made. We have a lot of evidence that seems to point in that direction, but I think we definately do not have the full picture.
Joined: Dec 08, 2004 Posts: 921 Location: 145'2"E 37'46"S
Posted: Tue Jul 04, 2006 8:49 pm Post subject: Re: Which Scientists Dont Believe GW is Man Made
Picked an aussie based near me...
William Kininmonth, Managing Director, Australasian Climate Research, Kew, Australia
In a letter to to The Age newspaper, Kininmonth wrote that "In a spirited defence of his integrity, Tim Flannery (Insight, 8/10) repeats his misunderstanding of how the climate system works: Greenhouse gases emit more radiation than they absorb and their direct impact is to cool the atmosphere. More greenhouse gases will not cause the atmosphere to warm, as Flannery states in his book."
(http://www.theage.com.au/news/letters/telling-insight-into-immigrations-mindset/2005/10/09/1128796408597.html)
A subsequent letter went further, appealing to Einstein's laws of NUCLEAR physics (only applicable to NUCLEAR reactions) to explain his bizarre theories on radiant heat: "The laws of physics . . . allow for energy to be transformed between different modes. Remember Einstein and E = MC2?". (http://www.theage.com.au/text/articles/2005/10/14/1128796704300.html)
Posted: Tue Jul 04, 2006 9:07 pm Post subject: Re: Which Scientists Dont Believe GW is Man Made
I enjoyed the fireworks today, so I decided to have a litl bit of internet fun. Before I start, a disclaimer is required: I do consider that GHG are responsible for GW ...
So is Richard Duncan, but he is looked upon for spiritual guidance in the doomsday-death peakoil cult
Liamj wrote:
A Science Direct search turned up not a single journal paper, ever.
Try google scholar ... Science Direct only searches the very recent literature. He wrote a paper on convective heat transport in the troposphere in the 70s, and one article in an Ingenta journal.
Liamj wrote:
Are they all this good?
Unfortunately a few of them are better _________________ "Nuclear power has long been to the Left what embryonic-stem-cell research is to the Right--irredeemably wrong and a signifier of moral weakness."Esquire Magazine,12/05
The genetic code is commaless and so are my posts.
Joined: Oct 15, 2005 Posts: 1472 Location: Portland, Oregon
Posted: Tue Jul 04, 2006 11:29 pm Post subject: Re: Which Scientists Dont Believe GW is Man Made
OilyMon wrote:
And in every instance where scientific consensus was wrong, consensus was reached based on incomplete information and popular opinion. The fact of the matter is that we really don't know for certain that GW is man made. We have a lot of evidence that seems to point in that direction, but I think we definately do not have the full picture.
Again, if you're right--wonderful. If you're wrong- and we wait to deal with this-- it will be too late. You're willing to bet on being right? That's some pretty high stakes gambling.
Posted: Wed Jul 05, 2006 3:08 am Post subject: Re: Which Scientists Dont Believe GW is Man Made
Well, I'm a scientist and I dont belive in AGW. I'm not an atmosphere scientist though!
I mean look, the natural variations are enormous! At least 15 ice ages this far. Talk about climate shift! And what is disclosed when the glaciers in the Alps melt? Bloody tree trunks! There were trees growing up there a couple of thousand years ago.
Last edited by MacG on Wed Jul 05, 2006 10:46 pm; edited 1 time in total
Posted: Wed Jul 05, 2006 4:11 am Post subject: Re: Which Scientists Dont Believe GW is Man Made
MacG wrote:
I mean look, the natural variations are enormous! At least 15 ice ages this far. Talk about climate shift! And what is disclosed when the glaciers in the Alps melt? Bloody tree trunks! There were trees growing up there a couple of thousand years ago.
No doubt there are big natural variations. But how fast do they usually happen? The last variation seems to be happening damn fast. Any scientist would want to know why.
Posted: Wed Jul 05, 2006 5:07 am Post subject: Re: Which Scientists Dont Believe GW is Man Made
Doly wrote:
MacG wrote:
I mean look, the natural variations are enormous! At least 15 ice ages this far. Talk about climate shift! And what is disclosed when the glaciers in the Alps melt? Bloody tree trunks! There were trees growing up there a couple of thousand years ago.
No doubt there are big natural variations. But how fast do they usually happen? The last variation seems to be happening damn fast. Any scientist would want to know why.
Well, in order for a glacier to capture intact tree trunks, it would better act fast. Had it been a slow and gradual process, the trees had died and rotted away before the glacier had a chance to capture them.
Posted: Wed Jul 05, 2006 7:35 am Post subject: Re: Which Scientists Dont Believe GW is Man Made
Well Rocdoc, that sure is an illustrious list!
So who really are these defenders of the truth?
(All quotes from sourcewatch.org)
Richard Lindzen
Quote:
Ross Gelbspan, journalist and author, wrote a 1995 article in Harper's Magazine which was very critical of Lindzen and other global warming skeptics. In the article, Gelbspan reports Lindzen charged "oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; [and] his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels and a speech he wrote, entitled 'Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,' was underwritten by OPEC."
Verdict: Compromised corporate shill
Tim Patterson
Quote:
In 2002 Tim Patterson was a prime activist in a Stop Kyoto effort involving a large array of interconnected organizations and operatives. Tom Harris was one of the two APCO Worldwide organizers, and APCO's TASSC experiences included utilizing four TASSC stalwarts with over a decade of collaboration. Apparantly the funding for the event was from Canadian oil, electricity and lime producers, according to contemproary news reports at the time.
Quote:
TASSC as Industry Front Group
TASSC (The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition) was what is commonly known as an industry front group. That term means that a corporation or group of corporations creates a mock referee, which presents an appearance as a disinterested outside party, to join in a conflict as if they were not really following the orders and instructions of one side to gang up with their secret employer on the other side. Over time the tobacco industry had ever more difficult time staving off legislation restricting smoking, and they responded by hiring ever more people to play the role of neutral outsiders. TASSC was only one of many such groups.
Verdict: Industry pawn and tobacco apologist. Fraud.
Fred Singer
Quote:
In 1994 Singer was Chief Reviewer of the report Science, economics, and environmental policy: a critical examination published by the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution (AdTI). This was all part of an attack on EPA regulation on environmental tobacco smoke funded by the Tobacco Institute. At that time, Mr. Singer was a Senior Fellow with AdTI.
"The report's principal reviewer, Dr Fred Singer, was involved with the International Center for a Scientific Ecology, a group that was considered important in Philip Morris' plans to create a group in Europe similar to The Advancement for Sound Science Coalition (TASSC), as discussed by Ong and Glantz. He was also on a tobacco industry list of people who could write op-ed pieces on "junk science," defending the industry's views.
"On Feb 12, 2001, Singer wrote a letter to The Washington Post in which he denied receiving any oil company money in the previous 20 years when he had consulted for the oil industry.
Competitive Enterprise Institute lists Singer as "expert" on their website.
The National Center for Public Policy Research lists Singer as someone that journalists can interview on climate change policy.
Verdict Career contrarian. Compromised.
Robert Balling
Quote:
Balling has acknowledged that he had received $408,000 in research funding from the fossil fuel industry over the last decade (of which his University takes 50% for overhead). Contributors include ExxonMobil, the British Coal Corporation, Cyprus Minerals and OPEC.
His views have led to his enthusiastic adoption by various members of the free-market extremist Atlas Economic Research Foundation network. He writes regularly for the Cato Institute, Tech Central Station and the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
His writings find him regularly in the company of other prominent climate change sceptics, including Sallie L. Baliunas, and S. Fred Singer of the Science and Environmental Policy Project.
In August 2004 Balling told Business Week "I'm convinced there will be engineering schemes that will allow our children's children to have whatever climate they want".
Verdict: Compromised corporate fraud.
Is that the best you've got Rocdoc? What a pitiful collection of sell-outs. It's people like these who are quickening the destruction of this planet; I hope climate change hits them very, very hard. And please don't tell me to "argue the science" - you need real scientists in order for that to happen...
Posted: Wed Jul 05, 2006 8:02 am Post subject: Re: Which Scientists Dont Believe GW is Man Made
Quote:
However, I am reminded of the "debate" that takes place about evolution. Again, even though the overwhelming majority of scientists endorse the theory, there is a vocal minority faction that endorse the idea of intelligent design. Because it is impossible to fully and completely prove the theory of evolution, there can always be a critique of the theory...that's science. And therefore, in the public arena, dissenters can sway public opinion that evolution is not a proven theory, and that other theories are more plausible.
I don't think the arguments are the same...in terms of intelligent design the only argument for it is "why not?" in terms of the non-AGW argument there are a plethora of scientific arguments as to why water vapor and hence cloud cover and solar activity (radiation or cosmic rays) may be the main culprits for climate change. It is important to understand the the critics have reasonable scientific arguments whereas creationists just have beliefs.
Quote:
We have to assume that there is more evidence for a position that has high consensus at present than there is for any particular counter argument. Indeed, you have to assume that the detractors have at least equal probability of being eventually proved wrong.
Again consensus is rather meaningless, especially if the science is highly politicized as this one is. Yes in the end either might be right or a combination....but the corollary of your argument is that we must invest trillions of dollars to try and fix something when our current knowledge is that it is a coinflip (50:50) that the theory is correct. Maybe you like to gamble...I don't. Perhaps you view it as gambling with other people's money? I would prefer to see some of that go to eliminating hunger in the third world.
Quote:
Is that the best you've got Rocdoc? What a pitiful collection of sell-outs. It's people like these who are quickening the destruction of this planet; I hope climate change hits them very, very hard.
So you think that scientists like Hansen and Mann are without agendas? Give me a break. I have no intentions of ploughing through the various reasons why some of the pro AGW might continue to ignore the weak points in their arguments, it serves no purpose as it doesn't address the actual issues. If you want to argue the various theories any of the posted have put forth...have at it, that is valid comment. Personal attacks as to why they might write papers has little to do with the merit of the content of their publications. This is an all too often response from the scientifically ignorant who, being incapable of understanding any of the arguments choose to find reasons why the critics must be lying. As an example let's see you make some criticism of any of Lindzen's publications, perhaps De Freitas or maybe Tim Ball's? Obviously you are an expert or you would not choose to question the abilities of highly regarded scientists.
All times are GMT - 6 Hours Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Next
Page 1 of 5
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
