What do you think about the new findings of the UN IPCC scientists who are debunking global warming?
Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.
The new report issued by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee's office of the GOP Ranking Member details the views of the scientists, the overwhelming majority of whom spoke out in 2007.
If you would bother to read the article provided in my link, you will notice that each citation is linked to it's source. The amount of information, articles, research and studies linked are huge. I'm not going to post them all, but as I say, the supporting information is linked to the article cited.
The distinguished scientists featured in this new report are experts in diverse fields, including: climatology; oceanography; geology; biology; glaciology; biogeography; meteorology; oceanography; economics; chemistry; mathematics; environmental sciences; engineering; physics and paleoclimatology. Some of those profiled have won Nobel Prizes for their outstanding contribution to their field of expertise and many shared a portion of the UN IPCC Nobel Peace Prize with Vice President Gore.
- LarryLv 41 decade agoFavorite Answer
That is awesome! I guess some of the previous answerer's didn't even read the names or credentials. There are so many Climatologists, Physicists, Atmospheric Physicists, Astrophysicists, Paleoclimatologists, Meteorologists, Glaciologists, Oceanographers and they are from all over the world. That should blow the consensus out of the water. I am from Oklahoma and I have always liked Senator Inhofe. I have voted for him several times.
Wow, this report sure seems to have ruffled some feathers.
- J SLv 51 decade ago
There are no new findings, only a list of wildly exaggerated claims.
Even a brief glance at the actual "report" reveals clearly that the a large percentage of the contributors are speaking off the cuff, making reckless comments far outside their field of expertise.
Read through it for yourself, and note the degrees of the people quoted:
And those are the "best" "experts" they could find to debate global warming, among the millions of scientists worldwide? Pretty pathetic. I've seen more convincing spam emails for fake Viagra. I'm not that gullible.
The Oregon Petition claimed to have 19,000 scientists who did not believe in anthropogenic global warming. What happened to the other 18,600? (I almost signed it myself until I spent 5 minutes looking into the facts.) When you lift the covers, both lists mean nothing.
Anyone who is even mildly skeptical about the oil industry's "skeptical" propaganda isn't going to be fooled by the "400 skeptical scientists" report published by the Republicans on the EPW committee (note the "minority" in the URL, it's not like the committee endorses the list, let alone the Senate or any other members of Congress). The deceptive nature of the language of the "report" is an embarrassing low point for all Republicans. It's offensive. It is the kind of action lacking in moral values that has led me to take a hard look at having anything whatsoever to do with the Republican Party in the future.
While we're on the topic of so-called "skeptics":
Several skeptical scientists—Fred Singer, Fred Seitz and Patrick Michaels—have been linked to organizations funded by ExxonMobil and Philip Morris for the purpose of promoting global warming skepticism (see section: Risks of passive smoking). Similarly, groups employing global warming skeptics, such as the George C. Marshall Institute, have been criticized for their ties to fossil fuel companies.
On February 2, 2007, The Guardian statedthat Kenneth Green, a Visiting Scholar with AEI, had sent letters to scientists in the UK and the U.S., offering US$10,000 plus travel expenses and other incidental payments in return for essays with the purpose of "highlight[ing] the strengths and weaknesses of the IPCC process," specifically regarding the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report.
A furor was raised when it was revealed that the Intermountain Rural Electric Association (an energy cooperative that draws a significant portion of its electricity from coal-burning plants) donated $100,000 to Patrick Michaels and his group, New Hope Environmental Services, and solicited additional private donations from its members.
The Union of Concerned Scientists have produced a report titled 'Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air', that criticizes ExxonMobil for "[underwriting] the most sophisticated and most successful disinformation campaign since the tobacco industry" and for "[funnelling] about $16 million between 1998 and 2005 to a network of ideological and advocacy organizations that manufacture uncertainty on the issue." In 2006 Exxon claimed that it was no longer going to fund these groups though that claim has been challenged by Greenpeace.
The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, a skeptic group, when confronted about the funding of a video they put together ($250,000 for "The Greening of Planet Earth" from an oil company) stated, "We applaud Western Fuels for their willingness to publicize a side of the story that we believe to be far more correct than what at one time was 'generally accepted.' But does this mean that they fund The Center? Maybe it means that we fund them!"
Donald Kennedy, editor-in-chief of Science, has said that skeptics such as Michaels are lobbyists more than researchers, and that "I don't think it's unethical any more than most lobbying is unethical," he said. He said donations to skeptics amounts to "trying to get a political message across."
Of course Singer and Michaels figure prominently in the report... it notes that "Michaels is a senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute," which has received funding from Chevron, ExxonMobil, Shell Oil and Tenneco Gas, and the American Petroleum Institute.Source(s): So why would the Republican minority leader Senator James M. Inhofe (R-OK) on the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works publish this list? Do you suppose it could have anything to do with him being given over $500,000 by the two industries most threatened by global warming? The top industries supporting James M. Inhofe are: 1 Oil & Gas $319,958 2 Electric Utilities $195,907 http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/indus.asp?C... You don't need a postgraduate degree in climatology to understand that math!
- 1 decade ago
What names are on this list? Do any of them have degrees in climatology...
Wojick comes close, he has a Ph.D in mathematics.
"Wojick has been described as a journalist and policy analyst. According to a search of 22,000 academic journals, Wojick has not published any research in a peer-reviewed journal on the subject of climate change."
Oo, Ball has a degree in climatology, but hasn't taken any classes for almost three decades.
"Ball is listed as a "consultant" of a Calgary-based global warming skeptic organization called the "Friends of Science" (FOS). In a January 28, 2007 article in the Toronto Star, the President of the FOS admitted that about one-third of the funding for the FOS is provided by the oil industry. In an August, '06 Globe and Mail feature, the FOS was exposed as being funded in part by the oil and gas sector and hiding the fact that they were. According to the Globe and Mail, the oil industry money was funnelled through the Calgary Foundation charity, to the University of Calgary and then put into an education trust for the FOS."
How about Axel-Morner? "He claims to be an expert in "dowsing," the practice of finding water, metals, gemstones etc. through the use of a Y-shaped twig. Axel-Morner's attempt to prove his dowsing abilities is chronicled by James Randi, the well-known myth buster, who has offered the longstanding One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge."
I can't keep going or I'll never stop laughing...
Does Roger Pielke really not believe in Climate Change... heh...
Pielke: "This Article presents a series of seven assertions. First, human-caused climate change is real and requires attention by policy makers to both mitigation and adaptation—but there is no quick fix."
Obviously a denier, he believes there is no human-caused climate change, obviously.
From Roger Pielke's paper: The Case for a Sustainable Climate PolicySource(s): Quotes from the desmogblog unless otherwise noted http://www.desmogblog.com/node/1272
- BobLv 71 decade ago
It's just more nonsense from Senator Inhofe.
Only a few of the people he quotes are "IPCC scientists". They are way outnumbered by the IPCC scientists who know global warming is real, and mostly caused by us.
Here's one example of a "prominent scientist". And his authoritative study.
"Another "prominent scientist" is listed as "Chemist Frank Britton" who wrote his condemnation "in a July 28, 2007 article in the Pasadena Star." Well. Letter to the editor/opinion piece, actually. At the end of his published piece (no longer available on the Star News web site but archived at http://accboards.com/forums/archive/index.php/thre... he lists his impressive credentials: Frank Britton has a degree in chemistry from Cal State L.A. He lives in Pasadena. Yessiree, an undergraduate degree in chemistry does a "prominent scientist" make. No background in climate science."
A letter to the editor from an unqualified guy is "proof"? His "science" is flat wrong.
Inhofe is getting very desperate.
Note that the "contact" is Mark Murano. Murano was on Rush Limbaugh's staff before he was hired by Inhofe. He's famous (infamous?) for writing a story that claimed Representative Murthas medals were fake.
Real believable guys (not).
Good websites for more info:
"climate science from climate scientists"
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
Inhofe does not even quote all of the scientists who disagree with global warming theory. For example, he does not mention Roger Pielke, the most highly respected and cited climatologist in the field. Nor does he quote Steve McIntyre, the man responsible for destroying the famed "Hockey Stick."
To his credit, Inhofe does quote Steven Schwartz, the man who wrote the peer-reviewed paper on climate sensitivity that other scientists say has finally crushed the claim that global warming will be catastrophic.
For people who want to read the peer-reviewed paper by Schwartiz, you can find it here:
- gcnp58Lv 71 decade ago
Could you provide a link to one of the peer-review publications they cite as providing the scientific evidence on which they base their objections?
Ok, I'll do it for you: Here's an example of a study cited by Inhofe:
Here's what ACS has to say about Energy and Environment:
Maybe you could go through that and find a few things from more reputable sources. Or not.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
Most of thiose people didnt sign the original IPCC report to begain with there names were added without their consent, by buracrats that have a political agenda
- Anonymous1 decade ago
No one is "debunking" global warming. All this Bs is is a piece of oil company probaganda that one of the right-wing senators put in the Congressional. Most of the so-called "sciinetsts" named aren't even working in climatology or meterology.
Global warming is a proven fact--therre is no "debate." Nor will the special interests' propaganda mills change that.
- TomcatLv 51 decade ago
I think there are going to be thousands of scientists in a few years denying that they ever, REALLY, endorsed global warming, their statements were just taken our of context.
- Dana1981Lv 71 decade ago
I would love to see some new findings.
Instead we have to read 50 questions about this damn Inhofe blog/report, where he lists a bunch of "prominent scientists", many of which have zero knowledge of climate science. Chemists? Mathematicians? Geographers??
If you come across some new findings, let me know. There was a recent skeptical paper by Singer/Christy/Douglass et al which was actually interesting to discuss.
This Inhofe blog is a waste of time.