On the propaganda of climate change denial

[Norman Bernstein]

Interested op-ed today about the characteristics of anti-science propaganda. The full article is at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/shawn-...b_1423509.html

A short quote from it follows:

The sweet and fetid stench of propaganda
One of the most common tactics deniers use is something I call The Impressive Letter Technique, or this being NASA, let it be known by the acronym TILT -- which is exactly what it tries to do to your thinking. A TILT is a letter signed by a lot of impressive sounding people who make a public statement or demand, and expect the gullible antiscience press (whose last science class was probably in high school), and the public, to lap it up because of their collective authority.

The classic example of a denialist TILT is the OISM Petition Project, which claims to have the signatures of 31,487 scientists who question the scientific consensus on climate change. Pretty impressive, huh? That many scientists questioning something must mean there's a real scientific controversy about it. Until you break it down and then the petition project begins to evaporate into the fetid smoke and mirrors of propaganda. It turns out that the petition is open to anyone with a bachelor's of science degree, which is roughly 20.5 million Americans. Those are their "scientists." So it's perhaps not surprising that of the signers, 99.9% of them don't have any training in climate science. And out of a pool of 20.5 million, only 31.5 thousand, or 00.15%, have signed the petition. In other words, outliers.

49 former NASA employees fall from grace
Ironically, at the same time I was speaking to some of NASA's climate scientists about how to counter these kinds of propaganda attacks, the denialsphere was abuzz with a new TILT -- this one signed by 49 former NASA employees. Like other letters of its kind, this one, addressed to NASA Administrator Charlie Bolden, is signed by some prominent and semi-prominent names, thus is has the sheen of collective authority, but none of them are climate scientists or have any training in it. In fact when you break the letter down, it too evaporates into propaganda -- in a way that sullies the names and credentials of these formerly respected individuals.

[Paul Pless]

What's your point? Ignorant people have opinions? And they probably shouldn't?

[Flying Orca]

If it was just ignorant people having opinions I wouldn't be concerned. For a couple of decades there has been an organized and very well-funded (many millions of mostly American petrodollars) movement to undermine legitimate science using every dirty trick in the book. The short-term winners, maybe, are the people who avoid regulation. The long-term losers are everyone else, particularly the children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren of those who have been gulled into inaction over the past couple of decades.

[Peerie Maa]

If it was just ignorant people having opinions I wouldn't be concerned. For a couple of decades there has been an organized and very well-funded (many millions of mostly American petrodollars) movement to undermine legitimate science using every dirty trick in the book. The short-term winners, maybe, are the people who avoid regulation. The long-term losers are everyone else, particularly the children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren of those who have been gulled into inaction over the past couple of decades.

Tobacco industry all over again.

[Norman Bernstein]

What's your point? Ignorant people have opinions? And they probably shouldn't?

I think the point is that propagandists are more than willing to use bogus data, and bogus testimonials, to discredit science for the sake of politics. As was demonstrated, the claim of '31,000+ scientists', to support climate change denial, was most decidedly bogus. This isn't 'ignorance', it's 'deception', 'distortion', and 'misrepresentation'.

Experts aren't always right... they're just more right, more often, than non-experts.

[Flying Orca]

Tobacco industry all over again.

Same paid shills in some cases. Fred Singer has a lot to answer for.

[Chip-skiff]

Tobacco industry all over again.

Acid rain all over again. When Gene Likens published the first data from his precip studies at Hubbard Brook, NH, the coal industry spent millions to smear him and his work.

Greed Never Sleeps.

[Flying Orca]

Acid rain all over again. When Gene Likens published the first data from his precip studies at Hubbard Brook, NH, the coal industry spent millions to smear him and his work.

Greed Never Sleeps.

There's a name from the past. My dad did some of that Hubbard Brook stuff with Likens.

[wardd]

"i don't believe my tobacco profits are injurious to my health"

[Chip-skiff]

There's a name from the past. My dad did some of that Hubbard Brook stuff with Likens.

Cool! I used the Hubbard Brook bulk rain collectors that Likens designed for monitoring acid rain in the Wind River Range, for seven years. He's one of my scientific heroes.

[Flying Orca]

Dad did his undergrad work at Dartmouth (local scholarship thingy) before a PhD in limnology with Odum in Georgia. He turned down leadership of the Experimental Lakes Area, where close friend and colleague Dave Schindler did seminal stuff on acid rain and eutrophication, in favour of smaller projects in the arctic, where aquatic science was in its infancy.

[Dan McCosh]

The problem with this line of reasoning is looking at how many proponents of AGW are not climate scientists. Sort of like looking at how many "Concerned Scientists" are not scientists.

[Flying Orca]

The problem with this line of reasoning is looking at how many proponents of AGW are not climate scientists. Sort of like looking at how many "Concerned Scientists" are not scientists.

If by "proponents" you mean "people who have been convinced by the scientific evidence", I don't see the problem to which you allude, as their numbers do not detract from either the evidence or the overwhelming support of the consensus view within climate science itself.

[Shang]

What's your point? Ignorant people have opinions? And they probably shouldn't?

Well said, Paul! I agree completely:
Ignorant people's opinions are less than irrelevant. Since ignorant people do not considered the issues at hand, nor informed themselves of the facts involved, they've handed themselves over to the manipulations of those who would benefit from ignorant people's support and votes.

[John Smith]

If it was just ignorant people having opinions I wouldn't be concerned. For a couple of decades there has been an organized and very well-funded (many millions of mostly American petrodollars) movement to undermine legitimate science using every dirty trick in the book. The short-term winners, maybe, are the people who avoid regulation. The long-term losers are everyone else, particularly the children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren of those who have been gulled into inaction over the past couple of decades.

One's opinion on global warming is related directly to the news media one gets his facts from. That is the problem with today's world. We are constantly fed facts that are not facts by people who don't want them to be facts, and are listened to and believed by those who want the facts to fit their opinions. We see outright lies, stuff taken out of context, etc., and I am told this is all free speech.

The most telling moment in Gore's film was the "expert" witness Gore caught lying.

I KNOW this: ponds I skated on all winter, every winter, as a boy have not frozen sufficiently for saking in 35 years.

[John Smith]

I think the point is that propagandists are more than willing to use bogus data, and bogus testimonials, to discredit science for the sake of politics. As was demonstrated, the claim of '31,000+ scientists', to support climate change denial, was most decidedly bogus. This isn't 'ignorance', it's 'deception', 'distortion', and 'misrepresentation'.

Experts aren't always right... they're just more right, more often, than non-experts.

I just came in here to my computer after watching "Harry's Law". Interesting part of it was about a girl old enough to buy the morning after pill without a prescription selling it at cost to younger girls: much like people might buy beer for those too young to buy it themselves.

If what the girl testified to is true, this pill was approved for over the counter, non prescription sale to all girls of child bearing age. The science and the FDA were overruled by the administration and it's only available via prescription for those under 17.

People who don't believe the earth is getting warmer are the same people who don't believe youngsters are having sex. They seem to be the ones who love their medicare but don't want the government involved in healthcare. The ones who hate single moms but do everything they can to make more single moms.

[John Smith]

Well said, Paul! I agree completely:
Ignorant people's opinions are less than irrelevant. Since ignorant people do not considered the issues at hand, nor informed themselves of the facts involved, they've handed themselves over to the manipulations of those who would benefit from ignorant people's support and votes.

I don't think it's a question of ignorant people so much as misinformed people, and there is a difference. An ignorant person watches the Home Shopping Network rather than the news. The misinformed person watches a lot of "news", but the facts presented are not the same from all outlets.

If a person is given two conflicting facts, he may research to see which set is correct, or he'll just hang his hat on the one that is most convenient.

Some of us will remember the 100 mpg carburater that was develped 80 years ago, but the oil companies bought the patent so no one could build the car. I tried to tell people the patent only protected for 17 years, and if Ford could build a 100 mpg car, they would, cause they could sell it.

People believe what they want to believe.

[wardd]

"This is also a lesson for the modern times," Shen said. "We don't know what will happen or when it will happen."This climate change "happened naturally, and it killed everything," Erwin said. But he said that if critics of global warming science think it shows that climate change is nothing to worry about because it has happened naturally in the past, that's the wrong conclusion."I think the lesson you take away from this is that you don't want to get anywhere close to a mass extinction," Erwin said. "It took 5 million years before life got better again."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/1...html?ref=earth

[Shang]

Of course you all remember ice-boating on the Hudson river...



...No...?
Well, it was documented by Currier and Ives just before the industrial revolution.

[Steve McMahon]

Hmmm. It's April 16th, and today I did some painting on the outside of my house, I took the bike for a ride, and I went for a (brief) swim in my pool. Many of the fields around me are tilled and seeded. 30 years ago all of these activities were things you did at the end of May or early June in a good year at 45 North.

[Garret]

Hmmm. It's April 16th, and today I did some painting on the outside of my house, I took the bike for a ride, and I went for a (brief) swim in my pool. Many of the fields around me are tilled and seeded. 30 years ago all of these activities were things you did at the end of May or early June in a good year at 45 North.

'zactly. I'm @ 45 N (OK, 44.5) & the rule used to be to not plant a garden before Memorial day (Last Monday in May to youz guys in Canuckistan )

[Shang]

Oh... and the ticks...
Usually a large percentage of the ticks are killed off by the winter's cold.
Two weeks ago I walked down to the dock, then back up to the house. Shucked off my clothes out on the deck (to Barbara's amusement) and counted twenty-five deer ticks on my jeans and T-shirt.

Joking aside, them little varmints carry Lime Disease.

[WX]

There are apparently no peer reviewed research papers claiming that GW is not happening.

[The Bigfella]

Interested op-ed today about the characteristics of anti-science propaganda. The full article is at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/shawn-...b_1423509.html

A short quote from it follows:

Yep, the anti-science propaganda of Professor Mann is well known.

There's some fascinating stories out there.... one of my favourites is this one, from 2007

http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/hom.../08/01291.html

[PeterSibley]

There are apparently no peer reviewed research papers claiming that GW is not happening.

Noted .

[The Bigfella]

There are apparently no peer reviewed research papers claiming that GW is not happening.

Noted .

Apparently there's a lot. I haven't bothered reading them btw.

http://www.populartechnology.net/200...upporting.html

[PeterSibley]

Apparently there's a lot. I haven't bothered reading them btw.

http://www.populartechnology.net/200...upporting.html

Perhaps... the peer reviewed definition doesn't meet the norm of being published in a recognised journal .

Peer-Reviewed: (defined) "of or being scientific or scholarly writing or research that has undergone evaluation by other experts in the field to judge if it merits publication." but not published? just read by someone else who thinks it's worthy ?

Disclaimer: The inclusion of a paper in this list does not imply a specific personal position to any of the authors. While a minority of authors on the list cannot be labeled skeptics (e.g. Harold Brooks, Roger Pielke Jr., Roger Pielke Sr.) their paper(s) or results from their paper(s) can still support skeptic's arguments against ACC/AGW alarm. Various papers are mutually exclusive and should be considered independently. This list will be updated and corrected as necessary.

Read: The following papers support skeptic arguments against Anthropogenic Climate Change (ACC), Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) or ACC/AGW Alarm.

ACC/AGW Alarm: (defined), "concern relating to a perceived negative environmental or socio-economic effect of ACC/AGW, usually exaggerated as catastrophic."

Peer-Reviewed: (defined) "of or being scientific or scholarly writing or research that has undergone evaluation by other experts in the field to judge if it merits publication."

Paper: (defined) "A piece of writing on an academic subject."

Skepticism: (defined) "an attitude of doubt or a disposition to incredulity either in general or toward a particular object."

Counting Method: Only peer-reviewed papers are counted. Addendums, Comments, Corrections, Erratum, Rebuttals, Replies, Responses, and Submitted papers are not counted but listed as references in defense of various papers or as rebuttals to other published papers. There are many more listings than just the over 900 counted papers,

[Garret]

While it may be a very warm/early spring - that could be an anomaly - as I'm sure most here know. As mentioned above, weather is gonna get more "interesting" whether the warming is man-made or natural.

Do not forget the acidification of the oceans. That is even more scary than (as has been predicted by climatologists) VT having the climate of present day MD in 60 years.

[TANSTAF1]

"Global greenhouse gas emissions have risen even faster during the past decade than predicted by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other international agencies. According to alarmist groups, this proves global warming is much worse than previously feared. The increase in emissions “should shock even the most jaded negotiators” at international climate talks currently taking place in Bonn, Germany, the UK Guardian reports. But there’s only one problem with this storyline; global temperatures have not increased at all during the past decade.


The evidence is powerful, straightforward, and damning. NASA satellite instruments precisely measuring global temperatures show absolutely no warming during the past the past 10 years. This is the case for the Northern Hemisphere mid-latitudes, including the United States. This is the case for the Arctic, where the signs of human-caused global warming are supposed to be first and most powerfully felt. This is the case for global sea surface temperatures, which alarmists claim should be sucking up much of the predicted human-induced warming. This is the case for the planet as a whole.


If atmospheric carbon dioxide emissions are the sole or primary driver of global temperatures, then where is all the global warming? We’re talking 10 years of higher-than-expected increases in greenhouse gases, yet 10 years of absolutely no warming. That’s 10 years of nada, nunca, nein, zero, and zilch.


There is a difference between global warming theory and alarmist global warming theory. Global warming theory holds that certain atmospheric gases warm the earth. Unless other factors intervene, adding more of these gases will tend to warm the atmosphere. This is well accepted across the scientific community. Alarmist global warming theory entails the additional assertion that the earth’s sensitivity to even very modest changes in atmospheric gases is extremely high. This is in sharp scientific dispute and has been repeatedly contradicted by real-world climate conditions.


Most powerfully, global temperature trends during the twentieth century sharply defied atmospheric carbon dioxide trends. More than half of the warming during the twentieth century occurred prior to the post-World War II economic boom, yet atmospheric carbon dioxide emissions rose minimally during this time. Between 1945 and 1977, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels jumped rapidly, yet global temperatures declined. Only during the last quarter of the century was there an appreciable correlation between greenhouse gas trends and global temperature trends. But that brief correlation has clearly disappeared this century.


Which brings us back to the sharp scientific disagreement about whether the earth’s climate is extremely sensitive or merely modestly sensitive to minor variances in the composition of its atmospheric gases. Carbon dioxide comprises far less than 1 percent of the earth’s atmosphere. In fact, we could multiply the amount of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere a full 25 times and it would still equal less than 1 percent of the earth’s atmosphere. The alarmists claim that the minor increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations during the past 100 years, from roughly 3 parts per 10,000 to roughly 4 parts per 10,000, is causing climate havoc. Real-world temperature data tell us an entirely different story.


The Scientific Method requires testing a proposed scientific hypothesis before accepting it as the truth. When real-world observations contradict the hypothesis, you go back to the drawing board. For more than a century now, real-world climate conditions have defied the alarmist global warming hypothesis. This is especially so during the past decade, when temperatures should be rising dramatically if the alarmist hypothesis is correct. Temperatures are not rising dramatically. They are not even rising at all."

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestay...lobal-warming/

Go ahead shoot the messenger (who works for the Heartland Institute so he's pure trash).

Don't deal with the facts. Just call him ignorant. That will make you feel good.

Fire away!

[PeterSibley]

Or alternatively read the same story in the Der Spiegel , they tend to avoid the word" alarmist" ,it's such a give a way .

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...662092,00.html

[Norman Bernstein]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestay...lobal-warming/

Go ahead shoot the messenger (who works for the Heartland Institute so he's pure trash).

Don't deal with the facts. Just call him ignorant. That will make you feel good.

Fire away!

No need to get quite that defensive.

While I'm hardly what you'd call an alarmist global warming kinda guy, I would have to look just a bit, with a skeptical eye, towards that article.

As for the Heartland Institute: I think their own mission statement sums it up:

Mission: Its mission is to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems.

Therewith the problem: if you cast the solutions to all social and economic problems as being 'free-market based', then you have a VERY powerful built-in bias. Who says that all the solutions to social and economic problems can be solved by the 'free market'?

I did drop into the Heartland Institute website very briefly, and wandered across yet another paper which argues that hydraulic fracturing ('fracking') does not cause contamination of groundwater. The problem is that evidence of just such a thing abounds. Their claim is that the contamination observed has always been present, and comes from natural sources. Tell that to people living in the Marcellus Shale area whose flaming water faucets started burning, coincident with fracking operations nearby.

While the article may have some reasonable criticisms to make, it DOES have a very strong intrinsic bias. I think I'd pay more respect to a more balanced source.

[TANSTAF1]

Perhaps... the peer reviewed definition doesn't meet the norm of being published in a recognised journal .

Who determines what is a recognized journal?

[elf]

For me, the core issue is not whether it's happening. There's no debate about that. The reason for concern is the impact of it. And there's the rub.

Clearly, if you value human life as the Regressives and Deniers so loudly proclaim they do, you should, logically, be very concerned about any process which, in the long term, is likely to make the planet uninhabitable over a large portion of its surface.

I am of the opinion, as someone who feels that if we valued human life, even if we didn't value the rest of life, we needed to control human population growth from the end of WWII, and we need to continue to do that everywhere across the earth. Because the core cause of the climate change, which has now progressed to the point that we cannot turn it around, is that there are too many human beings on the planet.

[varadero]

For me, the core issue is not whether it's happening. There's no debate about that. The reason for concern is the impact of it. And there's the rub.

Clearly, if you value human life as the Regressives and Deniers so loudly proclaim they do, you should, logically, be very concerned about any process which, in the long term, is likely to make the planet uninhabitable over a large portion of its surface.

I am of the opinion, as someone who feels that if we valued human life, even if we didn't value the rest of life, we needed to control human population growth from the end of WWII, and we need to continue to do that everywhere across the earth. Because the core cause of the climate change, which has now progressed to the point that we cannot turn it around, is that there are too many human beings on the planet.

This kind of thinking is most dangerous, and has lead to some of the most disgusting evil practices in modern times. I would suggest anyone who seriously thinks this way, should lead the way in reducing the population by example by shuffeling themselves off the nearest cliff. Otherwise they could sterilise their own children to prevent them adding to the problem, this is best done before puberty.

But, I could not sanction any of the recomendations by the eugenist crowd.

[boatbuddha]

[img]http://di2.shoppingshadow.com/images/pi/97/73/9a/2001049762-260x260-0-0_Anti_Intellectualism_in_American_Life_by_Richard _H.jpg[/img]

True then, true now.

[Norman Bernstein]

Regarding the polluted wells I read there is evidence that is it not due to fracking and has been happening for years where no fracking has ever been done.

Perhaps it's an issue of just what you prefer to read. MY reading has indicated that it is possible to distinguish between natural release of methane from sources closer to the surface, and that from fracking... because they are chemically different. The tests in the cases I've read about show that the most recent cases of 'flammable water'.... i.e., the ones which didn't begin UNTIL nearby fracking was under way... are NOT from those natural sources.... they're from the deeper wells.

I'll see if I can't dig up a source.

[TANSTAF1]

We JUST got done talking about this! Were you not paying attention when it was revealed that these "Many Respected 'Scientists'" were not scientists at all-- were you not paying attention when it was revealed that even when they were, they knew NOTHING about climate science? It would be like asking a doctor of optometry what he thinks about positron decay rates in pulsar stars. Sure, they're both science fields-- but clearly one needs to have specialized knowledge to have an informed opinion. If you don't have that knowledge your opinion is either useless or next thing to it.

I confess I did not read the first page of this thread. If this has been posted before I apologize, but it must bear repeating as seemingly you did not understand it:

Signatories are approved for inclusion in the Petition Project list if they have obtained formal educational degrees at the level of Bachelor of Science or higher in appropriate scientific fields. The petition has been circulated only in the United States.The current list of petition signers includes 9,029 PhD; 7,157 MS; 2,586 MD and DVM; and 12,715 BS or equivalent academic degrees. Most of the MD and DVM signers also have underlying degrees in basic science.All of the listed signers have formal educations in fields of specialization that suitably qualify them to evaluate the research data related to the petition statement. Many of the signers currently work in climatological, meteorological, atmospheric, environmental, geophysical, astronomical, and biological fields directly involved in the climate change controversy.The Petition Project classifies petition signers on the basis of their formal academic training, as summarized below. Scientists often pursue specialized fields of endeavor that are different from their formal education, but their underlying training can be applied to any scientific field in which they become interested.Outlined below are the numbers of Petition Project signatories, subdivided by educational specialties. These have been combined, as indicated, into seven categories.1. Atmospheric, environmental, and Earth sciences includes 3,805 scientists trained in specialties directly related to the physical environment of the Earth and the past and current phenomena that affect that environment.2. Computer and mathematical sciences includes 935 scientists trained in computer and mathematical methods. Since the human-caused global warming hypothesis rests entirely upon mathematical computer projections and not upon experimental observations, these sciences are especially important in evaluating this hypothesis.3. Physics and aerospace sciences include 5,812 scientists trained in the fundamental physical and molecular properties of gases, liquids, and solids, which are essential to understanding the physical properties of the atmosphere and Earth.4. Chemistry includes 4,822 scientists trained in the molecular interactions and behaviors of the substances of which the atmosphere and Earth are composed.5. Biology and agriculture includes 2,965 scientists trained in the functional and environmental requirements of living things on the Earth.6. Medicine includes 3,046 scientists trained in the functional and environmental requirements of human beings on the Earth.7. Engineering and general science includes 10,102 scientists trained primarily in the many engineering specialties required to maintain modern civilization and the prosperity required for all human actions, including environmental programs.The following outline gives a more detailed analysis of the signers' educations.Atmosphere, Earth, & Environment (3,805)

1. Atmosphere (579)

I) Atmospheric Science (112)
II) Climatology (39)
III) Meteorology (343)
IV) Astronomy (59)
V) Astrophysics (26)

2. Earth (2,240)

I) Earth Science (94)
II) Geochemistry (63)
III) Geology (1,684)
IV) Geophysics (341)
V) Geoscience (36)
VI) Hydrology (22)

3. Environment (986)

I) Environmental Engineering (487)
II) Environmental Science (253)
III) Forestry (163)
IV) Oceanography (83)

Computers & Math (935)

1. Computer Science (242)
2. Math (693)

I) Mathematics (581)
II) Statistics (112)

Physics & Aerospace (5,812)

1. Physics (5,225)

I) Physics (2,365)
II) Nuclear Engineering (223)
III) Mechanical Engineering (2,637)

2. Aerospace Engineering (587)

Chemistry (4,822)

1. Chemistry (3,129)
2. Chemical Engineering (1,693)

Biochemistry, Biology, & Agriculture (2,965)

1. Biochemistry (744)

I) Biochemistry (676)
II) Biophysics (68)

2. Biology (1,438)

I) Biology (1,049)
II) Ecology (76)
III) Entomology (59)
IV) Zoology (149)
V) Animal Science (105)

3. Agriculture (783)

I) Agricultural Science (296)
II) Agricultural Engineering (114)
III) Plant Science (292)
IV) Food Science (81)

Medicine (3,046)

1. Medical Science (719)
2. Medicine (2,327)

General Engineering & General Science (10,102)

1. General Engineering (9,833)

I) Engineering (7,280)
II) Electrical Engineering (2,169)
III) Metallurgy (384)

2. General Science (269)

[wardd]

i'm beginning to think tan is a very lonely guy seeking attention

[Norman Bernstein]

I confess I did not read the first page of this thread. If this has been posted before I apologize, but it must bear repeating as seemingly you did not understand it:

So, instead of 31,000, the real number (directly involved with climate science) is more like 3800.

What percentage of legitimate climate scientists does this represent?

Is it a big majority? A slim majority? A big minority? A small minority?

(Sorry, but the argument that the 'others', while not being climate scientists, have a 'basic understanding of bla bla bla...' doesn't wash. I have a BS in Electrical Engineering, and I took several years of 'basic science', including chemistry, physics, etc.... but I'm no more qualified to render a professional opinion on climate science than my doctor.... and he ain't qualifed, either!)

I'll say it again: experts are not always right.... but they're more right, and more often right, than non-experts.

[wardd]

what kind of grants were they getting under bush?

and was the message still agw?

[Norman Bernstein]

Norm,

You're pretty active, right? On what what percentage of all the major liberul petitions does your name appear?

Not a one. I don't sign petitions.

Now, let's also consider that scientists are basically apolitical...

A bankrupt assumption. Scientists are not, by nature or inclination, any more apolitical than anyone elese.

.....and also for the most part depend on government or foundation grants for their work and their livelihood. How many would you think would sign such a petition?

This is a VERY common charge, coming from the right wing; it makes the presumption that the scientific community, or at least, a significant portion, is more than willing to sacrifice their reputations for the sake of their government grants and similar funding. It's an EASY accusation to make... because it requires no proof.... and indeed, nobody has ever proved it.

On the other hand, scientists are acutely aware that their credibility rests on their reputation... and scientists shown to have falsified data to claim a bankrupt assertion suffer far WORSE punishment; the loss of their reputation is a catastrophe.

Can scientists be persuaded to shade their professional opinions by poltics? Of COURSE they can, depending on their politics. That is why the Heartland Institute can gather so many articles contrary to prevailing scientific opinion.... from scientists. As thier own mission statement states very clearly, the Heartland Institute is, by it's own nature and admission, a biased institution... and they don't promote science, at all..... they promote bias.

So, basically, this 'petition' you refer to is meaningless.... it's a political document, not a scientific one.

[Dan McCosh]

If by "proponents" you mean "people who have been convinced by the scientific evidence", I don't see the problem to which you allude, as their numbers do not detract from either the evidence or the overwhelming support of the consensus view within climate science itself.

The thread noted that the technique of creating groups of "scientists" who were critical of the AGM theory, was a bogus propaganda technique. I was just noting that similar propaganda techniques are used to argue the case for AGM. Neither has much scientific validity, but both are basic to politics. I might add that I have never looked what constitutes a climate scientist, but wouldn't be surprised to find many have a poor background in physical chemistry.

[Flying Orca]

The thread noted that the technique of creating groups of "scientists" who were critical of the AGM theory, was a bogus propaganda technique. I was just noting that similar propaganda techniques are used to argue the case for AGM. Neither has much scientific validity, but both are basic to politics. I might add that I have never looked what constitutes a climate scientist, but wouldn't be surprised to find many have a poor background in physical chemistry.

Depending on what you mean by "climate scientist", I would expect some to be good at it and others to have no need for it whatsoever. The body of evidence supporting the broad consensus on climate change is enormous and multidisciplinary; the work has been done by specialists ranging from astrophysics to zoology.

Despite conflicting messages cranks and shills continue to pump out (they've got to earn those millions in petrodollars somehow), within the scientific community the broad consensus on climate change (i.e. it's happening, it's very likely mostly caused by humans, and it's very likely to be bad for us) is as unassailable as evolution or heliocentricity. Of course there are papers that challenge, question, or refine some aspect of the incredibly huge range of data supporting the consensus. The important thing to note is that despite millions of dollars in funding from people like the Koch brothers, the paid shills and cranks have not managed to produce a single respectable paper challenging the broad consensus of the scientific community. Not a one.

[varadero]

Thanks to the actions of Peter Gleick and his theft and forgery of documents we now know how much the "major anti AGW organisation" actually recieves from these Koch brothers.
As for propoganda.
From John Horgan at Scientific American who asks:
Should Global-Warming Activists Lie to Defend Their Cause?
He writes:

"I’ll give the last word to one of my students. The Gleick incident, he said, shows that the “debate” over global warming is not really a debate any more. It’s a war, and when people are waging war, they always lie for their cause."

[PeterSibley]

Who determines what is a recognized journal?

The scientific community , not a coal company . If you don't like the reality ofthe science find some real , really peer reviewed science that supports your position instead of the pap that BF posted . You might notice that he hasn't been back to defend it ... that is indicative of it's value .

Start reading some real papers and maybe think about the position you are holding. It is completely at odds to reality.

[TANSTAF1]

In my next post I will list a few of the 900+ articles in peer reviewed publications. I did not see the Enquirer listed.

Also here's a link to a survey of peer reviewed articles that found less than half supported global wamring:

[urlhttp://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=8641[/url]

In 2004, history professor Naomi Oreskes performed a survey of research papers on climate change. Examining peer-reviewed papers published on the ISI Web of Science database from 1993 to 2003, she found a majority supported the "consensus view," defined as humans were having at least some effect on global climate change. Oreskes' work has been repeatedly cited, but as some of its data is now nearly 15 years old, its conclusions are becoming somewhat dated.

Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte recently updated this research. Using the same database and search terms as Oreskes, he examined all papers published from 2004 to February 2007. The results have been submitted to the journal Energy and Environment, of which DailyTech has obtained a pre-publication copy. The figures are surprising.

Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."

[TANSTAF1]

Here's as much of the list as can fit in one post:


A 2000-year global temperature reconstruction based on non-treering proxies (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 1049-1058, December 2007)
- Craig Loehle

- Correction to: A 2000-Year Global Temperature Reconstruction Based on Non-Tree Ring Proxies (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 19, Number 1, pp. 93-100, January 2008)
- Craig Loehle, J. Huston McCulloch

"The corrected estimates are very similar to the original results, showing quite coherent peaks. ... The corrected data continue to show the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and Little Ice Age (LIA) quite clearly. ... While instrumental data are not strictly comparable, the rise in 29 year-smoothed global data from NASA GISS from 1935 to 1992 (with data from 1978 to 2006) is 0.34 Deg C. Even adding this rise to the 1935 reconstructed value, the MWP peak remains 0.07 Deg C above the end of the 20th Century values"

- Reply To: Comments on Loehle, "correction To: A 2000-Year Global Temperature Reconstruction Based on Non-Tree Ring Proxies"
(Energy & Environment, Volume 19, Number 5, pp. 775-776, September 2008)
- Craig Loehle

A Climate of Doubt about Global Warming
(Environmental Geosciences, Volume 7, Issue 4, December 2000)
- Robert C. Balling Jr.

A comparison of local and aggregated climate model outputs with observed data
(Hydrological Sciences Journal, Volume 55, Issue 7, pp. 1094-111, October 2010)
- G. G. Anagnostopoulos, D. Koutsoyiannis, A. Christofides, A. Efstratiadis, N. Mamassis

A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions(PDF)
(International Journal of Climatology, Volume 28, Issue 13, pp. 1693-1701, December 2007)
- David H. Douglass, John R. Christy, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer

- Addendum to A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model Predictions (PDF)
(Submitted to the International Journal of Climatology, 2007)
- David H. Douglass, John R. Christy, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer

- An updated comparison of model ensemble and observed temperature trends in the tropical troposphere (PDF)
(Submitted to the International Journal of Climatology, 2009)
- Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick

A Critical Appraisal of the Global Warming Debate
(New Zealand Geographer, Volume 50, Issue 1, pp. 30-32, 1994)
- C.R. de Freitas

A critical review of the hypothesis that climate change is caused by carbon dioxide
(Energy & Environment, Volume 11, Number 6, pp. 631-638, November 2000)
- Heinz Hug

A dissenting view on global climate change
(The Electricity Journal, Volume 6, Issue 6, pp. 62-69, July 1993)
- Henry R. Linden

A natural constraint to anthropogenic global warming (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 21, Number 4, pp. 225-236, August 2010)
- William Kininmonth

A new dynamical mechanism for major climate shifts (PDF)
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 34, Issue 13, July 2007)
- Anastasios A. Tsonis et al.

A null hypothesis for CO2 (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 21, Number 4, pp. 171-200, August 2010)
- Roy Clark

A sceptical view of climate change and water resources planning
(Irrigation and Drainage, Volume 50, Issue 3, pp. 221-226, July 2001)
- Geoff Kite

A Surfeit of Cycles (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Number 6, pp. 985-996, October 2009)
- William M. Schaffer

A test of corrections for extraneous signals in gridded surface temperature data (PDF)
(Climate Research, Volume 26, Number 2, pp. 159-173, May 2004)
- Ross McKitrick, Patrick J. Michaels

- Are temperature trends affected by economic activity? Reply to Benestad (2004) (PDF)
(Climate Research, Volume 27, Number 2, pp. 175–176, October 2004)
- Ross McKitrick, Patrick J. Michaels

- A test of corrections for extraneous signals in gridded surface temperature data: Erratum (PDF)
(Climate Research, Volume 27, Number 3, pp. 265-268, December 2004)
- Ross McKitrick, Patrick J. Michaels

Altitude dependence of atmospheric temperature trends: Climate models versus observation (PDF)
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 31, Issue 13, July 2004)
- David H. Douglass, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer

An Alternative Explanation for Differential Temperature Trends at the Surface and in the Lower Troposphere (PDF)
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 114, November 2009)
- Philip J. Klotzbach, Roger A. Pielke Sr., Roger A. Pielke Jr., John R. Christy, Richard T. McNider

- Correction to "An alternative explanation for differential temperature trends at the surface and in the lower troposphere"(PDF)
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 14, January 2010)
- Philip J. Klotzbach, Roger A. Pielke Sr., Roger A. Pielke Jr., John R. Christy, Richard T. McNider

An Alternative View of Climate Change for Steelmakers (PDF)
(Iron & Steel Technology, Volume 5, Number 7, pp. 87-98, July 2008)
- John Stubbles

An assessment of validation experiments conducted on computer models of global climate using the general circulation model of the UK's Hadley Centre
(Energy & Environment, Volume 10, Number 5, pp. 491-502, September 1999)
- Richard S. Courtney

An empirical evaluation of earth’s surface air temperature response to radiative forcing, including feedback, as applied to the CO2-climate problem
(Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics, Volume 34, Numbers 1-2, pp. 1-19, March, 1984)
- Sherwood B. Idso

An upper limit to global surface air temperature
(Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics, Volume 34, Number 2, pp. 141-144, June 1985)
- Sherwood B. Idso

An upper limit to the greenhouse effect of Earth's atmosphere
(Theoretical and Applied Climatology, Volume 40, Number 3, pp. 171-174, September 1989)
- Sherwood B. Idso

Analysing Hydrometeorological Time Series for Evidence of Climatic Change (PDF)
(Nordic Hydrology, Volume 24, Number 2-3, pp. 135–150, 1993)
- Geoff Kite

[John Smith]

In my next post I will list a few of the 900+ articles in peer reviewed publications. I did not see the Enquirer listed.

Also here's a link to a survey of peer reviewed articles that found less than half supported global wamring:

[urlhttp://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=8641[/url]

[/I]

My question is a bit different: If the whole global warming thing is a hoax and we proceed as if it's a real problem and use less fuel, have better insulated homes, more efficient transportation, and put people to work in these areas, what is the down side? If we proceed as if it is a hoax and it is not a hoax, what is the upside?

[PeterSibley]

My question is a bit different: If the whole global warming thing is a hoax and we proceed as if it's a real problem and use less fuel, have better insulated homes, more efficient transportation, and put people to work in these areas, what is the down side? If we proceed as if it is a hoax and it is not a hoax, what is the upside?

The next question of course is if it isn't a hoax and the anti people are wrong ...who pays the cost? The US economy currently prepares for every conceivable military threat most of which will never eventuate ...but no one complains.

My original question is why can't the right even consider the possibility that AGW is real and that the costs will be equally real.

[wardd]

In 2004, history professor Naomi Oreskes performed a survey of research papers on climate change. Examining peer-reviewed papers published on the ISI Web of Science database from 1993 to 2003, she found a majority supported the "consensus view," defined as humans were having at least some effect on global climate change. Oreskes' work has been repeatedly cited, but as some of its data is now nearly 15 years old, its conclusions are becoming somewhat dated.

Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte recently updated this research. Using the same database and search terms as Oreskes, he examined all papers published from 2004 to February 2007. The results have been submitted to the journal Energy and Environment, of which DailyTech has obtained a pre-publication copy. The figures are surprising.

Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."

a medical researcher?