Posted 6 months, 21 days ago in 
Loading ...
There is a reason that global-warming alarmists don’t engage in formal debate with skeptics. They lose.
The reason they lose is because they have no evidence whatsoever that emissions of CO2 from all worldwide combustion of coal, oil, and natural gas has warmed the Earth one whit. All they have is computer outputs, which are not evidence. Garbage in, Gospel out.
For all their braggadocio, the climate experts at NCAR and NOAA, many of whom served on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, all declined to present their case at a meeting of the Colorado Society of Professional Engineers. The cream-of-the-crop engineers wanted to hear both sides of the issue, and that would be too much reality for the IPCC experts.
The IPCC has about 3,000 government-appointed members, of whom there are about 50 climatologists, and fewer yet climate modelers. On the other hand, some 19,000 scientists have signed a petition saying that the climate models are too primitive to be useful. Look up www.oism.org to see the list.
Lacking a solid case, the alarmists smear the skeptics. Recent letters in The Daily Sentinel, for example, have said that Professor S. Fred Singer is not an expert, and that he has no publications in the field. In truth, he has been publishing in the field of atmospheric sciences since the 1950s. The latest in is in the December 2007 issue of the International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society. He was the first head of the U.S. Satellite Weather Service, and was chosen because of his brilliance and expertise.
And, no, Fred Singer is not supported by oil companies.
Howard Hayden
Professor Emeritus of Physics
University of Connecticut
Pueblo West, Colo.
26 Responses to “Global warmists don’t like to debate”
Posted May 2nd, 2008 at 2:19 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
And, I repeat, Fred, cigarettes are not addictive!! Not to mention, all those thermometers dispersed around the globe are clearly wrong!!! I knew not to trust such complex devices to begin with.
Perhaps it’s only a simple matter of some buffoon over in Shismaref or Samoa who forgot how to covert Celsius to Fahrenheit. Or, even likelier, it’s just a bunch of crazy, stoned scientists pissing away government grant money. There has to be some simple explanation for all of this climate weirdness. Meanwhile, forge ahead with business as usual!
But, I am confident that you left a couple of words out of your last sentence: “And, no, Fred Singer is NOT ONLY supported by oil companies (think, $20K in grants from Exxon in 1998 & 2000), BUT ALSO conservative foundations like Bradley, Smith Richardson and Forbes, AND ultra rightwinger Rev. Sung Myung Moon’s Unification Church. Heck, Singer even enjoyed a year’s free office space from a Moon-funded group.
The data just don’t compute, Doc.
Posted May 2nd, 2008 at 2:40 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Without taking sides on this issue, I would simply say that if you are in a certain business or doing a certain kind of research, companies and private enterprise pay you to do certain things. If you stay true to your beliefs, which by all I have read, Mr Singer does, then the person writing the check does not necessarily buy the result. The company then makes a determination whether to use the evidence gathered, much like a lawyer. If not bound by a secrecy compact, the person who gathered the evidence is free to divulge his findings.
Posted May 2nd, 2008 at 5:44 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Dear Dr. Hayden,
You should know better than this. Whether one scientific hypothesis or another better describes the natural world is NOT decided by who has the better rhetoric. It is decided by the wealth of evidence.
If you have a better explanation for the recent trends in global temperatures, then by all means write it up and submit it to a scientific journal. If your hypothesis has merit and explains the evidence better it will get published and become the standard that gets reported in textbooks.
Instead, if all you can do is smear the quality scientists at NCAR and all around the world, then you are a truly small man.
I am pleased to have the pleasure of not knowing you,
Bruce
Posted May 2nd, 2008 at 6:18 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
It seems that for every source that confirms global warming is man made there is an equally qualified source to deny it. In my opinion, either one is merely stating their opinion on the subject, and of course there will be some on both sides of the issue that are politically motivated for one reason or another. I will use this space to state my opinion which is arrived at by personal observation of a small, but important area. It was my pleasure last summer to vist Glacier Bay Alaska and on the tour we were given maps and literature containing history of the glaciers since discovery, or at least since some sort of records were kept in the latter part of the 18th century. According to the NPS, the glaciers retreated approximately 40 miles from 1790 to 1880. From 1880 to 1910 they retreated about 20 more miles. Since 1910 they seem to have stayed relativly static, retreating only minutely and with a couple of them actually advancing. This causes me to agree that the earth is indeed getting warmer but as the largest retreat was in a time period prior to any major man made pollution from factories, foundries, etc. gives me cause to doubt that more than a small percentage of the warming is man made. Now I’ll sit back a prepare for the broadsides that this thought will bring.
Posted May 2nd, 2008 at 6:57 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
gfbyers: The issue is not as to whether the earth goes through warming and cooling cycles. It does, and for many reasons, all of which are “natural” cycles. The real question is: Has mankind’s activity resulted in the creation of another worldwide phenomenon that can exacerbate the effects of any naturally occuring warming cycle; i.e. add to them?
Like most people, I have none of the expertise necessary to render any judgment on the issue itself, and I must therefore rely upon those who have it, pay attention to what they have concluded and, when called upon to do so, act accordingly. The preponderance of the evidence, at least from those individuals who have studied the situation, involving many scientific disciplines have concluded with a very high degree of probability, that there is such a man made phenomenon and that it needs to be addressed.
We may compare the situation with one driving a car with eleven passengers. If I were driving that car, and ten (10) people who know the area better than I do, were to tell me that if I continue on, I will drive right off a cliff. The 11th passenger says no, keep going. To whom am I going to listen? I don’t know what others would do but I would listen to the 10, and ignore the 11th, no matter how loud he yells. That is the decision I would make, others might do otherwise.
That is what this so-called discussion, or controversy, is all about.
Posted May 2nd, 2008 at 7:37 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
RL, I don’t seem to follow where your analogy of the car fits into my previous post. I thought I had made it clear that by personal observation of one area and the history behind it made me question what percentage of warming was caused by humans and how much is natural. You seem to be hinting that I am blindly following the pack of naysayers. True, I have my doubts, as do many that do have the expertise that you and I lack, but I am not completly close minded about this as some on BOTH sides are.
Posted May 2nd, 2008 at 8:53 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
gfbyers: I must apologize if I did not make myself clear with the analogy. Nor do I question that you have make some personal observations. Permit me to clarify if I may.
What you observed was at a point in time, and the periods you refer too may have been during the period where there was an offseting cycle of cooling which may have ameliorated the effects of any warming. Then, there is also the possibility that the level of carbon dioxide, at that time, had not yet reached a critical level that would significantly affect the environment to any noticeable extent; i.e. warming or cooling.
As to the analogy, consider if you will that the driver is mankind. Consider also that the ten(10) people represent all of the scientists that say that we are adversely affecting the environment. Then consider the one (1)person who is saying “no”, the scientists who say “no”. Does this clarify the analogy?
I am absolutely NOT saying, or even insinuating, that you are “blindly” following anyone, as I would never do that. The thoughts I have represent only my view of the situation, and I would never presume to fathom either the thinking of another. As you do not follow anyone blindly neither do I. All I can do is look at the findings of authorities and render a judgment as to which one I consider more authorative and reliable, and at a particular time. Others may render a differing judgment.
Posted May 3rd, 2008 at 5:47 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
The petition Mr Hayden refers to in his letter was circulated in 1998. Of thos e 19,000 signatures only a “few dozen” are scientists who may have any real expertise in the field. Other signatories include Frank Burns, B.J. Honnicut, and other MASH characters. The “scientific” paper included with the petition was put together by a chemist with no expertise on climatology. A simple google search blows the paper and the petition out of the water in seconds.
Posted May 3rd, 2008 at 10:10 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
From the cited website in the letter:
” Several members of the Institute’s staff are also well known for their work on the Petition Project, an undertaking that has obtained the signatures of more than 19,000 American scientists opposed, on scientific grounds, to the hypothesis of “human-caused global warming” and to concomitant proposals for world-wide energy taxation and rationing.
The Petition Project does not utilize any Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine resources or funds.
It also has no funding from energy industries or other parties with special interests in the “global warming” debate.
Funding for the project comes entirely from private donations by interested individuals, primarily readers of the newsletter Access to Energy that is independently published. ”
It only lists over 19,000 American scientists, opposed on SCIENTIFIC GROUNDS, not an estimated 3000 “scientists” funded totally by the US federal government, or the UN charter, who make no such scientific claim, only claim ‘consensus’ as their basis for globular worming.
None of the signatories are actually M*A*S*H actors.
Posted May 4th, 2008 at 10:26 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Anyone can sign the petition. Almost all of those signatures were collected a decade ago, before there was consensus on the issue.
Today, there are hundreds of thousands of scientists funded from all over who all accept that the climate is warming because of human activity.
—
“A question which frequently arises in conveying the scientific opinion to a broader audience is to what extent that opinion rises to the level of a consensus. Several scientific organizations have explicitly used the term “consensus” in their statements:
* American Association for the Advancement of Science: “The conclusions in this statement reflect the scientific consensus represented by, for example, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and the Joint National Academies’ statement.”[17]
* US National Academy of Science: “In the judgment of most climate scientists, Earth’s warming in recent decades has been caused primarily by human activities that have increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. … On climate change, [the National Academies’ reports] have assessed consensus findings on the science…”[45]
* Joint Science Academies’ statement, 2005: “We recognise the international scientific consensus of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).”[46]
* Joint Science Academies’ statement, 2001: “The work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) represents the consensus of the international scientific community on climate change science. We recognise IPCC as the world’s most reliable source of information on climate change and its causes, and we endorse its method of achieving this consensus.”[47]
* American Meteorological Society: “The nature of science is such that there is rarely total agreement among scientists. Individual scientific statements and papers—the validity of some of which has yet to be assessed adequately—can be exploited in the policy debate and can leave the impression that the scientific community is sharply divided on issues where there is, in reality, a strong scientific consensus. …IPCC assessment reports are prepared at approximately five-year intervals by a large international group of experts who represent the broad range of expertise and perspectives relevant to the issues. The reports strive to reflect a consensus evaluation of the results of the full body of peer-reviewed research. … They provide an analysis of what is known and not known, the degree of consensus, and some indication of the degree of confidence that can be placed on the various statements and conclusions.”[48]
* Network of African Science Academies: “A consensus, based on current evidence, now exists within the global scientific community that human activities are the main source of climate change and that the burning of fossil fuels is largely responsible for driving this change.”
—
“With the July 2007 release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate.[43]
—
Posted May 4th, 2008 at 10:35 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Howard Hayden writes accuses the members of IPCC of not wishing to debate the subject of anthorpogenic global warming. As an ex-professor of physics, he should know as well as anyone that the place to debate such topics is in the scientific literature, in peer reviewed journals. But Professor Hayden spends much of his time ignoring science in his CFACT publications. Hayden sits on the “Board of Academic and Scientific Advisors” of a US think tank called Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT). Also on the board are many other well-known climate change “skeptics,” including Sallie Baliunas, Robert Balling, Sherwood Idso and Patrick Michaels. ExxonMobil has contributed $472,000 to CFACT over the last 7 years. Founded in 1985, CFACT has been critical of government regulation on many issues, including the o-zone layer, mercury emissions, global warming, taxic waste and the use of pesticides.http://www.desmogblog.com/node/1132. It would appear that Hayden is in fact hardly a disinterested observer in this matter but rather an advocate of pro-industry energy positions. In addition he has no qualifications at all in this area. According to a search of 22,000 academic journals, Hayden has not published any research in a peer-reviewed journal on the subject of human-induced climate change. (see above reference)
Posted May 4th, 2008 at 10:44 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Nice work, ‘52.
Posted May 4th, 2008 at 10:57 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
You too Toaaronuu. Enjoyed your review of scientific society positions
Posted May 4th, 2008 at 2:07 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Can somebody explain why this is a political issue? My observation is that the usual suspects line up on both sides of the issue, conservatives are skeptics or deniers and liberals believe in the overwhelming science and published data.
Is it a hatred of Al Gore? In what way does either side benefit to the detriment of the other? Afraid that altering the economy to compensate for warming would benefit the believers to the detriment of the deniers? Stopping or slowing global warming would necessitate new industries. Republicans are the party of business who would undoubtedly be those to benefit finacially by changing the emphasis in the economy. How do we lose by meeting the challenge if it turns out to be overblown? The things we have to do to counter global warming are essentially the same things to do to reorient our energy usages. Is that also a “red herring” in the minds of the deniers?
Posted May 4th, 2008 at 2:51 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Reducing carbon emissions by the magnitude required to make a difference will be hugely expensive. If it wasn’t, the world would be well on its way to doing it.
Posted May 4th, 2008 at 3:21 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Professor Hayden, defending the credentials of S. Fred Singer, states that his latest publication is in the Dec 2007 issue of the International Journal of Climatology. The table of contents for this issue of that Journal (Vol. 27, Issue 15, pages 2017-2124) may be found at http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/116844649/issue. Among the research papers listed for this issue, there are none which bear the name of S. Fred Singer. Perhaps there is a letter or opinion piece by Singer in this issue (not available online) but no scientific peer reviewed paper. Hayden’s technique here reminds me of the approach used by Creationists which range from half truths, quotes out of context, and outright falsehoods. Prof. Hayden is invited to give us the full reference to this so-called publication by S. Fred Singer.
Posted May 4th, 2008 at 11:32 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
John B.,
This has become a political issue because some who have a financial stake in “business as usual” have made it an objective to stir up controversy where none exists.
For example, the American Petroleum Institute (& Exxon-Mobile) learned a lesson from the tobacco/nicotine issue and actively tried to convince the American people that global warming was controversial within the scientific community. Here is a link to an API memo that was obtained by Greenpeace:
http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/assets/binaries/leaked-api-comms-plan-1998
Also, Frank Luntz advised members of the GOP to try to convince their constituents that the science was still uncertain - to focus on any little uncertainty and try to extrapolate this into total uncertainty.
Thus, the fact that a few have a large financial stake in convincing the many not to look behind the curtain, is why this scientific issue has become fodder for the opinions of know-nothings.
(BTW, John B., please do not mistake a denier for being a skeptic. Deniers are those who start with an ideology and refuse to acknowledge the existence of (literally) tons of evidence. The term ’skeptic’ accurately describes any scientist. Scientists are inherently skeptical and conservative in that they are reluctant to jump on bandwagons but will change their minds when presented with evidence. This is why it has taken several decades of research and evidence gathering and hypothesis testing for the scientific community to publish the shocking statements of the most recent IPCC report.)
Posted May 5th, 2008 at 12:00 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Classof52,
The “Singer” paper (he is the fourth author) appears to have been published in the online edition in December. Here: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/117857349/abstract
As far as I can tell it has never been published in the print form of the journal. If you don’t have a subscription to the journal, you can do a ‘Google Scholar’ search on the paper title. Or you can find it here:
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/DOUGLASPAPER.pdf
It appears this is too new for anyone in the scientific community to have critiqued it in the published print literature. However, if this is your cup of tea, the climate scientists over at Real Climate have dissected this paper and point out some of the usual inconsistencies in these Douglas, Chrisy & Singer papers (i.e., using arbitrarily truncated data sets, selective discussions of uncertainty, unusually calculated means, misleading graphics, etc). This discussion can be found here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/tropical-troposphere-trends/langswitch_lang/in#more-509
So, the publication is real. Whether or not the conclusions are supported by the evidence may take a few years of testing within the scientific community. This could be good work. Some scientists have found it lacking, but we probably won’t know for sure for a while.
Posted May 5th, 2008 at 8:08 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Thanks Bruce 86 for calling my attention to this online publication by Singer which was not listed in the Journal’s table of contents. Judging by the criteria listed for authors in the Journal’s editorial policy, this appears to have been a peer reviewed paper. So, I have to withdraw my comments on Singer’s lack of peer reviewed publications in the field of climatology. The abstract notes that the paper simply has a different interpretation of previously published data, so as you suggest we will simply need to let the experts sort this one out. The Singer interpretation appears to be a distinctly minority view at this point in time, however. I do not withdraw my comments about the fact that Singer has been supported by oil companies in the past. The facts are well documented.
Posted May 5th, 2008 at 8:54 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Classof52,
Glad to be of help. Dr. Hayden was wrong or misleading in many parts of his letter, but he wasn’t completely off about the Singer paper (even though it was not in the December “issue” as Hayden claimed). Singer is one of the few apologists that actually has some expertise in climatology.
As you have pointed out, Singer is well supported by the oil industry (and he has found many ways to launder the money so that it seldom can be directly linked to him).
Mother Jones put together a table three years ago to show many of the “think” tanks that Exxon has supported to the tune of $8million. Singer’s name shows up repeatedly. So you are right, Singer has been, and likely still is, supported by oil companies. It can be found here:
http://www.motherjones.com/news/featurex/2005/05/exxon_chart.html
(The CFACT is in the table too! One thing these industry apologists do well is cover each others’ backs!)
You’ll note in the Singer paper from December that the radiosonde data they used was old. They had been provided with more up to date data, but this newer set did not support their conclusions, so they presented only the old. How much has Exxon paid Singer for his soul?
Posted May 5th, 2008 at 9:14 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Well, whatever it takes to assassinate the character of Dr. Singer, while giving algore and his styrofoam ice floes a clean bill of health.
Why is it that algores folly, “An inconvenient fable” gets no “peer review”, even though it has been proven to be nothing more than a made in hollywood fairytale?
Can it possibly be that the most mighty minds on this site have tunnel vision?
Or possibly their own ‘less than honest’ agenda?
Posted May 5th, 2008 at 9:38 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Here you go, WLJ, just for you. The fully trained climate scientists at Real Climate have reviewed “An Inconvenient Truth.”
Here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/05/al-gores-movie/
Here are a few highlights from this peer-review:
“It is an inspiring film, and is decidedly non-partisan in its outlook …”
“… it is a very good slide show …”
“How well does the film handle the science? Admirably, I thought. It is remarkably up to date, with reference to some of the very latest research.”
“There are a few scientific errors …”
“For the most part, I think Gore gets the science right, just as he did in Earth in the Balance. The small errors don’t detract from Gore’s main point, which is that we in the United States have the technological and institutional ability to have a significant impact on the future trajectory of climate change.”
“In short: this film is worth seeing.”
Have you seen the film yet, WLJ? Or are you just repeating the gibberish of the KnowNothing crowd?
Posted May 5th, 2008 at 10:07 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Ya just gotta love that source.
Did the judge in Great Britain consult that source when he found 11 serious discrepancies and disallowed them in The English School system?
Who set up that site anyway? algore hissownself for you to use as a “reference” site?
I see you didn’t mention the styrofoam icefloes algore used in the film as pretend real ice, why is that?
Or how about the 10 year old Polar Bear on the icefloe pictures that were used out of context to present a false image?
So much for scientific honesty.
Posted May 5th, 2008 at 10:23 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
WLJ, speaking of honesty,
Where do you get your “information?” Would you mind listing those 11 discrepancies and explaining how they are serious?
And while you are at this little task, please comment on these quotes by the British judge (Justice Burton) about the film “An Inconvenient Truth” in his ruling:
- “It is substantially founded upon scientific research and fact.”
- “I have no doubt that Dr. Stott, the Defendant’s expert, is right when he says that: ‘Al Gore’s presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate.’”
Posted May 5th, 2008 at 10:42 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
In the meantime I’m still waiting for the academic credentials from the spout ans shout crowd that thinks anybody that disagrees with them is stupid and belongs to the lowest common denominator crowd.
I was asked for a paper for the pee’ers to review, I used information gleaned from the holiest of all globule werming sources (The Discovery Channel), and it gets written off as “watching to much TV”, which is the same place the pee’ers get their information.
Interesting.
Posted May 5th, 2008 at 10:52 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Well, WLJ, you can wait all you want. I guess it’s easier than doing any research for yourself.
If you follow the links I provided, you can learn a thing or two on your own.
Apparently, you need an authority to tell you what is right or wrong, which is why you keep asking for credentials. Well, life ain’t that easy.
And you obviously do watch too much TV if you think scientists get their information from the TV. (I don’t even get a third of the stations you listed in that other thread on my TV.)
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.