3 days ago
Maybe the studies were valid. By all means, let's find out. In fact, a thorough and independent public investigation is imperative. Since the Center for Disease Control's money was involved, surely the CDC should not be the only body looking into this matter. Meanwhile, tell us again why scientists who dissent from the "consensus" in this scientific field, or any other, must be silenced.
|Name||Affiliation||Background||Total # of Peer-Reviewed Publications||# of Peer-reviewed Climatology Publications|
|David Bellamy||NZ Climate Science Coalition||Botanist||13||0|
|Bob Carter||Institute of Public Affairs||Geologist||<60||11|
|Joe D'Aleo||Science and Public Policy Institute||Meteorologist||0||0|
|Richard Lindzen||MIT||Atmospheric Physicist||111||~78|
|Bjorn Lomborg||Copenhagen Consensus||Political scientist||9||0|
|Stephen McIntyre||Climate Audit||Mathematician/Economist||2||22|
|Ross McKitrick||Fraser Institute||Economist||28||83|
|Patrick Michaels||Cato Institute||Environmental Scientist||55||0|
|Christopher Monckton||Science and Public Policy Institute||Journalist/Politician||0||0|
|Roger Pielke, Jr.||Breakthrough Institute||Political scientist||524||0|
|Roger Pielke, Sr.||University of Colorado||Mathematician/Meteorologist||3214||300+|
|Ian Plimer||Institute of Public Affairs||Mining Geologist||63||0|
|Fred Seitz (deceased)||George C. Marshall Institute, Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, Science and Environmental Policy Project||Physicist||1185||0|
|Fred Singer||Science and Environmental Policy Project||Physicist||1466||107|
|Roy Spencer||Heartland Institute, George C. Marshall Institute||Atmospheric Scientist||59||438|
Humans are significantly altering the global climate, but in a variety of diverse ways beyond the radiative effect of carbon dioxide. The IPCC assessments have been too conservative in recognizing the importance of these human climate forcings as they alter regional and global climate. These assessments have also not communicated the inability of the models to accurately forecast the spread of possibilities of future climate.and:
As I have summarized on the Climate Science weblog, humans activities do significantly alter the heat content of the climate system, although, based on the latest understanding, the radiative effect of CO2 has contributed, at most, only about 28% to the human-caused warming up to the present. The other 72% is still a result of human activities!This relatively non-controversial position is reflected in his publications - none of which appear, at least upon cursory examination, to be paradigm-changing.
In Reversing the Greenhouse [Aug], you make several false assumptions. The first is that global warming is a settled issue; many reputable scientists disagree. You also posit that the only alternative to burning fossil fuels for electricity is gigantic solar-powered satellites. There is a far better method of generating non-polluting power - nuclear plants. Instead of advocating pie-in-the-sky schemes and adding to unfounded public fears about nuclear power, wouldn't you be better advised to help educate a technology-illiterate populace about its relative safety and advantages?
-William R Chandler, Boise, Idaho
We never said global warming was a "settled issue." What is true is that a majority of experts on climate and the atmosphere have reached a consensus that the increasing release of greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, will probably result in increased global warming.
. . . in a poignant letter last August [August 1988] to the British journal Nature, F. Kenneth Hare, chairman of the Climatic Planning Board of Canada, warned that there will never be proof absolute enough to persuade every doubter that a buildup of greenhouse gases is directly responsible for global warming. But as a scientist and adviser to his government, he wrote, "I can and do tell them that they should base their environmental planning on the assumption that the greenhouse warming will continue and accelerate. There will always be conservatives who decline to go this far. At the age of sixty-nine I can no longer afford to be conservative."Dr. Hare died in 2002.
The legal incentive to pair global warming with evolution in curriculum battles stems in part from a 2005 ruling by a United States District Court judge in Atlanta that the Cobb County Board of Education, which had placed stickers on certain textbooks encouraging students to view evolution as only a theory, had violated First Amendment strictures on the separation of church and state.
After that, said Joshua Rosenau, a project director for the National Center for Science Education, he began noticing that attacks on climate change science were being packaged with criticism of evolution in curriculum initiatives.
“Wherever there is a battle over evolution now,” [physicist Lawrence Krauss] said, “there is a secondary battle to diminish other hot-button issues like Big Bang and, increasingly, climate change. It is all about casting doubt on the veracity of science — to say it is just one view of the world, just another story, no better or more valid than fundamentalism.”