Climate scientists plan campaign against global-warming skeptics




Published: Sunday, Nov. 7, 2010 - 12:00 am


Faced with increasing political attacks, hundreds of climate scientists
are joining a broad campaign to push back against congressional
conservatives who have threatened prominent researchers with
investigations and have vowed to kill regulations to rein in man-made greenhouse gas emissions.

The efforts reveal a shift among climate scientists, many of whom have traditionally stayed out of politics and avoided the news media. Many now say they are willing to go toe-to-toe with their
critics, some of whom gained new power after the Republicans won control
of the House in last Tuesday's election.

On Monday, the American Geophysical Union, the country's largest association of climate scientists, plans to announce that 700 climate scientists have agreed to speak out as experts on questions about global warming and the role of man-made air pollution.


Some are prepared to go before what they consider potentially hostile audiences on conservative talk-radio and television shows.

John Abraham of St. Thomas University in Minnesota, who last May wrote a widely disseminated response to climate-change skeptics, is organizing a "Climate Rapid Response Team," which so far
has more than three dozen leading scientists to defend the consensus on
global warming in the scientific community. Some are also preparing a
handbook on the human causes of climate change, which they plan to start sending to U.S. high schools as soon as this fall.

"This group feels strongly that science and politics can't be divorced and that we need to take bold measures to not only communicate
science but also to aggressively engage the denialists and politicians
who attack climate science and its scientists," said Scott Mandia, professor of physical sciences at Suffolk County Community College in New York.

"We are taking the fight to them because we are . . . tired of taking the hits. The notion that truth will prevail is not working. The
truth has been out there for the past two decades, and nothing has
changed."

During the recent election campaigns, skepticism about climate change became a rallying cry for many Republican candidates. Of the more than 100 new Republican members of Congress, 50 percent are climate-change skeptics, according to an analysis of campaign statements by the Center for American Progress, a liberal research group.

Prominent Republican congressmen such as Darrell Issa, R-Calif., Joe L. Barton, R-Texas, and F. James Sensenbrenner Jr., R-Wis., have pledged to investigate the Environmental Protection Agency's regulation of greenhouse gas emissions. They say they also intend to probe the so-called Climategate scandal, in which thousands of e-mails
of leading climate scientists were hacked and released to the public late last year.

Climate-change skeptics argued that the sniping in some e-mails showed that scientists suppressed research by skeptics and manipulated
data. Five independent panels subsequently cleared the researchers
involved and validated the science.

"People who ask and accept taxpayer dollars shouldn't get bent of shape when asked to account for the money," said James M. Taylor, a senior fellow and a specialist in global warming at the conservative Heartland Institute in Chicago. "The budget is spiraling out of control while government is handing out billions of dollars in grants to climate scientists, many of whom are unabashed activists."

Ongoing public interest in Climategate has prompted climate scientists to act.

The American Geological Union plan has attracted a large number of scientists in a short time because they were eager to address what they
see as climate misinformation, said Jeffrey Taylor, research fellow at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Colorado and manager of the project.

Still, the scope of the group's work is limited, reflecting the ongoing reluctance by many scientists to venture into politics.

In the week that Abraham and others have been organizing the rapid-response team, 39 scientists agreed to participate, including Richard Feely, senior scientist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; Kevin Trenberth, head of the climate analysis section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research; and Michael Oppenheimer, professor of geosciences and international affairs at Princeton University.

"People who've already dug their heels in, we're not going to change their opinions," Mandia said. "We're trying to reach people who
may not have an opinion or opinion based on limited information."



Read more: http://www.sacbee.com/2010/11/07/3166765/climate-scientists-plan-ca...

Views: 572

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Could you kindly provide a link to all the climate science funding, and who is funding it, please? What exactly was it you are looking at?

As for 'my sites'... The scientific papers therein are not just fanciful ones made up by nutjobs. Are you really going to accuse Lindzen, Evans, McKitrick, mackintyre, etc, of being phonies? Seriously? I presume you never even took the time to browse them, or take in what they said. That says more about you then it does them, I'm afraid. If only you bothered to look you wouldn't simply pronounce them as agenda filled, or with some unscrupulous reason.

I would suggest that your comparison to creationism is well founded, just not quite the way you thought it was.

Yes, the greenhouse effect is well established. That is not, I'm afraid in question. What is in question, or at least still requires a great deal of work are the variables, and the intricacies of the climate. The climate models used are not accurate, and the forcing that has to be used is far from what we see naturally.

I am a little disappointed that you assume I have an agenda, or that I have a stake in this 'fight'. It is not a fight. It is simple science. Tell you what, YOU provide me with a link between climate change, and man, I will leave the thread. It is that simple. That is the golden goose that AGW needs to prove itself. As I said in my first post, I think it was, all the phenomena we see on the earth matters not one iota if we cannot find a link between man and AGW.

Can you answer why the rate of increase has been the same since the mid 1800's? Can you explain how CO2 has historically had little to do with temperature in the earths past? can you explain how the recent cooling in the upper atmosphere is down to the sun, and how that has had more effect on the climate than man has, and how the rising CO2 levels we do have continue to rise, despite the temperature of the earth dropping, and as Phil Jones said, hasn't heated for the last 15 years?

Can you explain why the satellite data that we have had since 1979 shows no correlation with the earth temperature data set? Can you explain why the cooling oceans are cooling, and why the el Nino and El Nina cycles have had more to do with recent records than anything else?

Can you explain why the media has been rabbeting on about the Northwest passage opening up, when the very same thing happened for Amundson when he went off on a Jolly in the region many, many moons ago?
You see, the science is not settled, and don;t take my word for it. Go ad have a look yourself. Have a look at the global ice coverage and see that it hasn't changed for the last 30 years.

have a look at some more papers and tell me the science is settled.

http://www.oism.org/pproject/GWReview_OISM150.pdf

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Evans-CO2DoesNotCauseGW.pdf

http://www.drroyspencer.com/research-articles/satellite-and-climate...

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/Car...


Please provide evidence that these scientists are under the thumb of big oil, or some other big scary organisation.
My main question about climate change is not whether it is happening... it is. But is it too late to stop it? And how bad could it get?
The question is if it is natural or not. If it is natural, do we try to cease it? Do we start to play with the climate in that scenario? As to how bad it can get, that again is up for debate.
How are you discerning who is a denier, and who is a skeptic? Which misinformation are you referring to, and could you show the rebuttal?

Please stop bringing religion into this thread. It does not help. "Jesus saves" is not equivalent to anything except those who have nothing to back themselves up with.
It has been interesting to watch the evolution of the denier's tactics over the years. They started out with absolute denial, and when that argument became untenable, they switched to "it's all natural".
Any evidence of this or is it just opinion? Care to show how the position is untenable? What evidence do you have that makes you think that being skeptical is an unscientific viewpoint to take?
I'm saying that your intimate knowledge of the oil industry's arguments places you squarely in their camp. The science is clearly not on their side. Please go back to the article that Adriana so kindly provided for us.
I'm writing a reply as I type. I notice you don't have any arguments of your own except for baseless ad hominem. Squarely in their camp. Jeez.
You don't think that saying I am under the influence os the oil companies, or a "Corporate Tool", etc, is an ad hominem? It is not attacking the points I make, instead they are attacking my character. I am not paid by the oil companies, and for people to say this is absurd.

As I have said from the beginning is that the science is not settled, despite what some say on here.

I'm out.
The science is never settled. But, a consensus is as close as it gets to settled. And the consenseus among climate scientists is that AGW is real.
For some reason I cannot reply to Adrianas post, (this one... http://www.thinkatheist.com/xn/detail/1982180:Comment:416108), however, unless I can read that paper, I cannot discuss it. I did not dismiss it either. Not sure where you got that idea from. Where have I even mentioned a conspiracy to mislead people? I think you will find I stated that I will leave once proof has been shown that man has caused the temperature increase. From the summary, however, it doesn't actually state anything of the sort. It states "Here we show that these changes in natural systems since at least 1970 are occurring in regions of observed temperature increases, and that these temperature increases at continental scales cannot be explained by natural climate variations alone. Given the conclusions from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report that most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-twentieth century is very likely to be due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations, and furthermore that it is likely that there has been significant anthropogenic warming over the past 50 years averaged over each continent except Antarctica, we conclude that anthropogenic climate change is having a significant impact on physical and biological systems globally and in some continents." Now as you have access to the paper, any chance you can give us any data regarding what proves it, rather than simply "likely as the IPCC said so"... After all, CO2 history clearly shows that prior to the rise after the 1940's we had a slump, and before that a rise, and before that a slump. This very same rise and slump has been occurring since the late 1800's. How can you attribute a rise in temperature to man, when that very same rate of temperature rise has been seen in the years directly before mankind could NOT have had any effect at all, all taken over such a small timescale in planetary time.

So you think your article trumps all others? Science does not work like that, I'm afraid.

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Falsification_of_CO2.pdf

From someone actually on the IPCC review board

http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/Courtney_NY2008.pdf

ket's have a look at the CO2 levels in the last 1000 years. Can we see any unusual increase in CO2, and can that be linked to mans emissions? Does that emission have a direct correlation to the increasing temperature?

One from Nature, which you hold seemingly more than any other

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v2/n8/abs/ngeo578.html

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7280/full/nature08769.html

http://www.worldscinet.com/ijmpb/23/2303/S021797920904984X.html

Blah, blah... So basically, there is no link as of yet. There is speculation, and that is fine. But until we get a definitive, testable answer, it will remain speculative. Take a look at any of the data sets regarding temperature, and co2 levels for the last 1000 years, as well as the last 200, and tell me where the anthropological signal is?

Anyway, I need sleep, have to be up early in the morning to go and put my oil company bribes in the bank.
Hell yeah. The world won't change if we don't speak up for it.

RSS

© 2017   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service