Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

In Reply to "The Importance of Science In Addressing Climate Change".
IceCap ^ | 2/8/2011 | Ice Cap

Posted on 02/08/2011 3:07:55 PM PST by Signalman

CO2Science and 68 signatories

To the Members of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate:

February 8, 2011

In reply to “The Importance of Science in Addressing Climate Change”

On 28 January 2011, eighteen scientists sent a letter to members of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate urging them to “take a fresh look at climate change.” Their intent, apparently, was to disparage the views of scientists who disagree with their contention that continued business-as-usual increases in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions produced from the burning of coal, gas, and oil will lead to a host of cataclysmic climate-related problems.

We, the undersigned, totally disagree with them and would like to take this opportunity to briefly state our side of the story.

The eighteen climate alarmists (as we refer to them, not derogatorily, but simply because they view themselves as “sounding the alarm” about so many things climatic) state that the people of the world “need to prepare for massive flooding from the extreme storms of the sort being experienced with increasing frequency,” as well as the “direct health impacts from heat waves” and “climate-sensitive infectious diseases,” among a number of other devastating phenomena. And they say that “no research results have produced any evidence that challenges the overall scientific understanding of what is happening to our planet’s climate,” which is understood to mean their view of what is happening to Earth’s climate.

To these statements, however, we take great exception. It is the eighteen climate alarmists who appear to be unaware of “what is happening to our planet’s climate,” as well as the vast amount of research that has produced that knowledge.

For example, a lengthy review of their claims and others that climate alarmists frequently make can be found on the Web site of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change (see Carbon Dioxide and Earth’s Future: Pursuing the Prudent Path). That report offers a point-by-point rebuttal of all of the claims of the “group of eighteen,” citing in every case peer-reviewed scientific research on the actual effects of climate change during the past several decades.

If the “group of eighteen” pleads ignorance of this information due to its very recent posting, then we call their attention to an even larger and more comprehensive report published in 2009, Climate Change Reconsidered: The 2009 Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC). That document has been posted for more than a year in its entirety at www.nipccreport.org.

These are just two recent compilations of scientific research among many we could cite. Do the 678 scientific studies referenced in the CO2 Science document, or the thousands of studies cited in the NIPCC report, provide real-world evidence (as opposed to theoretical climate model predictions) for global warming-induced increases in the worldwide number and severity of floods? No. In the global number and severity of droughts? No. In the number and severity of hurricanes and other storms? No.

Do they provide any real-world evidence of Earth’s seas inundating coastal lowlands around the globe? No. Increased human mortality? No. Plant and animal extinctions? No. Declining vegetative productivity? No. More frequent and deadly coral bleaching? No. Marine life dissolving away in acidified oceans? No.

Quite to the contrary, in fact, these reports provide extensive empirical evidence that these things are not happening. And in many of these areas, the referenced papers report finding just the opposite response to global warming, i.e., biosphere-friendly effects of rising temperatures and rising CO2 levels.

In light of the profusion of actual observations of the workings of the real world showing little or no negative effects of the modest warming of the second half of the twentieth century, and indeed growing evidence of positive effects, we find it incomprehensible that the eighteen climate alarmists could suggest something so far removed from the truth as their claim that no research results have produced any evidence that challenges their view of what is happening to Earth’s climate and weather.

But don’t take our word for it. Read the two reports yourselves. And then make up your own minds about the matter. Don’t be intimidated by false claims of “scientific consensus” or “overwhelming proof.” These are not scientific arguments and they are simply not true.

Like the eighteen climate alarmists, we urge you to take a fresh look at climate change. We believe you will find that it is not the horrendous environmental threat they and others have made it out to be, and that they have consistently exaggerated the negative effects of global warming on the U.S. economy, national security, and public health, when such effects may well be small to negligible.

PDF with 68 signatures:

http://www.co2science.org/education/truthalerts/v14/TruthAboutClimateChangeOpenLetter.pdf


TOPICS: Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: agw; carboncult; climate; climatechange; climaterecord; globalhoaxing; globalwarminghoax; greenreligion; icecores
68 scientists refute 18 AGW alarmists
1 posted on 02/08/2011 3:07:57 PM PST by Signalman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Signalman

Of course, there is the little matter of global cooling to deal with.


2 posted on 02/08/2011 3:16:51 PM PST by pallis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Signalman; Fiddlstix; Fractal Trader; FrPR; enough_idiocy; meyer; Normandy; Whenifhow; ...
 


Beam me to Planet Gore !

3 posted on 02/08/2011 3:44:59 PM PST by steelyourfaith (ObamaCare Death Panels: a Final Solution to the looming Social Security crisis ?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Signalman; rottndog; Wuli; E. Pluribus Unum; Professional Engineer; Matchett-PI; Army Air Corps; ...
Related thread...:

Willi Dansgaard dies at 88; scientist who recognized climate record in ice cap

4 posted on 02/08/2011 3:48:51 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach ( Support Geert Wilders)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #5 Removed by Moderator

To: Matchett-PI
Not quite. More like, “68 politicized scientist hacks make jackasses out of themselves.”

How so?
6 posted on 02/08/2011 4:33:53 PM PST by Signalman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
I keep hearing my Geography prof's favorite line:
"We're scientists, here, people."

He was not a fan of global warming.

7 posted on 02/08/2011 4:48:36 PM PST by Miss_Meyet (Global Muse)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Signalman; Ernest_at_the_Beach
You want signatures?

Mash here.

8 posted on 02/08/2011 5:03:41 PM PST by SouthTexas (Is it time for tea yet?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Signalman

I’m glad they’re bring the REAL science forward, as opposed to the breathless alarmism of the last decade.


9 posted on 02/08/2011 5:09:19 PM PST by SuziQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Signalman

A very thorough science-based trashing of the 18 alarmists.

Too bad it won’t matter. AGW is about power, money, and control, not science.


10 posted on 02/08/2011 5:22:33 PM PST by piytar (Obastard is a use of the term "bastard" in the literal sense -- Obama is hiding his daddy's identity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI
Not quite. More like, “68 politicized scientist hacks make jackasses out of themselves.”I think you misread or misspoke. That is, unless you're an AGW cultist (but your posting history indicates otherwise).
11 posted on 02/08/2011 5:58:32 PM PST by piytar (Obastard is a use of the term "bastard" in the literal sense -- Obama is hiding his daddy's identity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI
Fixed formatting:

Not quite. More like, “68 politicized scientist hacks make jackasses out of themselves.”

I think you misread or misspoke. That is, unless you're an AGW cultist (but your posting history indicates otherwise).

12 posted on 02/08/2011 6:07:43 PM PST by piytar (Obastard is a use of the term "bastard" in the literal sense -- Obama is hiding his daddy's identity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: piytar
I have yet to see a list of the Neurotic Eighteen and, more importantly, each of their scientific bona fides...
13 posted on 02/08/2011 6:17:51 PM PST by Publius6961 ("In 1964 the War on Poverty Began --- Poverty won.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: piytar
"I think you misread or misspoke."

On second thought, I think you;'re right. :)

14 posted on 02/08/2011 7:13:40 PM PST by Matchett-PI (Trent Lott on Tea Party candidates: "As soon as they get here, we need to co-opt them" 7/19/10)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI

LOL. Didn’t mean to bust your chops. Recog’d you as a long-time solid Freeper, didn’t want to see you get flamed for a goof.

Of course, then the thread died...


15 posted on 02/08/2011 8:18:10 PM PST by piytar (Obastard is a use of the term "bastard" in the literal sense -- Obama is hiding his daddy's identity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: piytar

“LOL. Didn’t mean to bust your chops. Recog’d you as a long-time solid Freeper, didn’t want to see you get flamed for a goof.”

No problem. I appreciate the heads up! That’s what I get for not reading the article. I will ask the mods to delete that post, and repost the article I posted without that knee-jerk non-sequitur comment BELOW:

Rebuttal to the Climate Rapid Response Team
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/08/rebuttal-to-the-climate-rapid-response-team/#more-33529
Posted on February 8, 2011 by Anthony Watts

WUWT readers may recall this story: Pielke Sr. on the gang of 18 letter to congress

Now, other scientists have seen that 18, and raised the stakes. Their letter is below:

February 8, 2011

To the Members of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate:
In reply to “The Importance of Science in Addressing Climate Change”

On 28 January 2011, eighteen scientists sent a letter to members of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate urging them to “take a fresh look at climate change.” Their intent, apparently, was to disparage the views of scientists who disagree with their contention that continued business-as-usual increases in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions produced from the burning of coal, gas, and oil will lead to a host of cataclysmic climate-related problems.

We, the undersigned, totally disagree with them and would like to take this opportunity to briefly state our side of the story.

The eighteen climate alarmists (as we refer to them, not derogatorily, but simply because they view themselves as “sounding the alarm” about so many things climatic) state that the people of the world “need to prepare for massive flooding from the extreme storms of the sort being experienced with increasing frequency,” as well as the “direct health impacts from heat waves” and “climate-sensitive infectious diseases,” among a number of other devastating phenomena. And they say that “no research results have produced any evidence that challenges the overall scientific understanding of what is happening to our planet’s climate,” which is understood to mean their view of what is happening to Earth’s climate.

To these statements, however, we take great exception. It is the eighteen climate alarmists who appear to be unaware of “what is happening to our planet’s climate,” as well as the vast amount of research that has produced that knowledge.

For example, a lengthy review of their claims and others that climate alarmists frequently make can be found on the Web site of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change (see http://www.co2science.org/education/reports/prudentpath/prudentpath.php). That report offers a point-by-point rebuttal of all of the claims of the “group of eighteen,” citing in every case peer-reviewed scientific research on the actual effects of climate change during the past several decades.

If the “group of eighteen” pleads ignorance of this information due to its very recent posting, then we call their attention to an even larger and more comprehensive report published in 2009, Climate Change Reconsidered: The 2009 Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC). That document has been posted for more than a year in its entirety at www.nipccreport.org.

These are just two recent compilations of scientific research among many we could cite. Do the 678 scientific studies referenced in the CO2 Science document, or the thousands of studies cited in the NIPCC report, provide real-world evidence (as opposed to theoretical climate model predictions) for global warming-induced increases in the worldwide number and severity of floods? No. In the global number and severity of droughts? No. In the number and severity of hurricanes and other storms? No.

Do they provide any real-world evidence of Earth’s seas inundating coastal lowlands around the globe? No. Increased human mortality? No. Plant and animal extinctions? No. Declining vegetative productivity? No. More frequent and deadly coral bleaching? No. Marine life dissolving away in acidified oceans? No.

Quite to the contrary, in fact, these reports provide extensive empirical evidence that these things are not happening. And in many of these areas, the referenced papers report finding just the opposite response to global warming, i.e., biosphere-friendly effects of rising temperatures and rising CO2 levels.

In light of the profusion of actual observations of the workings of the real world showing little or no negative effects of the modest warming of the second half of the twentieth century, and indeed growing evidence of positive effects, we find it incomprehensible that the eighteen climate alarmists could suggest something so far removed from the truth as their claim that no research results have produced any evidence that challenges their view of what is happening to Earth’s climate and weather.

But don’t take our word for it. Read the two reports yourselves. And then make up your own minds about the matter. Don’t be intimidated by false claims of “scientific consensus” or “overwhelming proof.” These are not scientific arguments and they are simply not true.
Like the eighteen climate alarmists, we urge you to take a fresh look at climate change. We believe you will find that it is not the horrendous environmental threat they and others have made it out to be, and that they have consistently exaggerated the negative effects of global warming on the U.S. economy, national security, and public health, when such effects may well be small to negligible.

Signed by:

Syun-Ichi Akasofu, University of Alaska1
Scott Armstrong, University of Pennsylvania
James Barrante, Southern Connecticut State University1
Richard Becherer, University of Rochester
John Boring, University of Virginia
Roger Cohen, American Physical Society Fellow
David Douglass, University of Rochester
Don Easterbrook, Western Washington University1
Robert Essenhigh, The Ohio State University1
Martin Fricke, Senior Fellow, American Physical Society
Lee Gerhard, University of Kansas1
Ulrich Gerlach, The Ohio State University
Laurence Gould, University of Hartford
Bill Gray, Colorado State University1
Will Happer, Princeton University2
Howard Hayden, University of Connecticut1
Craig Idso, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change
Sherwood Idso, USDA, U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory1
Richard Keen, University of Colorado
Doral Kemper, USDA, Agricultural Research Service1
Hugh Kendrick, Office of Nuclear Reactor Programs, DOE1
Richard Lindzen, Massachusetts Institute of Technology2
Anthony Lupo, University of Missouri
Patrick Michaels, Cato Institute
Donald Nielsen, University of California, Davis1
Al Pekarek, St. Cloud State University
John Rhoads, Midwestern State University1
Nicola Scafetta, Duke University
Gary Sharp, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study
S. Fred Singer, University of Virginia1
Roy Spencer, University of Alabama
George Taylor, Past President, American Association of State Climatologists
Frank Tipler, Tulane University
Leonard Weinstein, National Institute of Aerospace Senior Research Fellow
Samuel Werner, University of Missouri1
Thomas Wolfram, University of Missouri1
1 – Emeritus or Retired
2 – Member of the National Academy of Sciences

Endorsed by:
Rodney Armstrong, Geophysicist
Edwin Berry, Certified Consulting Meteorologist
Joseph Bevelacqua, Bevelacqua Resources
Carmen Catanese, American Physical Society Member
Roy Clark, Ventura Photonics
John Coleman, Meteorologist KUSI TV
Darrell Connelly, Geophysicist
Joseph D’Aleo, Certified Consulting Meteorologist
Terry Donze, Geophysicist1
Mike Dubrasich, Western Institute for Study of the Environment
John Dunn, American Council on Science and Health of NYC
Dick Flygare, QEP Resources
Michael Fox, Nuclear industry/scientist
Gordon Fulks, Gordon Fulks and Associates
Ken Haapala, Science & Environmental Policy Project
Martin Hertzberg, Bureau of Mines1
Art Horn, Meteorologist
Keith Idso, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change
Jay Lehr, The Heartland Institute
Robert Lerine, Industrial and Defense Research and Engineering1
Peter Link, Geologist
James Macdonald, Chief Meteorologist for the Travelers Weather Service1
Roger Matson, Society of Independent Professional Earth Scientists
Tony Pann, Meteorologist WBAL TV
Ned Rasor, Consulting Physicist
James Rogers, Geologist1
Norman Rogers, National Association of Scholars
Thomas Sheahen, Western Technology Incorporated
Andrew Spurlock, Starfire Engineering and Technologies, Inc.
Leighton Steward, PlantsNeedCO2.org
Soames Summerhays, Summerhays Films, Inc.
Charles Touhill, Consulting Environmental Engineer
David Wojick, Climatechangedebate.org
1 – Emeritus or Retired

Letter in PDF form: TruthAboutClimateChangeOpenLetter


16 posted on 02/09/2011 5:42:46 AM PST by Matchett-PI (Trent Lott on Tea Party candidates: "As soon as they get here, we need to co-opt them" 7/19/10)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

Thanks E..


17 posted on 02/09/2011 11:30:08 AM PST by Marine_Uncle (Honor must be earned....Duncan Hunter Sr. for POTUS.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson