Comments on: What Climate Consensus? http://www.bjr.org.uk/blog/2006/08/21/what-climate-consensus/ Sat, 11 Oct 2008 17:22:35 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.1 By: Bob Cormack http://www.bjr.org.uk/blog/2006/08/21/what-climate-consensus/#comment-122 Bob Cormack Thu, 07 Dec 2006 02:17:56 +0000 http://www.bjr.org.uk/blog/2006/08/21/what-climate-consensus/#comment-122 David Stealey notes that: "By attacking the distinguished Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology atthe Massachusetts Institute of Technology [Dr Lindzen], rather than refuting his facts, Seward reveals himself as a pseudo-scientist." Actually, according to his web site, Michael Seward is a custom furniture maker in Pennsylvania. In the "About Me" portion of his website he notes that he has been a woodworker for many years, but has no word about any scientific training. He IS published -- in 'Fine Wood Working", "This Old House", "The Custom Furniture Sourcebook", and etc. In short, Michael is not even a "pseudo-scientist"; he is just a non-scientist. Probably the reason he doesn't try to refute the arguments here is that he can't read the literature, so gets his arguments from alarmist websites. I have degrees in physics, mathematics, electrical and optical engineering. I'm a working engineer who has build a number of flight instruments to measure cloud properties for scientists at NCAR (in Boulder, Colorado) and elsewhere. I can read the scientific literature (and have contributed a few of my own) and have been following the "debate" for a number of years. The state of the "Climate Consensus" as can be determined from the literature is: 1) There is a consensus that the Earth has been warming since about 1850. (This is a kind of "well duh!" consensus, since we aren't still in the Little Ice Age, are we?) 2) Everything else, nearly, is up for grabs as far as the science is concerned, although my personal thoughts are that the evidence of Solar effects is by far the most convincing. Solar effects have long been demeaned, as there wasn't a good theory to explain them (The Sun's output in the visible and IR didn't vary enough and other coupling mechanisms were very speculative.) Solar variation is being taken more seriously now that experiments have identified a possible coupling mechanism between the Sun's activity level and total cloudness on Earth (via the cosmic ray flux). It's funny that the many of the same people who are willing to make giant leaps of faith based on the relatively weak correllation between CO2 and temperature (even ignoring or hand-waving away the apparent fact that temperature changes often lead CO2 changes) are also blind to the strong correllation between Solar activity and global temperature. Almost makes you think they have some kind of agenda... Undersea vulcanism remains the "elephant in the room" that everybody hopes they can just ignore. Maybe someday we'll develop the instrumentation to survey this -- until then everyone will studiously ignore it. (If you meet an atmospheric scientist at a party, and want to see their hair catch on fire, ask him or her about the possibility of "El Nino" being partially driven by vulcanism.) One other thing should be added to the "consensus": 3) According to the Global Circulation Models (You can download NCAR's GCM from their website and be the first on your block to model the climate!) even implementing enough 'Kyotos' to send the global economy into a decades-long depression would STILL not have an effect on global temperatures that could be discerned from the measurement uncertainty. As these facts become better known, alarmists become more, well, "alarming". This may be why Global Warming Alarmists have now started talking about "tipping points" -- a descent into pure fundamentalist religion, since there are no data (historical or geological), theories, or even models that support this notion. David Stealey notes that:

“By attacking the distinguished Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology atthe Massachusetts Institute of Technology [Dr Lindzen], rather than refuting his facts, Seward reveals himself as a pseudo-scientist.”

Actually, according to his web site, Michael Seward is a custom furniture maker in Pennsylvania. In the “About Me” portion of his website he notes that he has been a woodworker for many years, but has no word about any scientific training. He IS published — in ‘Fine Wood Working”, “This Old House”, “The Custom Furniture Sourcebook”, and etc.

In short, Michael is not even a “pseudo-scientist”; he is just a non-scientist. Probably the reason he doesn’t try to refute the arguments here is that he can’t read the literature, so gets his arguments from alarmist websites.

I have degrees in physics, mathematics, electrical and optical engineering. I’m a working engineer who has build a number of flight instruments to measure cloud properties for scientists at NCAR (in Boulder, Colorado) and elsewhere. I can read the scientific literature (and have contributed a few of my own) and have been following the “debate” for a number of years.

The state of the “Climate Consensus” as can be determined from the literature is:

1) There is a consensus that the Earth has been warming since about 1850. (This is a kind of “well duh!” consensus, since we aren’t still in the Little Ice Age, are we?)

2) Everything else, nearly, is up for grabs as far as the science is concerned, although my personal thoughts are that the evidence of Solar effects is by far the most convincing.

Solar effects have long been demeaned, as there wasn’t a good theory to explain them (The Sun’s output in the visible and IR didn’t vary enough and other coupling mechanisms were very speculative.) Solar variation is being taken more seriously now that experiments have identified a possible
coupling mechanism between the Sun’s activity level and total cloudness on Earth (via the cosmic ray flux).

It’s funny that the many of the same people who are willing to make giant leaps of faith based on the relatively weak correllation between CO2 and temperature (even ignoring or hand-waving away the apparent fact that temperature changes often lead CO2 changes) are also blind to the strong correllation between Solar activity and global temperature. Almost makes you think they have some kind of agenda…

Undersea vulcanism remains the “elephant in the room” that everybody hopes they can just ignore. Maybe someday we’ll develop the instrumentation to survey this — until then everyone will studiously ignore it. (If you meet an atmospheric scientist at a party, and want to see their hair catch on fire, ask him or her about the possibility of “El Nino” being partially driven by vulcanism.)

One other thing should be added to the “consensus”:

3) According to the Global Circulation Models (You can download NCAR’s GCM from their website and be the first on your block to model the climate!) even implementing enough ‘Kyotos’ to send the global economy into a decades-long depression would STILL not have an effect on global
temperatures that could be discerned from the measurement uncertainty.

As these facts become better known, alarmists become more, well, “alarming”. This may be why Global Warming Alarmists have now started talking about “tipping points” — a descent into pure fundamentalist religion, since there are no data (historical or geological), theories, or even models that
support this notion.

]]> By: David Stealey http://www.bjr.org.uk/blog/2006/08/21/what-climate-consensus/#comment-110 David Stealey Tue, 05 Dec 2006 21:03:37 +0000 http://www.bjr.org.uk/blog/2006/08/21/what-climate-consensus/#comment-110 I am shocked by the ad hominem attacks here by Seward and others. But I suppose that when one has no verifiable facts to support his position, ad hominem is all that is left. In a recent forum Mr Seward referrede to himself as a ''maverick.'' How true. By attacking the distinguished Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology [Dr Lindzen], rather than refuting his facts, Seward reveals himself as a pseudo-scientist. There is no climate scientist more credible than Dr Lindzen. In addition, over seventeen thousand [17,000+] scientists have already signed Dr Fredrick Seitz' letter stating, in effect, that human-induced global warming is entirely unproven. Dr Lindzen states that there is ample evidence that the Earth's temperature as recorded at the equator has remained constant to within +/- one degree centigrade for billions of years. That established fact alone destroys the catastrophic global warming argument, when one thinks it through: The Earth's equatorial temperature is the steady state temperature of the planet. As one approaches the poles, however, local temperature differentials increase from summer to winter, between the continental land masses and the ocean, and from day to night. That temperature differential is a direct result of the Second Law of Thermodynamics; heat moves around the planet in large packets. [Note that last summer was warmer than average in large parts of the U.S. -- but southern Africa saw its first series of blizzards and freezing temperatures in almost three decades. But the Earth's overall temperature has remained constant to within one degree C. Also unexplained by Seward is the fact that atmospheric CO2 has historically risen following past warming -- not preceding it. Any credible explanation must conclude that CO2 is a consequence of warming, not a cause. The purveyors of globaloney deliberately select particular locations, and specific base years, only where those current temperatures and base years support their desired conclusions. That tactic is unscientific and completely dishonest, and they know it. That is why they run from any serious debate on the subject, and instead personally attack reputable scientists who disagree. I am shocked by the ad hominem attacks here by Seward and others. But I suppose that when one has no verifiable facts to support his position, ad hominem is all that is left. In a recent forum Mr Seward referrede to himself as a ”maverick.” How true.

By attacking the distinguished Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology [Dr Lindzen], rather than refuting his facts, Seward reveals himself as a pseudo-scientist. There is no climate scientist more credible than Dr Lindzen. In addition, over seventeen thousand [17,000+] scientists have already signed Dr Fredrick Seitz’ letter stating, in effect, that human-induced global warming is entirely unproven.

Dr Lindzen states that there is ample evidence that the Earth’s temperature as recorded at the equator has remained constant to within +/- one degree centigrade for billions of years. That established fact alone destroys the catastrophic global warming argument, when one thinks it through:

The Earth’s equatorial temperature is the steady state temperature of the planet. As one approaches the poles, however, local temperature differentials increase from summer to winter, between the continental land masses and the ocean, and from day to night.

That temperature differential is a direct result of the Second Law of Thermodynamics; heat moves around the planet in large packets. [Note that last summer was warmer than average in large parts of the U.S. — but southern Africa saw its first series of blizzards and freezing temperatures in almost three decades. But the Earth’s overall temperature has remained constant to within one degree C.

Also unexplained by Seward is the fact that atmospheric CO2 has historically risen following past warming — not preceding it. Any credible explanation must conclude that CO2 is a consequence of warming, not a cause.

The purveyors of globaloney deliberately select particular locations, and specific base years, only where those current temperatures and base years support their desired conclusions. That tactic is unscientific and completely dishonest, and they know it. That is why they run from any serious debate on the subject, and instead personally attack reputable scientists who disagree.

]]> By: Peter C Glover http://www.bjr.org.uk/blog/2006/08/21/what-climate-consensus/#comment-27 Peter C Glover Mon, 11 Sep 2006 10:57:46 +0000 http://www.bjr.org.uk/blog/2006/08/21/what-climate-consensus/#comment-27 Now a French climate scientist outs the climate change myth too - and in some detail (at £115 a book). Michael's 'consensus' is disappearing as fast as his own theories. As Michael (from previous experience) subscribes to the view that those who take a different view about the THEORY of man-made climate change are all part of a great right-wing conspiracy (note his slur on the scientists at Friends of Science and Al Jacobs above) he won't appreciate Leroux's 500 page+ book or the fact that it is here highlighted at a conservative website. But those who can discern a genuine science argument might. For the review (by one of the IPCC's own reviewers) go to http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=091106F For the record also, note Leroux's assertion about how climatologists can't even tell you what the weather will do in a few days time yet are so certain a few years hence. Uncannily smiliar to my own conclusion (written when I was unaware of Professor Leroux's book)in the above article. Now a French climate scientist outs the climate change myth too - and in some detail (at £115 a book). Michael’s ‘consensus’ is disappearing as fast as his own theories.

As Michael (from previous experience) subscribes to the view that those who take a different view about the THEORY of man-made climate change are all part of a great right-wing conspiracy (note his slur on the scientists at Friends of Science and Al Jacobs above) he won’t appreciate Leroux’s 500 page+ book or the fact that it is here highlighted at a conservative website. But those who can discern a genuine science argument might.

For the review (by one of the IPCC’s own reviewers) go to http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=091106F

For the record also, note Leroux’s assertion about how climatologists can’t even tell you what the weather will do in a few days time yet are so certain a few years hence. Uncannily smiliar to my own conclusion (written when I was unaware of Professor Leroux’s book)in the above article.

]]> By: Michael Seward http://www.bjr.org.uk/blog/2006/08/21/what-climate-consensus/#comment-25 Michael Seward Fri, 08 Sep 2006 22:49:33 +0000 http://www.bjr.org.uk/blog/2006/08/21/what-climate-consensus/#comment-25 Adrian Monck is right. Base policy decisons on the best available science,from legitimate sources of scientific investigation. Don't formulate policy based on wacky arguments from politically motivated advocates, quoting fringe scientists whose opinions on editorial pages and psuedoscientific websites are unsupported by the balance of the evidence. But the science stands apart from the policy debate. And the science is clear and compelling, although some who dislike the policy implications of the science prefer to deny the evidence that science offers. Hence Peter Glover and Albert Jacobs. Adrian Monck is right. Base policy decisons on the best available science,from legitimate sources of scientific investigation. Don’t formulate policy based on wacky arguments from politically motivated advocates, quoting fringe scientists whose opinions on editorial pages and psuedoscientific websites are unsupported by the balance of the evidence. But the science stands apart from the policy debate. And the science is clear and compelling, although some who dislike the policy implications of the science prefer to deny the evidence that science offers. Hence Peter Glover and Albert Jacobs.

]]> By: Adrian Monck http://www.bjr.org.uk/blog/2006/08/21/what-climate-consensus/#comment-24 Adrian Monck Thu, 07 Sep 2006 12:35:39 +0000 http://www.bjr.org.uk/blog/2006/08/21/what-climate-consensus/#comment-24 The point I tried to make at the beginning is that there is a consensus, right or wrong. There's nothing wrong with dissent, but it is just that - dissent from the consensus! When we come to policy formulation we usually turn to the consensus to provide the basis for action. By all means question that, and subject it to scrutiny, but using terms like 'climate alarmist' - when nothing I wrote was in the slightest bit alarming, doesn't encourage me. I wouldn't describe Richard Lindzen as a skepto-fascist! But as Michael Seward pointed out in the climate change consensus he is a maverick. Let's hope he's right, but let's base policy on consensus until he can convince more of his scientific peers that his position - and on theirs - is the one we should trust. The point I tried to make at the beginning is that there is a consensus, right or wrong. There’s nothing wrong with dissent, but it is just that - dissent from the consensus!

When we come to policy formulation we usually turn to the consensus to provide the basis for action. By all means question that, and subject it to scrutiny, but using terms like ‘climate alarmist’ - when nothing I wrote was in the slightest bit alarming, doesn’t encourage me. I wouldn’t describe Richard Lindzen as a skepto-fascist! But as Michael Seward pointed out in the climate change consensus he is a maverick. Let’s hope he’s right, but let’s base policy on consensus until he can convince more of his scientific peers that his position - and on theirs - is the one we should trust.

]]> By: Michael Seward http://www.bjr.org.uk/blog/2006/08/21/what-climate-consensus/#comment-23 Michael Seward Thu, 07 Sep 2006 04:11:42 +0000 http://www.bjr.org.uk/blog/2006/08/21/what-climate-consensus/#comment-23 Albert Jacobs is abusing science to wage a political battle. Check out Jacob's website. The first goal of FOS is a strictly political agenda: to "re-evaluate the Kyoto Protocol". FOS runs radio ads attacking the Kyoto Protocol. They made sure that all members of the Federal Parliament received copies of their misleading DVD. "The society has also briefed scores of politicians and civil servants in person" according to the Daily Oil Bulletin. This is a predetermined political agenda pretending to be science. It's pseudoscientific PR designed to influence the policy debate, plain and simple. What about the science? FOS also claims to champion the "dissemination of relevant, balanced and objective technical information on this subject."Then why is the FOS website a virtual catalogue of standard skeptic arguments, arguments that have been rejected by every scientific institution on the planet? Mr. Jacobs claims "no reliable correlation has been established between carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere and planetary temperatures."Mr. Jacobs is dismissing 180 years of scientific discovery. Fourier discovered that gases in the atmosphere increase the surface temperature of the Earth in 1824. Arrhenius discovered that changes in the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere alter the surface temperature through the greenhouse effect in 1896. Keeling's careful measurements from the 1950's have quantified the unprecedented increase in human-caused greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Arrhenius expected CO2 doubling to take about 3000 years; it is now generally expected to take about a century. Jacobs's quirky ideas deny the history of science, a history you won't find mentioned in his "educational" materials. If they want a balanced debate with all views fairly represented, why do they only have the most extreme, fringe, global warming skeptics, with a long history of denying and distorting the science, on their petitions and their website? The FOS website says: "We have no obligation to any commercial outfit (let alone oil companies)". You can read about the complex web of connections between oil companies, think tanks, PR firms, and the "scientists" who represent FOS here: <a href="http://www.charlesmontgomery.ca/mrcool.html" rel="nofollow">www.charlesmontgomery.ca/mrcool.html</a>. Decide for yourself who should be ashamed. Albert Jacobs is abusing science to wage a political battle.

Check out Jacob’s website. The first goal of FOS is a strictly political agenda: to “re-evaluate the Kyoto Protocol”. FOS runs radio ads attacking the Kyoto Protocol. They made sure that all members of the Federal Parliament received copies of their misleading DVD. “The society has also briefed scores of politicians and civil servants in person” according to the Daily Oil Bulletin. This is a predetermined political agenda pretending to be science. It’s pseudoscientific PR designed to influence the policy debate, plain and simple.

What about the science? FOS also claims to champion the “dissemination of relevant, balanced and objective technical information on this subject.”Then why is the FOS website a virtual catalogue of standard skeptic arguments, arguments that have been rejected by every scientific institution on the planet?

Mr. Jacobs claims “no reliable correlation has been established between carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere and planetary temperatures.”Mr. Jacobs is dismissing 180 years of scientific discovery. Fourier discovered that gases in the atmosphere increase the surface temperature of the Earth in 1824. Arrhenius discovered that changes in the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere alter the surface temperature through the greenhouse effect in 1896. Keeling’s careful measurements from the 1950’s have quantified the unprecedented increase in human-caused greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Arrhenius expected CO2 doubling to take about 3000 years; it is now generally expected to take about a century. Jacobs’s quirky ideas deny the history of science, a history you won’t find mentioned in his “educational” materials.

If they want a balanced debate with all views fairly represented, why do they only have the most extreme, fringe, global warming skeptics, with a long history of denying and distorting the science, on their petitions and their website?

The FOS website says: “We have no obligation to any commercial outfit (let alone oil companies)”. You can read about the complex web of connections between oil companies, think tanks, PR firms, and the “scientists” who represent FOS here: www.charlesmontgomery.ca/mrcool.html. Decide for yourself who should be ashamed.

]]> By: Albert Jacobs http://www.bjr.org.uk/blog/2006/08/21/what-climate-consensus/#comment-22 Albert Jacobs Wed, 06 Sep 2006 04:15:33 +0000 http://www.bjr.org.uk/blog/2006/08/21/what-climate-consensus/#comment-22 For the record: Friends of Science is a not-for-profit Society, registered under the Alberta Societies Act. Its Board consists large of retired science professionals. None are "PR" types. It is not a lobby group, let alone a "PR firm", but an educational advocacy group which brings peer-reviewed science to the public, which the IPCC wishes to ignore. Its stance is not political, though it happens to disagree with the politicians who see Kyoto as a panacea for the world's sins. Funding of its large educational projects through a University Trust Fund is fully within the laws of Canada and the phrase "laundering oil money" is misplaced and copied from a well-known mudraking blog. The progress of science is not furthered by ad hominem attacks. Shame on Michael Seward. For the record: Friends of Science is a not-for-profit Society, registered under the Alberta Societies Act. Its Board consists large of retired science professionals. None are “PR” types. It is not a lobby group, let alone a “PR firm”, but an educational advocacy group which brings peer-reviewed science to the public, which the IPCC wishes to ignore. Its stance is not political, though it happens to disagree with the politicians who see Kyoto as a panacea for the world’s sins. Funding of its large educational projects through a University Trust Fund is fully within the laws of Canada and the phrase “laundering oil money” is misplaced and copied from a well-known mudraking blog. The progress of science is not furthered by ad hominem attacks. Shame on Michael Seward.

]]> By: Michael Seward http://www.bjr.org.uk/blog/2006/08/21/what-climate-consensus/#comment-21 Michael Seward Tue, 05 Sep 2006 12:44:45 +0000 http://www.bjr.org.uk/blog/2006/08/21/what-climate-consensus/#comment-21 It should be noted that Albert Jacobs represents the so-called "Friends of Science", a lobbying and PR firm dedicated to swaying public opinion against the scientific conclusion that greenhouse gases are responsible for global warming. While their actual contribution to the scientific debate is scant, their advocacy through web sites, letters to the editor, and political lobbying is prodigious. The arguments they present are simply political rhetoric disguised as science. The real scientific debate is taking place in the scientific literature, not by PR firms, lobbyists, and political consultants like FOS. Now that we know how a University of Calgary political scientist helped launder oil money for the climate-change denying FOS, we should be very skeptical of their integrity in this debate. It should be noted that Albert Jacobs represents the so-called “Friends of Science”, a lobbying and PR firm dedicated to swaying public opinion against the scientific conclusion that greenhouse gases are responsible for global warming. While their actual contribution to the scientific debate is scant, their advocacy through web sites, letters to the editor, and political lobbying is prodigious. The arguments they present are simply political rhetoric disguised as science. The real scientific debate is taking place in the scientific literature, not by PR firms, lobbyists, and political consultants like FOS. Now that we know how a University of Calgary political scientist helped launder oil money for the climate-change denying FOS, we should be very skeptical of their integrity in this debate.

]]> By: Albert Jacobs http://www.bjr.org.uk/blog/2006/08/21/what-climate-consensus/#comment-20 Albert Jacobs Tue, 05 Sep 2006 04:10:27 +0000 http://www.bjr.org.uk/blog/2006/08/21/what-climate-consensus/#comment-20 As an earth scientist who has been actively involved in a critical look at Climate Science, I never cease to be amazed at the arguments (or what they think to be arguments) of those that are blind to evidence other than that which fits their preconceived ideas. None are so blind as those who do not want to see. They fit in so nicely with the general attitude found in governments, where a political decision is taken first and Science is cherry-picked to find evidence to support it. They consider everyone who questions the generally held idea ("consensus") to be a member of the flat earth society, in pay of "big oil", or worse. What has become of scientific inquiry, the scientific method, the challenges and proofs? "When it is Science, there is no Consensus. When there is Consensus, it is not Science". The positions are put into Black and White and the sceptics are treated as individuals who necessarily are thought to believe that climate change is not taking place at all, that carbon dioxide has no influence at all and that the economics are more important than the survival of the planet. MIT's Richard Lindzen has said nothing new. It only appeared new to people who did not really want to read what he had said before. Many of the meteorologists and atmospheric physicists seem to resent that earth science and astrophysics should have anything of value to contribute, as they do not want to be troubled by the lessons of earth history to the extent that they interfere with their computer models. Sorry gentlemen, computer simulations "prove" nothing. Not even with "back-casting". The Naomi Oreskes survey is another good example: many papers in astrophysics, oceanography, paleontology, glaciology, statistics and half a dozen other sub-disciplines are published peer-reviewed articles that Naomi and her limited keyword computer search must have missed. Science and Nature are not the only peer-reviewed mags in the world and their editors have been accused of being biased. Should one assume that none of the sixty scientists who wrote the famous letter to the Canadian Prime Minister had ever published their research in peer-reviewed periodicals? Many of these articles may not "attack Global Warming" but their conclusions are obviously incompatible with the IPCC version of Anthropogenic Global Warming. In fact, Dr. Benny Peiser has compiled such a list that disproves Oreskes. It would behove those who dismiss the sceptics as being somewhere near the lunatic fringe to examine the arguments in true scientific fashion and to stop treating AGW as a dogmatic religion. Meanwhile the IPCC is continuing its downward reduction of expected temperature rise (AR4 draft) - which is now getting close to the satellite figures - and, reportedly, it seems to be disavowing the scary scenarios; the oceans are cooling (Plant 2004, 2005), the planet's albedo is changing, affecting the temperature expectations downward and the temperature correlations with the variation in solar activity is becoming obvious. Are those that are accusing the sceptics of being funded by Big Oil just a bit too dependent on their government research grants? As an earth scientist who has been actively involved in a critical look at Climate Science, I never cease to be amazed at the arguments (or what they think to be arguments) of those that are blind to evidence other than that which fits their preconceived ideas. None are so blind as those who do not want to see. They fit in so nicely with the general attitude found in governments, where a political decision is taken first and Science is cherry-picked to find evidence to support it. They consider everyone who questions the generally held idea (”consensus”) to be a member of the flat earth society, in pay of “big oil”, or worse. What has become of scientific inquiry, the scientific method, the challenges and proofs? “When it is Science, there is no Consensus. When there is Consensus, it is not Science”.
The positions are put into Black and White and the sceptics are treated as individuals who necessarily are thought to believe that climate change is not taking place at all, that carbon dioxide has no influence at all and that the economics are more important than the survival of the planet.
MIT’s Richard Lindzen has said nothing new. It only appeared new to people who did not really want to read what he had said before.
Many of the meteorologists and atmospheric physicists seem to resent that earth science and astrophysics should have anything of value to contribute, as they do not want to be troubled by the lessons of earth history to the extent that they interfere with their computer models. Sorry gentlemen, computer simulations “prove” nothing. Not even with “back-casting”.
The Naomi Oreskes survey is another good example: many papers in astrophysics, oceanography, paleontology, glaciology, statistics and half a dozen other sub-disciplines are published peer-reviewed articles that Naomi and her limited keyword computer search must have missed. Science and Nature are not the only peer-reviewed mags in the world and their editors have been accused of being biased. Should one assume that none of the sixty scientists who wrote the famous letter to the Canadian Prime Minister had ever published their research in peer-reviewed periodicals?
Many of these articles may not “attack Global Warming” but their conclusions are obviously incompatible with the IPCC version of Anthropogenic Global Warming. In fact, Dr. Benny Peiser has compiled such a list that disproves Oreskes. It would behove those who dismiss the sceptics as being somewhere near the lunatic fringe to examine the arguments in true scientific fashion and to stop treating AGW as a dogmatic religion.
Meanwhile the IPCC is continuing its downward reduction of expected temperature rise (AR4 draft) - which is now getting close to the satellite figures - and, reportedly, it seems to be disavowing the scary scenarios; the oceans are cooling (Plant 2004, 2005), the planet’s albedo is changing, affecting the temperature expectations downward and the temperature correlations with the variation in solar activity is becoming obvious.
Are those that are accusing the sceptics of being funded by Big Oil just a bit too dependent on their government research grants?

]]> By: Michael Seward http://www.bjr.org.uk/blog/2006/08/21/what-climate-consensus/#comment-19 Michael Seward Mon, 04 Sep 2006 13:38:52 +0000 http://www.bjr.org.uk/blog/2006/08/21/what-climate-consensus/#comment-19 Thanks for your reply, Peter. Have you seen this profile of Lindzen? http://www.seedmagazine.com/news/2006/08/the_contrarian.php?page=1 He admits that his water vapor theory was wrong: "in 2001, Lindzen published a paper speculating that as the Earth warmed, water vapor would decrease in the upper atmosphere, allowing heat to escape back into space more efficiently, and thereby reducing overall temperature. The paper met with vigorous criticism. Eventually, he disavowed the idea. "That was an old view," Lindzen said about his five-year-old hypothesis." Further more, while he denies there is a consensus, he actually agrees with the consensus! "His most recent Wall Street Journal editorial, for example, includes admissions that the Earth has warmed over the last century, that humans are influencing the climate, that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that its levels continue to rise." That's a pretty good definition of the consensus. Lindzens' star as a scientist has faded, but he has made a name for himself thanks to the right wing think tanks, the corporate lobbyists, and industry funded politicians. The science is leaving him behind, but he is still held in high esteem by some who are casting about for any reason to deny the reality of global warming. Thanks for your reply, Peter. Have you seen this profile of Lindzen?

http://www.seedmagazine.com/news/2006/08/the_contrarian.php?page=1

He admits that his water vapor theory was wrong: “in 2001, Lindzen published a paper speculating that as the Earth warmed, water vapor would decrease in the upper atmosphere, allowing heat to escape back into space more efficiently, and thereby reducing overall temperature. The paper met with vigorous criticism. Eventually, he disavowed the idea. “That was an old view,” Lindzen said about his five-year-old hypothesis.”

Further more, while he denies there is a consensus, he actually agrees with the consensus! “His most recent Wall Street Journal editorial, for example, includes admissions that the Earth has warmed over the last century, that humans are influencing the climate, that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that its levels continue to rise.” That’s a pretty good definition of the consensus.

Lindzens’ star as a scientist has faded, but he has made a name for himself thanks to the right wing think tanks, the corporate lobbyists, and industry funded politicians. The science is leaving him behind, but he is still held in high esteem by some who are casting about for any reason to deny the reality of global warming.

]]>