Senator James Inhofe (R-Exxon) misused the power of his chairmanship and is now misusing his Ranking Minority status on the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) committee to expend taxpayer resources on distorting, misleading, and outright deceiving when it comes to scientific issues, most notably in relation to questions of Global Warming. One of the most infamous examples of this are the various incarnations of a "report" cobbling together statements from scientists that supposedly dissent from the scientific consensus on humanity's role in driving accelerating global warming.
Well, the Center for Inquiry "an organization committed to defending scientific integrity,
has dealt a body blow to global warming skeptics by releasing findings exposing the lack of credibility of dissenting scientists challenging man-made global warming."
Re the Inhofe List
Inhofe's list is a quite favorite "denier" citation, the supposed 400 or 600 or 700 (depending on which version) number of scientists who have, supposedly, gone on record against the Theory of Global Warming. And, they like to cite this as from the "Senate Environment and Public Works Committee" without mentioning that this is a Minority Report from global-warming denier, fossil fool James Inhofe's staff.
CFI
The Center for Inquiry (CFI released their report
last Friday.
CFI's Office of Public Policy undertook an assessment of the 687 people listed as "dissenting scientists" in the January 2009 version of the 'Inhofe list'. Their conclusions:
Per Dr. Stuart Jordan, science policy advisor to the CFI Office of Public Policy and retired emeritus senior staff scientist at the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center:
As a result of our assessment, Inhofe and other lawmakers using this report to block proposed legislation to address the harmful effects of climate change must face an inconvenient truth: while there are indeed some well respected scientists on the list, the vast majority are neither climate scientists, nor have they published in fields that bear directly on climate science.
"Sen. Inhofe and others have had some success in conveying to the media the impression that the number of scientists skeptical about man-made global warming is swelling, yet this is demonstrably not true." Dr. Ronald Lindsay, CFI's CEO, points out that Inhofe's office had misleadingly claimed in a press release that the number of dissenting scientists outnumbered by more than 13 times the number of U.N. scientists (52) who authored the 2007 IPCC. "But those 52 U.N. scientists were in fact summarizing for policymakers the work of over 2,000 active research scientists, all with substantially similar views on global warming and its causes. This is the kind of broadside against sound science and scientific integrity that we at CFI deplore."
Released, at the press conference, was The Credibility Project trifold brochure (pdf). I have now read this multiple times and am more impressed, with each read, with how well done it is, powerful in how it is thoughtfully understated.
They provide a six paragraph "Highlights in Contemporary Climate Science" which lays out, quite directly, a quite strong statement about the strength of our understanding of how humanity is driving climate change. They conclude this section,
For the reasons stated above, many scientists are skeptical when politicians claim that a large body of scientists doubts that human activity causes global warming. That claim runs contrary to the evidence and the work of a large climate-science community.
In light of these results, it is difficult to think this is a list composed primarily of publishing climate scientists. These results cast serious doubt on the Senate Minority Report's credibility.
Unfortunately, many Americans fail to understand that science does not give us absolutely certain answers to questions about nature. Instead it gives us possibilities. This does not mean, however, that policymakers should feel free to ignore scientific findings. In many cases these probabilities approach certainty. Thus, when scientists say it is "highly likely" that anthropogenic greenhouse gases are the cdominant cause of the recent global warming, they are asserting that the observational evdience and scientific theory together make a highly compelling case for this conclusion, such that it cannot be dismissed. Although it is always possible that some as yet undiscovered mechanism might also play a role, no one has shown convincing evidence for one. As such, unproven claims that other mechanisms explain global warming should be viewed skeptically. When we consider the amount of research that has been accomplished since the seriousness of climate change became apparent two decades ago, the case for the scientific community's consensus view on global warming becomes even stronger.
We can look forward to seeing its authors testifying
before Congressional Committees. I hope that there will be a seat reserved for me when Senator Boxer hits the gavel to start the Senate Environment & Public Works (EPW) hearing when The Credibility Project team appears, with an outraged Senator Inhofe turning red as they call his deceptions out for what they are.
Now, while CFI has laid clear that Inhofe's list is far from what climate deniers like to claim, this truly is just a first-order look by senior scientists at the list and a more comprehensive look would lead, almost certainly, to even more damning conclusions. (This look did not, for example, account for those scientists who directly requested that their names be removed from the "report" but who remain, to this date, in Inhofe's list.) As the team reported,
The conclusions we draw from our examination of the Senate Minority Report are preliminary...Nonetheless...we have double-checked our results and are prepared to offer the following three conclusions.
- We think it highly unlikely that a growing fraction of top climate scientists are becoming increasingly skeptical of human causation of global warming.
- We think that the title "Senate Minority Reprot" is technically appropriate, but grossly understated. That report's list does contain the names of some outstanding scientists... However, when weighted against the much larger number of equally outstanding climate scientists, there is no doubt where the great majority of experts in this field stand.
- Absent hard evidence that another likely candidate drives global warming, it is highly unlikely that man-made greenhouse gases do not play a significant and probably a major role in causing global warming. The authors of this Credibility Project assessment are not qualified to assess the engineering and economic questions associated with proposed legislation addressing climate change. However, we are disturbed by any document that may misrepresent the state of the global scientific effort to address the problem.
NOTEs:
1. For an abundance of links to high-quality exposures of Inhofe's disinformation, see Greenfyre's "NOT Sparta - Inhofe and the 400: A collection of links to articles exposing James "Ko-Ko" Inhofe and his phony "lists"."
2. Another 'list' is of 30,000 scientists, which Jon Stewart raised in his interview with Secretary of Energy Chu the other night. For a dissection of that, see: DeSmogBlog, The 30,000 Global Warming Petition is Easily-Debunked Propaganda
Follow A. Siegel on Twitter: www.twitter.com/A_Siegel
Whether or not Oil State Propaganda can prove that -- pollution -- does not cause Global Warming/Climate Change, it seems pretty obvious, even to non-scientists, that pollution cannot just keep increasing without a terrible price to pay. And if they care more about their billions in profits than their grandchildren's living conditions, "liberals be damned".
Pollution, whether just toxic, or if it changes the climate, is not a theory or a hypothesis. It is an obvious, in your face, fact. To ignore it for corporate profit is nearly as bad as burning your grandchildren for fire wood.
Changing the framing from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change" to "Pollution" is showing some desperation. Stating that disagreeing with the consensus on AGW means we want to pollute the planet is a strawman.
Define the problem - what are the major contributers ranked by their impact. What targets can be reasonably be set to reduce the sources of the pollution? How is this best addressed? Additional regulation? Tightening existing standards? Shifting technologies? Wind? Solar? Yes - Nuclear?
Trying to use cap and trade to address pollution in general is a disaster! I expect it will push manufacturing and industry to the third world, India and China. They will get the job done without those pesky U.S. EPA and OSHA rules. If you think that is good for the planet, you are mistaken.
hey texas stop hogging all the CO2 huh!
This whole line of discussion has little place in science.
When a hypothesis is above question, it has become dogma.
1. Why did CFI engage in this? Because Inhofe's "team" put together a "list", trumpeting this "report" with the number as some form of revelation. Never mind that there are people who, in writing, have requested their names be removed from it.
2. So, have you gone out of your way to criticize people who state "34,000" or "Inhofe's report", using the inflated numbers as a talking point?
3. Global Warming, as you are well aware, is a Theory, not a hypothesis. That has a quite different connotation.
4. Scientific inquiry continues. Scientific questioning. Scientific examination. Read the quotes above, read the trifold. The CFI team does not denigrate honest scientific skepticism, people striving via the scientific method to understand 'truth'. The problem, as you are certainly aware, is the vast majority of the American public has little conception of the scientific process and those who wish to confuse the situation are able to (willing to, actively undertake to) take the normal give-and-take of scientific process and scientific discussion and distort any questioning into much larger headlines, much larger implications than the scientific work justifies.
Guess what -- basically every single person concerned about global warming would like to be proved wrong. Being wrong on this would mean much better future prospects. Sadly, every day that passes provides more substantive scientific work strengthening the case that humanity is a leading factor in driving accelerated global warming.
2 - I did not intend to criticize by saying it has little place in science - my statement applies to Inhofe's report as well.
3 - When a theory is above question it has become dogma... Still works...
The hypothesis I am concerned with is that increasing CO2 is causing the increased global mean temperatures. The theory of AGW is very complicated (positive feedbacks, extensive computer models...) but it really all hinges on the hypothesis that CO2 is causing the warming (climate sensitivity of 2 - 5C for a doubling in CO2 concentration.)
4 - I agree. I am a bit concerned with the mischaracterization that "the science is settled." I have heard this repeated frequently and loudly to silence dissent.
For Global Warming, I suggest a Planet that has no human life..probably no life whatsoever...
Venus....
Venus is the Earth's twin, just a tad smaller.
It has a very thick cloud cover which makes it the brightest planet that we can see in the morning sky
right now because it reflects 2/3 of the incoming sunlight.
It's atmosphere is 95% Carbon Dioxide and it's 90X as dense as our own.
Now, what does a 95% Carbon Dioxide atmosphere do when it's 90 X as dense as ours?
Good question
Try a surface temperature on both Day & Night side of about
900 degrees F...
Hot enough to melt lead!
A perfect example of a runaway Greenhouse Effect.
http://yly-mac.gps.caltech.edu/Z444/Flash4/Venus_greenhouse/RT_in_Venus_Atmosphere_AGU_GM01301CH08.pdf
It is very different from Earth. Most of the action takes place in the atmosphere - it is very opaque! Only about 10% of the incident sunlight makes it all the way to the surface! The H2SO4 clouds not only reflect the incident light out (thus the brightness) but will also tend to scatter and absorb light trying to get out.
The "runaway greenhouse effect" is discussed in some detail. It looks like a runaway needs a net solar flux of > 275 W/m2, the Earth is at ~235 W/m2 (net - after reflection). We should be ok.
As for using Venus as a "control", one usually uses the same species as the test - in other words change only the variable being tested. A study of Venus is very valuable but we need to be careful in drawing conclusions about AGW on Earth from the conditions on Venus.
Only reason I site this is because I used to live there...
One High...something that I thought impossible..that I never saw when
I lived there was...
104 degrees F.
Why don't you actually bother to read the tri-fold with something imitating an open mind.
If there is 100% consensus then I question the mental ability of the group in question.
There are ALWAYS questions. That is the hallmark of good science. For you to insist that anything less than 100% consensus is insufficient is to demonstrate to the world that you require sheep-like obedience to a dogma, rather than rigorous scientific research, analysis and debate and debate.
Hume, I'll trade you your NE cool summer for what we've got any day. You can keep your winters tho.
10 geophysics, climate science, hydrology or climate modelling
17 earth/atmospheric sciences
2 modelling/statistics
7 geography
6 epidemiology
10 biology/ecology
5 zoology, entomology or biology
5 public health and policy
10 engineers or in insurance and risk management
12 economics
28 social science
1 full-time activist (and 1 part time)
1 website-design
1 network administration
2 administrative assistant
5 unknown
Working Group III - (66)
14 physics, chemistry or engineering
2 biochemisty or geochemistry
5 forestry ecology, or soil science
4 engineering disciplines
2 law
7 social science
20 economics
12 unknown
Working Group I is responsible for the scientific basis for climate change.
WG-II (http://www.ipcc-wg2.org/) worked in a cross-disciplinary domain. As stated "In its reports, Working Group II assesses the scientific, technical, environmental, economic and social aspects of the vulnerability (sensitivity and adaptability) to climate change of, and the negative and positive consequences for, ecological systems, socio-economic sectors and human health, with an emphasis on regional sectoral and cross-sectoral issues"
WG-III worked on mitigation of climate change, looking at items like renewable energy, energy efficiency, agricultural practices, etc ...
Looking at their responsibilties, their charters and the demands to meet them, the sort of mix of skills seems quite reasonable.
I don't understand why this is so complicated.
Is there some reason this information isn't available to the general public?
According to the IPCC site, the scientists are broken down into three groups. Can you confirm, with linked data, that the following breakdown is accurate?
http://mclean.ch/climate/docs/IPCC_numbers.pdf
WG I - 595 authors, 624 reviewers
WG II - 400 authors, 1169 reviewers
WG III - 251 authors, 469 reviewers
Working Group I - (303 from the USA or UK)
215 climate science (assumption for all authors associated with 2 key climate institutes in each country)
24 atmospheric physics
27 geophysics or geology
4 statistics
8 mathematics/physics
8 engineering
2 biology/ecology
1 history of science
1 computer science
1 economy
1 agronomy
1 lawyer who claims to also be skilled in oceanography
8 unknown
In any event, this post is dealing with a clear demonstration of the absurdity of Inhofe's "lists".
What does Inhofe have to do with the question?
It appears that whenenever cornered, the AGW screams "Inhofe! Fox News! Science Denier!" in an attempt to deflect the real conversation.
This should be very easy.
All I'm asking for is a list of the scientists who work on the IPCC categorized by their fields of study.
It's a query that should take about 2 seconds to run:
Select FirstName, LastName, FieldOfStudy from IPCCScientists
GroupBy FieldOfStudy
OrderBy LastName
shhhhhhhhh
Remember, when there are over 3,000 record low temperatures, it's WEATHER!
http://www.accuweather.com/mt-news-blogs.asp?blog=weathermatrix&partner=&pgUrl=/mtweb/content/weathermatrix/archives/2009/07/1000_low_temp_records_set_this_july.asp
3,000 Low Temp Records Set This July!
When we have an a proven downward trend of tropical cyclones, to the point where it reaches historic lows .... it's WEATHER!
http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/
•Update: July 22, 2009 including dissipated TYPHOON Molave in the WPAC
On the heels of the record inactive years of 2007 and 2008, current 2009 activity has fallen well behind the pace of the previous 2-years. The ACE to date is the lowest since 1998 and only 40% of the previous 10-year average. Record inactivity continues and has so far shown no signs of abating.
Here are some stats and maps regarding the unusually cold July that is happening over a large portion of the U.S., especially the Northeast quadrant (yes, it's been unusually hot in the SW, see below)
In other words, it is GLOBAL, not regional or national, WARMING. And, as you yourself note, it is CLIMATE, and not weather, CHANGE.
Remind me the next time that there is a large snowstorm how the snow proves that global warming is a hoax.
Global Warming is just that, GLOBAL. Local variations will occur in certain regions. But, averaged over the whole world, the trend is towards higher and higher temperatures. Stick your head in the sand if you must.