Author
I have been an editor at scitizen.com since September 2007.
Climate Change - Has It Been Cancelled?
29 Apr, 2008 10:24 am
Professor Bob Carter from James Cook University in Queensland, talks to Nzone Tonight's Allan Lee about how ordinary people can try and find out the truth about Climate Change and global warming.
Author
Read more
Carter is on the research committee of an organization called the "Institute for Pulic Affairs" (IPA). The IPA is an Australian-based organization that, according to Sourcewatch, has received funding from the fossil fuel industry. In reference to his involvement with the IPA, Carter stated in a March 15, 2007 Sydney Morning Herald article, that: "I don't think it is the point whether you are paid by the coal or petroleum industry."
Carter "not a credible source" on climate change
In response to claims made by Carter that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change uncovered no evidence that global warming was caused by human activity, a former CSIRO climate scientist stated that Carter was not a credible source on climate change and that "if he [Carter] has any evidence that [global warming over the past 100 years] is a natural variability he should publish through the peer review process."
Carter and Tech Central Station
Carter has written articles for Tech Central Station. TCS is an organization that has received money from ExxonMobil. Until very recently, TCS was run by Washington lobby/PR firm DCI Group, whcih in turn was at the centre of controversy over a YouTube Al Gore spoof video they produced and posted under the guise of 29-year old amateur filmmaker. ExxonMobil is reported to be a client of the DCI Group.
http://www.desmogblog.com/node/1557
I couldn't get the link to work, so, you'll need to visit the link to see it.
Here is a chart that Bob Carter omitted. You will see that the warming trend is fairly consistant. It wobbles a bit [see below], but it keeps on going up.
The 1940-1979 cooling was mostly caused by sulphate aerosols from WW2 and the post war industrial boom. Aside from that and intermittent cooling from large volcanic eruptions the trend is up.
Now perhaps, you might be wondering why Bob Carter doesn't mention this or publish his views about the IPCC are wrong in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. The reason of course, is that in climate science circles, Bob Carter is not considered to be an expert, or even worth listening to.
Why?
Because what he says about the climate isn't based upon science, it seems it might be more based upon his fossil industry income.
Want to learn about climate science?
Visit www.realclimate.org climate science by climatologists - Science only - no politics allowed.
Spencer Weart's "Discovery of Global Warming" - http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html
What the IPCC really said - http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html
"There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998. ... That industrial carbon dioxide is not the primary cause of earth's recent decadal-scale temperature changes doesn't seem at all odd to many thousands of independent scientists. They have long appreciated - ever since the early 1990s, when the global warming bandwagon first started to roll behind the gravy train of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - that such short-term climate fluctuations are chiefly of natural origin."
Source: The Telegraph (UK) 2006
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/04/09/do0907.xml
This is what Bob Carter is well known for:
If you look at http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/
Anyone who looks at the graph at the above link, will see that temperatures have not been static as Bob Carter claims for the past eight years, but have continued to increase steadily. The only way you could contrive a decreasing trend is if you just looked at the two years 1998 and 2005 (the warmest and second warmest years ever recorded in the CRU data) and ignored everything else. Is that an appropriate way to do things? It is according to Bob Carter.
Is this dishonest and deceitful? Yes it is. Is it deliberate dishonesty? Almost certainly. It's known as cherry picking, selecting specific unrepresentative data to prove a point that is unsupported by the entire data set.
The exceptionally warm year 1998 was caused by El Nino which is a weather event. Climate is averaged weather and Bob Carter is aiming this deceitful message at the public in order to deceive them. That's what he gets paid for by the fossil fuel industry!
The warming is chiefly due to increases in atmospheric CO2. The source of the excess atmospheric CO2 is known to be from burning fossil-fuels because fossil carbon, whether it be from coal, oil or gas has a different isotopic ratio from biological carbon. As the CO2 levels have increased, so has the isotopic ratio shifted , reflecting the ~ 7.5 gigatonnes of fossil fuels burnt each year.
-------------------------------------------------------------
For Common skeptical arguments = deliberate lies intended to deceive the public, see:
Coby Beck's How to talk to Global Warming Skeptic http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics
New Scientist: Climate Change: A guide for the perplexed http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462
RealClimate: Response to common contrarian arguments http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/index/#Responses
NERC (UK): Climate change debate summary http://www.nerc.ac.uk/about/consult/debate/climatechange/summary.asp
UK Met Office: Climate Change Myths http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/index.html
Brian Angliss A Thorough Debunking http://scholarsandrogues.wordpress.com/2007/07/23/anti-global-heating-claims-a-reasonably-thorough-debunking/
John Cross Skeptical Science http://www.skepticalscience.com/
Since the last decade was as warm as the 1930s it is mere speculation that: The 1940-1979 cooling was mostly caused by sulphate aerosols from WW2 and the post war industrial boom (see comment above). Actually, the cooling started in winter 1939/40, serving Northern Europe with the coldest winter for more than 100 years (more at http://www.oceanclimate.de/ ) that did not came from few months increased release from aerosols, but from excessive use of the seas, and may have even caused the cooling of the North Atlantic and North Pacific over three decades due to naval activities over several years (more at www.seaclimate.com ), which means that anthropogenic forcing could be very real.
"everything Climate Criminal refers you to is related to people or organizations that make money off of the AGW scare. Get a life. AGW doesn't exist and the world is finally catching on."
A great shame that "Commonsense", provides no evidence to support his / her smear.
I looked at the links and for example the UK Met office is a UK Government scientific establisment.
Natural Environment Research Council, some kind of academic institution.
Nerc is the NERC funds world-class science in universities and our own research centres that increases knowledge and understanding of the natural world. We are tackling the 21st century's major environmental issues such as climate change, biodiversity and natural hazards. We lead in providing independent research and training in the environmental sciences. From their website.
The AIP is the American Institute of Physics.
I think that "Commonsense", is either a fool or a paid agent of the fossil fuel industry. He can't tell the truth from fiction. Little wonder he omitted to provide any evidence.
The greenhouse effect is good for us and is a scientific fact, in-fact without it the Earth would be frozen and without it we wouldn't be here. What is not good is the artificially enhanced greenhouse effect, as a result of the 7.5 gigatonnes of fossil carbon burned each year. The fossil origins of the excess atmospheric carbon is demonstrated by the shifting isotopic ratio that matches the increasing atmospheric CO2 levels.
The paper Keenlyside et al. 2008, forecasts a slight pause in warming. There has been a great deal of deeply uninformed comment about this paper and ArndB is just repeating it, because it suits his politics, it's certainly nothing to do with science. The Keenlyside et al. 2008 paper, does not affect the source of the warming, it is only about a redistribution of heat, which hardly surprisingly affects temperatures. To represent it as proof that climate change will stop or that is somehow disproves the overwhelming mass of science that CO2 is the source of most of the warming is both wrong and deliberately dishonest. The fact that Bob Carter is pushing these lies says a great deal about his relationship with Exxon and Exxon-funded think-tanks.
Bob Carter's expressed opinions about the climate are about money and nothing about science. If he was serious about the science, he wouldn't be writing or appearing in the media, he would be writing in appropriate peer-reviewed scientific journals, where climatologists could read his science, but he isn't. The question is why not? The answer is of course: that Exxon pays him (and many others), to lie about the science and climatologists are too smart and knowledgeable to be fooled, but members of the public aren't either of those, so Bob Carter lies to the public.
Now I don't know about ArndB's (ArndB = Dr Arnd Bernaerts don't ask me how I found him out!) claims about shipping, but I suspect that it's a minor and largely irrelevant issue. Why?
Several reasons: As far as the world of science is concerned, (I stick with the science), Dr Bernaerts does not cite any scientific references and websites are not science. He knows this but most members of the public don't!
A search for Arnd Bernaerts and 'Climate' on Google scholar produced nine hits, but I found none from any reputable ISI peer-reviewed journal. The relevant ones were all about ocean law & policy. Not climate science!
My very simplistic analysis:
I have a feeling that the enormous growth in world-wide shipping traffic, in recent decades, must be vastly greater than the short-lived WW2 shipping movements. Modern shipping includes container ships and tankers that are much larger and more numerous than typical WW2 ships and nuclear submarines that travel at high speed when submerged.
If as you maintain, shipping induced ocean mixing were significant as a cooling effect, this would imply that the current true magnitude of warming from all sources is much greater than reflected in increased temperatures. But that would have been noticed, since AFAICT, it hasn't, I strongly suspect your idea is seriously flawed. Is this why it hasn't been published in a relevant reputable ISI peer-reviewed journal?
I'm sorry if I've dismissed your life's work in a paragraph, but I want to see citations of peer-reviewed science, in a relevant respectable journal, or I'll consider it's just junk! No websites, please!
Another reason why I suspect your ocean mixing theory is flawed: you think Bob Carter is a reliable source on climate science. Enough said!
Well, Dr Arnd Bernaerts, no science cited, support for a known paid purveyor of Exxonspeak, your reputation is looking to be seriously tarnished! Please consider your position. A scientist is judged by the science he publishes and company he keeps!
(Atmos. Chem. Phys. 7, 2287-2312, 2007).
B The fate of fossil fuel CO2 in geologic time - David Archer
http://tinyurl.com/5le4sw
C Why CO2 is responsible and is a man made problem.
[Does not include the shifting isotopic signature of atmospheric carbon, which identifies the source of the extra carbon as being from fossil sources.]
http://tinyurl.com/34pj5e
D The Economic Argument
There is evidence that the economic argument is not based upon economically sound reasoning.
Unsurprisingly, the denial industry funded directly or indirectly by the fossil-fuel industry are aligned with those who deny anthropogenic climate change for political reasons. Their thinking being that the US economy relies upon copious supplies of inexpensive energy – therefore in their eyes, anyone who argues otherwise must be an anti-American 'watermelon' - green on the outside and red on the inside. This train of politico-economic thought has now been shown to be flawed and 25 of the world's top economists believe that the US economy will fare better if actions to reduce emissions are introduced, as compared with business as usual scenarios.
http://tinyurl.com/3ap7hh
http://tinyurl.com/5hppww
A joint statement issued by the Australian Academy of Sciences, Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts, Brazilian Academy of Sciences, Royal Society of Canada, Caribbean Academy of Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, French Academy of Sciences, German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina, Indian National Science Academy, Indonesian Academy of Sciences, Royal Irish Academy, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy), Academy of Sciences Malaysia, Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, and Royal Society (UK).
The work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) represents the consensus of the
international scientific community on climate change science. We recognise IPCC as the world’s most
reliable source of information on climate change and its causes, and we endorse its method of achieving this consensus. Despite increasing consensus on the science underpinning predictions of global climate change, doubts have been expressed recently about the need to mitigate the risks posed by global climate change.
We do not consider such doubts justified...,
http://royalsociety.org/displaypagedoc.asp?id=13619
The Royal Society has produced this overview of the current state of scientific understanding of climate change to help non-experts better understand some of the debates in this complex area of science. The Royal Society, the UK's national academy of science - responds here to eight key arguments that are currently in circulation by setting out, in simple terms, where the weight of scientific evidence lies.
http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/trackdoc.asp?id=4085&pId=6229
The national science academies of the G8 nations and Brazil, China and India, three of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases in the developing world, have signed a statement on the global response to climate change. The statement stresses that the scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action and calls on world leaders, including those meeting at the G8 summit at Gleneagles in July 2005, to do the following.
http://royalsociety.org/trackban.asp?id=1948&pId=1278&url=/document.asp?id=3222
http://royalsociety.org/displaypagedoc.asp?id=20742
World's Nobel Laureates And Preeminent Scientists Call On Government Leaders To Halt Global Warming
ScienceDaily (Oct. 2, 1997) — (Washington, DC - September 30) More than 1,500 of the world's most distinguished senior scientists, including the majority of Nobel laureates in science, have signed a landmark consensus declaration urging leaders worldwide to act immediately to prevent the potentially devastating consequences of human-induced global warming. The "World Scientists' Call for Action at Kyoto" was presented to the Clinton Administration today at a Science Summit on Climate Change in Washington, DC.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1997/10/971002070106.htm
The American Meteorological Society
http://www.ametsoc.org/amsnews/2007climatechangerelease.pdf
The American Institute of Physics http://www.aip.org/gov/policy12.html
The American Geophysical Union
http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/positions/climate_change2008.shtml
The American Association for the Advancement of Science
http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2007/0218am_statement.shtml
Needless to say that all the world's scientists and the world's greatest scientific institutions are involved in some global anti-American conspiracy, including great US scientists and great US scientific institutions. How peculiar that no proof of such a conspiracy has ever been provided!
Could it all have been made-up? Mmm! I wonder!
Also guilty of climostution:
Like Fred Singer, Patrick Michaels, Fred Seitz [now dead], Tim Ball, David Legates, Ross McKitrick, Steve McIntyre, Sallie Baliunas, Willie Soon, Arthur Robinson, & etc.
They all do it for the money.
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf
http://www.desmogblog.com/node/1272
__What caused the sudden arctic warming in winter 1918/19 lasting winter 1939?
__What caused the extreme war winter 1939/40 ?
__What caused the global cooling from 1940 - ca.1970?
__ Why does the UNFCCC not define CLIMATE??
You know the answers?
Maybe J.D. Woods did: Nevertheless, the upper ocean holds the key to climate prediction?.
REF: ?The upper ocean and sea-air interaction in global climate?, in: John T. Houghton (ed), 1984, The Global Climate, Cambridge, p.141, 142.
The 1940-1979 cooling .., few months increased release from aerosols.
I'm sorry, ArndB, but aerosols are well known to cause cooling!
A few months? I haven't access to the original science, but from the graph, it doesn't look like months. Several decades yes, but months, certainly not! Your pet theory is in tatters!
The same cooling would probably explain your questions two and three.
You are the one who must answer the questions. I will stick with the peer-reviewed mainstream.
The important question is: Why do you support a known paid deceiver about climate change? Bob Carter is not an expert in this field, and he doesn't publish in the scientific literature about CO2, instead he lies to the media and writes lies for the papers.
Bob Carter is as bad as other paid deceivers such as Patrick Michaels, Fred Seitz, Fred Singer, Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon.
Climate Change 2001: Working Group I: The Scientific Basis
Figure 2: Long records of past changes in atmospheric composition provide the context for the influence of anthropogenic emissions.
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/006.htm
b) illustrates the influence of industrial emissions on atmospheric sulphate concentrations, which produce negative radiative forcing. Shown is the time history of the concentrations of sulphate, not in the atmosphere but in ice cores in Greenland (shown by lines; from which the episodic effects of volcanic eruptions have been removed). Such data indicate the local deposition of sulphate aerosols at the site, reflecting sulphur dioxide (SO2) emissions at mid-latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere. This record, albeit more regional than that of the globally-mixed greenhouse gases, demonstrates the large growth in anthropogenic SO2 emissions during the Industrial Era. The pluses denote the relevant regional estimated SO2 emissions (right-hand scale).
[Based upon (a) Chapter 3, Figure 3.2b (CO2); Chapter 4, Figure 4.1a and b (CH4) and Chapter 4, Figure 4.2 (N2O) and (b) Chapter 5, Figure 5.4a]
For your info, Negative Radiative forcing = cooling!
The above was derived from:
Climate Change 2001: Working Group I: The Scientific Basis
5.2.5 Trends in Aerosols
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/180.htm#fig54
Figure 5.4: (a) Sulphate concentrations in several Greenland ice cores and an Alpine ice core (Fischer et al., 1998; D?scher et al., 1995). Also shown are the total SO2 emissions from sources from the US and Europe (Gschwandtner et al., 1986; Mylona, 1996). The inset shows how peaks due to major volcanic eruptions have been removed by a robust running median method followed by singular spectrum analysis.
Your desperation to prove your pet theory about shipping moments mixing the oceans is very sad.
Why you also support the untrustworthy Bob Carter in his attempts to persuade the public that excess CO2 in the atmosphere is not a problem [Exxon like his lies - after all they pay for them]. Bob Carter's deliberate cherrypicking about temperatures, when if you look at ANY reliable data set, it is absolutely crystal clear that Bob Carter is lying by omission - he just leaves-out the data that are inconvenient to his lies.
As has been said before, IF Bob Carter has anything of substance to say about CO2 or climate change, why does he NOT submit his views to the peer-review process and publication in a weighty scientific journal. The reason is of course, is that he knows that his views would cause the reviewers severe physical injury caused by prolonged laughter and falling off their chairs at his laughable science.
Which of course reminds me: I note that your pet theory about shipping is not published in the peer-reviewed literature. If it is scientifically robust, why have you not submitted it for peer-review and publication in a weighty scientific journal? Or perhaps you have and it was rejected? I can't wait to learn!
So why do you trust Bob Carter over the combined peer-reviewed science of the world's best climate scientists?
Perhaps you get paid to support him? But the mountain of peer-reviewed evidence is NOT on your side! Nor does it support Bob Carter's risible views on climate change.
For example:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/
From this or any other dataset that is based upon observations, so NASA / GISS would do. It can easily be seen that the trend is upwards. No the line isn't straight and there are well known reasons for that, and thus far you are the only one who has suggested shipping. I'm sure that shipping will have an effect, but as is well known ships are designed for fuel-efficiency.
The energy involved in normal ocean mixing from waves and storms is vastly greater than that from shipping and likely to render the effects of shipping completely trivial at most. As a complete wet finger in the air, my first estimate is that shipping would be rather less than 1% of ocean mixing from natural effects. Which, if correct would render your theory sunk without trace!
__Concerning realizing the impact of human activities at sea it might helpful to read: Bernaerts? book: ?Climate Change & War at Sea, - A Scientific Assessment ??, 2006, published by TRAFFORF, PoD/Canada, Pages 326.
__Concerning cooling by aerosols: It might be useful to make a clear distinction between summer and winter temperatures data, and recognize that the Arctic and Spitsbergen have winter seasons when sun ray is nil, and in Northern Europe low.
__Concerning the failure of the ?Framework Convention on Climate Change? , 1992 (FCCC), to offer a sufficient definition of ?CLIMATE?, and the science community not to recognize this ever since, it might be worthwhile to listening what an eminent scientist, the late Kenneth Hare, had said in 1979: ?This is obviously the decade in which climate is coming into its own. You hardly heard the word professionally in the 1940s. It was a layman's word. Climatologists were the halt and the lame. And as for the climatologists in public service, in the British service you actually, had to be medically disabled in order to get into the climatological division ! Climatology was a menial occupation that came on the pecking scale somewhat below the advertising profession. It was clearly not the age of climate?. (Bulletin American Meteorological Society , Vol. 60, 1979, p. 1171 ? 1124). Further information at: http://www.whatisclimate.com/
__Concerning CO2, IPCC, and skeptics it might be reasonable to reproduce an excerpt form a text at: http://www.1ocean-1climate.com/ , as follows:
QUOTE__ Under the editorial guidance of the eminent climatologist S. Fred Singer, a group of about 30 scientists published a paper: ?Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate? (by THE HEARTLAND INSTITUTE, 2008). By all respect for the work, the paper title is grossly misleading, if not erroneous. They actually review the extreme narrow question of carbon dioxide (CO2), but do not hesitate to make the pompous announcement that ?Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate?.
Presumably science would serve the general public better when they would listen to Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519) who said: ?Water is the driver of nature?. Not nature rules climate, but water rules the nature on this earth, and the water on earth is so much synonym with the oceans and seas that it can be said: ?Climate is the continuation of the oceans by other means? __UNQUOTE
For more details see a paper from 1994: ?Legal Means for Understanding the Marine and Climatic Change Issue?, presented at the 28th Annual Conf. of the Law of the Sea Institute, Honolulu, 1994, in Honolulu/Hawaii, pages 24. Full text at: http://www.whatisclimate.com/
Thank you for your answer [14].
Why should I believe you, when you direct me to read one of your own books? I want independent, reliable, objective peer-reviewed science.
Just because you have a low opinion of climatologists and claim to back this up with a reference from years ago, does not prove that climatology is a worthless discipline! Other wrong views are: disputing Darwinian evolution without evidence; that the Nazi driven genocidal holocaust never happened; Communism is universally good; that NASA faked the lunar landings; that George Dubya Bush is a good US President; that the Earth is flat and that the moon is made of cheese.
Once again, you support your views with a reference a one of your websites.
You clearly have problems understanding what constitutes science!
Please explain when the Heartland Institute was ever a source of science! Your reliance upon this source of political ideology, that has received Exxon money and other fossil-fuel industry companies, is most revealing about your politics!
Fred Singer is a known paid liar. He has accepted money to lie about the health effects of tobacco, the science of climate change and asbestos.
'Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate - Summary for Policymakers of the Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change. Edited by S. Fred Singer' (2008) ? which will be called NNHARC
?We regret that many advocates in the debate have chosen to give up debating science and now focus almost exclusively on questioning the motives of 'skeptics,' name calling and ad hominem attacks. We view this as a sign of desperation on their part, and a sign that the debate has shifted towards climate realism.?
This is cherry-picked data, lies, bogus facts, deception, flawed logic, pseudo-scientific garbage and propaganda. If it were robust science, it would have been submitted for peer-review in a respected ISI journal. The fact that it hasn't been means that it's suspect!
The fact that it was published by the Hudson Institute means it's politically biased.
The fact that it was promoted by the Heartland Institute means it's politically biased.
The fact that it was edited by Fred Singer means it's almost certainly a tissue of lies.
The list of contributors is a rogues gallery of deception and denial.
Examples:
'The 2001 IPCC report claimed the twentieth century showed ?unusual warming? based on the now-discredited hockey-stick graph.'
Isn't it strange that the authors chose to omit the fact that the paleoclimate reconstructions or 'hockey-stick', is actually made-up of 10 discrete reconstructions. These reconstructions were used by the IPCC in the most recent report.
Figure 6.10.
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Pub_Ch06.pdf
It is also that they chose to overlook this study, that found that '.., recent corrections" to the Mann et al. reconstruction that suggest 15th century temperatures could have been as high as those of the late-20th century are shown to be without statistical and climatological merit.':
Robustness of the Mann, Bradley, Hughes Reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere Surface Temperatures: Examination of Criticisms Based on the Nature and Processing of Proxy Climate Evidence - Wahl and Ammann 2006
Abstract.
The Mann et al. (1998) Northern Hemisphere annual temperature reconstruction over 1400-1980 is examined in light of recent criticisms concerning the nature and processing of included climate proxy data. ..., Also, recent corrections" to the Mann et al. reconstruction that suggest 15th century temperatures could have been as high as those of the late-20th century are shown to be without statistical and climatological merit. Our examination does suggest that a slight modification to the original Mann et al. reconstruction is justifiable for the first half of the 15th century (~ +0.05?), which leaves entirely unaltered the primary conclusion of Mann et al. (as well as many other reconstructions) that both the 20th century upward trend and high late-20th century hemispheric surface temperatures are anomalous over at least the last 600 years. ..,
It is noted that the NNHARC authors themselves have been guilty of name calling and ad hominem attacks, and using flawed arguments and cherry-picked data. While levelling the truth at them may be unpleasant and sound like an ad hominen, it isn't because it's true! So let's look at what some of them have been up to!
Evidence that S. Fred Singer is a LIAR.
Statement from SEPP: 'Dr. Singer and SEPP (Science & Environmental Policy Project) have no connection whatsoever with the tobacco industry, now or in the past. As a matter of policy, SEPP does not solicit funds or other kinds of support from any industry or from government, but relies on tax-deductible donations from foundations and individuals in many countries. Further, Dr. Singer serves on the Advisory Board of the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH), an organization that has a strong anti-smoking position.'
http://www.desmogblog.com/no-apology-is-owed-dr-s-fred-singer-and-none-will-be-forthcoming
http://tobaccodocuments.org/nysa_ti_s3/TI10841120.html
http://tobaccodocuments.org/nysa_ti_m2/TI40481951.html
http://tobaccodocuments.org/nysa_ti_m2/TI10882879.html
S. Fred Singer - PhD in Physics, Princeton. Former Director, US National Weather Satellite Center. Former Professor of Environmental Sciences, Univeristy of Virginia (1971-94). Former Deputy Administrator EPA (1970-71). See: http://www.sepp.org/about%20sepp/bios/singer/cvsfs.html Science and Environmental Policy Project, American Council on Science and Health, The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition, Cato Institute, ECO or Environmental Conservation Organization, National Policy Forum, Frontiers of Freedom Institute and Foundation, Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace, Stanford University, National Center for Policy Analysis, Weidenbaum Center on the Economy, Government, and Public Policy, Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies, Independent Institute, Heritage Foundation, Centre for the New Europe, Heartland Institute
#
Warren Anderson ? Couldn't find anything that was definitely about him.
#
Dennis Avery - studied agricultural economics, American Council on Science and Health, Hudson Institute, CFACT - Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow.
Dennis Avery is a promoter of LIES. He lists as 'co-authors', 500 scientists who were never consulted! Surely a co-author has to have existed, be alive at the time the co-authoring occurred and be involved in a direct manner. Dennis Avery clearly doesn't agree!
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=21978
http://www.heartland.org/pdf/21978.pdf
http://www.desmogblog.com/heartland-still-misrepresenting-500-scientists-as-co-authors-of-denial-paper
http://www.desmogblog.com/500-scientists-with-documented-doubts-about-the-heartland-institute
These scientists won't argue with Avery about being 'co-authors' ? because they are dead, and one at least who doesn't appear to exist! If they have been dead for some time [e.g.: 2005] it is hard to understand how could they possibly be co-authors of a recent publication published on September 14, 2007?
Examples: Charles David Keeling (April 20, 1928 - June 20, 2005).
Bond, G., Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory died June 29, 2005.
http://www.desmogblog.com/a-few-scientists-who-wont-deny-being-deniers
#
Franco Battaglia - Environmental Chemistry http://www.exxonsecrets.org/wiki/index.php/Sen._Inhofe's_400_Scientists
#
Robert Carter ? Background in marine geology. Has Exxon links - Tech Central Science Foundation or Tech Central Station, Heartland Institute, New Zealand Climate Science Coalition, International Climate Science Coalition. Expresses bogus scientific claims about the causes of warming.
#
Richard Courtney ? There is some doubt whether he possesses a degree. CEI. http://research.greenpeaceusa.org/?a=view&d=2445
#
Joseph d?Aleo - Retired meteorologist. Contributing Author, Fraser Institute
#
Fred Goldberg - Royal Institute of Technology, Mechanical Engineering
#
Vincent Gray - Tech Central Science Foundation or Tech Central Station, Heartland Institute, CFACT - Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, Heartland Institute, International Climate Science Coalition New Zealand-based coal chemist, climate author, self-selected Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) expert reviewer and founder of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition.
#
Kenneth Haapala - did not match any documents
#
Klaus Heiss ? Economist?
#
Craig Idso - B.S. in Geography, M.S. in Agronomy, Ph.D. in Geography. has Exxon links Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, CFACT - Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, George C. Marshall Institute, Western Fuels [coal], Peabody Energy [coal]
#
Zbigniew Jaworowski ? Not a climate scientist - Professor at the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Warsaw, Poland , has Exxon links. http://www.someareboojums.org/blog/?p=7
Zbigniew Jaworowski's an Unreliable Witness
Zbigniew Jaworowski makes sweeping accusations of data manipulation by climate researchers. Those accusations are unsupported by any evidence, direct or indirect.
Jaworowski claims to have made a statement written for the Hearing before the US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation March 19, 2004. In fact, there is no evidence that Jaworowski gave testimony before the US Senate on March 19, 2004, or at any time in the previous two years, or that anyone in the US Senate has ever seen him or the statement.
#
Olavi Karner ? Fraser Institute
#
Madhav Khandekar - Meteorologist (ret.), Environment Canada - Cooler Heads Coalition, Fraser Institute, International Climate Science Coalition
http://www.desmogblog.com/node/1358
#
William Kininmonth - His only listed qualification is "Director of the Australasian Climate Research Institute", which is listed on the Australian Business Register as a trading name of William Kininmonth, it is based at his private residence in Kew, Australia. It has no website, phone number or existence separate from Kininmonth. Frontiers of Freedom, Fraser Institute, Heartland Institute, International Climate Science Coalition
http://ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20070330_kininmonth.pdf
#
Hans Labohm ? Studied Economics and Economic History
#
Christopher Monckton ? Journalist without scientific qualifications! Heartland Institute
#
Lubos Motl - Czech theoretical physicist, Not a climate scientist,
#
Tom Segalstad Norwegian geologist and head of the Geological Museum at the University of Oslo . European Science and Environment Forum, a biotech, tobacco, and chemical industry front-group.
#
Dick Thoenes - chemical engineer http://www.exxonsecrets.org/wiki/index.php/Sen._Inhofe's_400_Scientists
#
Anton Uriarte - professor of Physical Geography http://www.exxonsecrets.org/wiki/index.php/Sen._Inhofe's_400_Scientists
#
Gerd Weber - CFACT - Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow
#
So the document you have cited wasn't peer-reviewed, but it was authored by a hotch-potch of individuals, some are not even scientists and most, if not all have no qualifications relevant to climate science. The majority of them are connected to the denial industry. Therefore, this document is not science, it is politically motivated pseudo-science!
As David Archer (24 May 2008), put it -
'The target audience of denialism is the lay audience, not scientists. It's made up to look like science, but it's PR.'
This was echoed by Michael Tobis
'David, thanks for calling the thing by its right name. It?s time the press stepped up to the plate and acknowledged that much of the public controversy is traceable to deliberate nonscientific efforts to mislead.'
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/freeman-dysons-selective-vision/
Visit the link above for a refutation of Bob Carter's FLAWED pseudoscience.
Professor Barry Brook holds the Foundation Sir Hubert Wilkins Chair of Climate Change and is Director of the Research Institute for Climate Change and Sustainability at the University of Adelaide.
He is a climate scientist, unlike the mendacious Bob Carter. No wonder that Bob Carter isn't taken seriously by climate scientists, except as a source of opinion undiluted by fact!
"Prof Bob Carter, one of the most active contrarians in the Australian and New Zealand media scene, has a new Op-Ed published in The Courier Mail. Bob also regularly writes letters to the editor of The Age, The Australian, saying much the same thing as in this Op-Ed - over and over again. He is certainly persistent. Bob is also a member of the Australian Climate Science Coalition, so now we are up to four from that group in the ‘Spot the recycled denial’ series, as he joins Prof Ian Plimer, Dr David Evans and Mr John McLean."
There was Senator Inhofe (R-Oklahoma) who stood up on the senate floor with a list of over 400 "prominent scientists" who were skeptical of the theory of man made global warming, or anthropogenic global warming(AGW).
The list was padded and phoney with TV weathermen, non scientists, petroleum engineers etc.
There was the Wall St. Journal article with headlines "Science Has Spoken, Global Warming is a Myth"
This was based on an unpublished non-peer reviewed manuscript by two scientists. Instead of presenting it to real scientists for peer review, they went through the main stream media, the WSJ, to influence the public, rather than convincing scientists first, that their work was valid. And the WSJ was more than happy to print any story discrediting the AGW theory. Here's one climate scientist's take on the article.
"The conclusions reached by Robinson et al., upon which The Wall Street Journal news item was based, in my opinion and that of my class, cannot stand the scrutiny of objective peer-review. Our judgement notwithstanding, The Wall Street Journal presented an unpublished manuscript as actual science to a gullible business world. Giving support and credence to an unpublished manuscript certainly reflects poorly on The Wall Street Journal and its standards of reporting and objectivity. We know The Wall Street Journal?s science reporting cannot be trusted if they don't know the difference between opinion and science, or worse, if they do know the difference, then they're just dishonest." http://www.reall.org/newsletter/v06/n08/...
Perhaps this anectodal story will illustrate the point.
from http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/11/8/1227/22627 posted by Andrew Dessler
"A journalist friend recently sent me this:"
"I just got my "Journalist's Guide to Global Warming Experts" from The Heartland Institute in the mail. They list four "experts" in Texas. It's an awesome list. ...
Robert Bradley, energy expert.
H.Sterling Burnett, policy analyst
Dr. John Dale Dunn, emergency physician
Michael Economides, petroleum engineer
As you probably know, the Heartland Institute is one of the world's premier climate denialist organizations, so you can be pretty sure these guys reject the mainstream scientific view.
Notice anything odd about the list? Despite the fact that there are dozens if not hundreds of reputable climate scientists working in Texas, the Heartland Institute is unable to get a single one of them onto their list."
The Oregon Petition signed by 19,000 scientists turned out to be a hoax, perpetrated by one of the scientists who authored the WSJ article's manuscript. He believes that we are in for a wonderful garden of eden created by our emissions of carbon dioxide.
he and is cohorts went as far as using phoney National Academy of Sciences stationary to make it look like a paper endorsed by the NAS.
The real climate scientists say there are only a handful of credible skeptic climate scientists.
And those "scientific conferences" with hundreds of skeptics? These aren't real scientific conferences, they are propaganda events. They are hosted by right wing propaganda mills like the Heartland Institute and the American Enterprise Institute, who offered $1,000 per speech and $10,000 per manuscript to skeptical scientists. The Heartland Insitute is largley funded by Exxon/Mobile. These are both right wing propaganda mills, and are definitely not scientific organizations.
Another climate scientist comments:
"Keep in mind that with the tens of thousands of climate change skeptics on the planet if only 1% of them are corrupted by the $10,000 payment (or bribe) currently being offered by Exxon through AEI then you will have at minimum 200 skeptics/deniers. So far 200 skeptics/deniers have not turned up."
http://environment.newscientist.com/