Friday, December 12, 2008

I'll bet you didn't know.

Did you know about this?

(I bet you didn't. Unless you're a smarty pants and read Beth's blog:)

U. S. Senate Minority Report:
More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over
Man-Made Global Warming Claims
Scientists Continue to Debunk “Consensus” in 2008

U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee
Minority Staff Report (Inhofe)
Released: December 11, 2008

Don't worry!
I only included the
first two paragraphs with choice tidbits highlighted by myself
Over 650 dissenting scientists from around the globe challenged man-made global warming claims made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Vice President Al Gore. This new 231-page U.S. Senate Minority Report report -- updated from 2007’s groundbreaking report of over 400 scientists who
voiced skepticism about the so-called global warming “consensus” -- features the skeptical voices of over 650 prominent international scientists, including many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN IPCC. This updated report includes an additional 250 (and growing)scientists and climate researchers since the initial release in December 2007. The over 650 dissenting scientists are more than 12 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.
The chorus of skeptical scientific voices grow louder in 2008 as
a steady stream of peer-reviewed studies, analyses, real world data and inconvenient developments challenged the UN and former Vice President Al Gore's claims that the "science is settled" and there is a "consensus." On a range of issues, 2008 proved to be challenging for the promoters of man-made climate fears. Promoters of anthropogenic warming fears endured the following: Global temperatures failing to warm; Peer-reviewed studies predicting a continued lack of warming; a failed attempt to revive the discredited “Hockey Stick”; inconvenient developments and studies regarding CO2; the Sun; Clouds; Antarctica; the Arctic; Greenland; Mount Kilimanjaro; Hurricanes; Extreme Storms; Floods; Ocean Acidification; Polar Bears; lack of atmospheric dust; the failure of oceans to warm and rise as predicted.

So, should we be making laws that hugely impact our lives and economy and future based on the "science" of man-made global warming?

Seems to me like we should look before we leap.


Mike said...

Sue, I wouldn't put a ton of stock in Inhofe's report. The oil and energy industry has put a ton of money into the denying of global warming. Check out this url, which is a pretty damning analysis of Inhofe's report:

Even, however, if you buy that man has nothing to do with global warming, it has to be a good idea to focus on renewable energy sources instead of oil, no? The free market economy is a powerful force, but it's one that's focused on it's next quarterly results and not the long-term security of the United States. It's only the government (yes, our evil overlords) that are are capable of nudging corporations into directions that match our future needs. Corporate interests often do not coincide with our interests.

Sue said...

Hubby asked this morning, "Is anyone yelling yet?" after reading this post.

I have dipped my toes in to this matter and all I have been able to conclude is the science is NOT conclusive that global warming is solely or mostly human caused. I can refer you to many sites:

That said, I agree it would be a good idea to transition to non-petroleum based energy sources, if only to keep us out the quagmire of the Middle East. I actually think the market would be taking us there more quickly if the oil and auto industries weren't (aren't!) propped up by the govt.

I've been waiting for my electric minivan for 12 years! Where is it?

Have you seen "Who Killed the Electric Car?" It's quite interesting.

Mike said...

I've heard good things about that movie, but have not seen it. And you'll get no disagreement from me on whether or not the government has been complicit in supporting an oil-based economy. However, that doesn't prohibit the gov't from making positive steps in this arena.

And I checked out your 4 links. Note that I'm not a trained climate scientist, nor am I particularly well-versed on these issues, but I wasn't convinced to go buy a V-8 car.

The first one was written by a guy who seemed to have good credentials, but the main article was filled with bad science. Lots of unattributed statements and bad stats like "an increasing number of scientists". Really? increasing? From what to what?

The second link was impenetrable. I'm not smart enough or well-versed enough in climate science to know what he was saying.

The third article was pretty good. I totally buy that the initial report of the IPCC had a statistical error somewhere in it and that they need to hire some statisticians. That's not the same thing as saying that their conclusions are wrong though. The article makes no such claim, so I'm left saying, "so what?"

The last article wasn't bad, but seemed to be all about saying that maybe there's measurement error when measuring temperature, although it starts off by admitting that everyone acknowledges the temperature graphs. Then, it sort of cheats when saying what the temperature change was by putting the 0-line in the middle of the graph, which makes the temperature change look like half of what it was.

Beth said...


Do you see the primary issue as scientific, political or economic?

Mike said...

Hi Beth. If "the issue" you're referring to is global warming, then I'll state that it's supposed to be a scientific issue, but I'm not naive enough to think that any issue like this won't get colored by politics or economics. I'd guess that the majority of the money behind these "warring" reports is coming from the industries and parties that are entrenched in the status quo technologies. I suspect that Big Wind and Big Solar don't have as much money as the existing technologies. :)

Beth said...

HI Mike,

I guess that sort of answers my question. What I really am wondering is, does answering the questions of the science actually contribute anything to the debate of what to do politically?
The science should certainly inform our private decisions, but is it appropriate for it to direct our political decisions? My concern is that there is no way for such matters to be placed into the political realm without deleterious effects on the quality of the science produced (because of influence and pressure from special interests of all types.)

Beth said...

Here is Walter Williams take on teh Inhofe report.
I like how he quotes a few of the GW contrarians, giving their qualifications to speak on the matter. Sorry I don't have more time to spend on this issue right now. It is rather important.
Happy New Year!!