U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007

[Onlooker]

This is a report from Inhofe, of course, but it was apparently released today, and it's worth noting how those who oppose cleaning up our air are still fighting to protect the dirty corporations.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport

Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.

The new report issued by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee's office of the GOP Ranking Member details the views of the scientists, the overwhelming majority of whom spoke out in 2007.

Even some in the establishment media now appear to be taking notice of the growing number of skeptical scientists. In October, the Washington Post Staff Writer Juliet Eilperin conceded the obvious, writing that climate skeptics "appear to be expanding rather than shrinking." Many scientists from around the world have dubbed 2007 as the year man-made global warming fears "bite the dust." (LINK) In addition, many scientists who are also progressive environmentalists believe climate fear promotion has "co-opted" the green movement. (LINK)

This blockbuster Senate report lists the scientists by name, country of residence, and academic/institutional affiliation. It also features their own words, biographies, and weblinks to their peer reviewed studies and original source materials as gathered from public statements, various news outlets, and websites in 2007. This new "consensus busters" report is poised to redefine the debate.

[BrklynLiberal]

1. How many prominent scientists support the concept of man-made global warming???

[frogcycle]

4. you beat me to it

I spent too much time on my message!

[BrklynLiberal]

16. Great minds....and all that

:hi:

[frogcycle]

2. anyone got an estimate how many "prominent scientists"

generally support the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming? How many "prominent scientists" are employed by a typical major universty like Ga. Tech, Cal Tech, MIT, etc?

How many work for NASA?

400 might sound overwhelming until you consider how many "prominent scientists" are also creationists (I don't know the number, but it is stunningly far from zero).

This is Inhofe doing his thing - about as meaningful as whatever claim Pat Robertson makes about what god told him this morning.

[Vinca]

3. I'd take a close look at the association between the 400 scientists and big oil. nt

[ShaneGR]

5. I've been reading an interesting book on climate change....

It's a pretty even analysis, I'm at the end. There's plenty of evidence to support man made global warming, and plenty of evidence to disprove it. The question really is, should it be ignored simply because it can't be proven without doubt?

[razors edge]

8. I do that with religion every day, n/t

[Brother_1969]

9. You're right, it doesn't matter if it is true or not

If we take the actions that are necessary to reduce global warming (conservation, reducing dependence on oil, etc.), those actions will result in less destruction of the planet and that is a good thing -- whether or not global warming is "real".

[Genanderson]

14. Then again...

Should we encourage and accomplish the radical change so many would like to see happen WITHOUT proving it? If doing nothing is no good, and doing everything is not a good idea either, then exactly how much should we be doing? The uncertainty of what and how much to do reflects the uncertainty of climatology in general IMO, and sometimes actions have unintended consequences that come with them. Take the sky-rocketing prices of wheat and corn for example due to the diverting of crops to biofuels. Then again, not doing anything might indeed have consequences as well. So really, it's a cloudy matter that really has to be cleared up difinitively by scientists, and I just hope they aren't too busy arguing amongst themselves about how many "prominent scientists" each side has to actually do something productive in advancing the science of climatology.

Here's hoping...

[riverdeep]

24. Ha, ha. Yeah, by the time we have definitve proof, Canada will be like Jamaica.

Remember, they still haven't 'definitively' proved that cigarettes cause cancer. All leading indications say global warming is man-made, and contrary to what schmucks like Inhofe say, we are taking the threat much LESS seriously than we need to be. You take fewer risks with something that is precious and/or rare, than you do with something cheap/common. There is only one planet known to have life. How far should we go?

The biofuels thing is a sham. We need to be smart about finding alternatives and not get caught up in industry nonsense like biofuels and 'smart' coal.

Here's a non-bullshit website that doesn't feed industry propaganda.

http://www.realclimate.org/

[TrogL]

35. We'll still have a better bobsled team

errr...wait.

Where are they going to train?

[riverdeep]

25. Do you recall the name of the book? n/t

[defendandprotect]

27. Scientists are at 95% --- repeat 95% --- agreement that it is man-made . . .

Nobel scientists, I believe ---

[Lydia Leftcoast]

6. Also, what kind of scientists were they? Climatologists or petroleum geologists?

"Science" is so vast that someone who is an expert in one field may have no more than a college students' general education knowledge of other fields.

[Zodiak]

7. A paltry number compared to the opposite side

"Set forth by the Union of Concerned Scientists at the 1997 Kyoto Climate Summit, the Call for Action was signed by more than 1,500 scientists from 63 countries, including 110 Nobel laureates and 60 US National Medal of Science winners.

Five years ago, in the World Scientists' Warning to Humanity, 1,600 of the world's senior scientists sounded an unprecedented warning:"


That was ten years ago, and it was four times the number Inohofe is trying to pull out of his ass.

Here is something more recent, 2006, and the number is 10,000.

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/nov2006/2006-11-29-09.asp

"Global Warming Urgent Say Unions for 10,000 EPA Workers

WASHINGTON, DC, November 29, 2006 (ENS) - Union representatives for more than 10,000 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, scientists are calling on Congress to take immediate action against global warming, according to a petition released today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, PEER.

The petition calls for an end to censorship of agency scientists and other specialists on topics of climate change and the effects of air pollution.

These unions represent more than 10,000 EPA scientists, engineers and other technical specialists."

I know that THIS scientist has seen enough compelling evidence. Inohofe is just putting together a piece of bullshit propaganda and the news article gives the reader NO context as to what 400 scientists means. They had to comb the world for this many, and the EPA article is just for the U.S.

[HuffleClaw]

10. 'Prominent Scientists' ?

isn't inhofe the guy who held a 'global warming meeting' and purposely only invited skeptics?

[ORDagnabbit]

11. do the research on those 400 at these links..

you'll find they are hacks for exxon for the most part...

grab the names that are signed there and research them heres an example... on fred "cigarettes are not bad for you" singer

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=1

or

http://www.desmogblog.com/s-fred-singer


just takes a little wanting to actually know who's lying to you and why.

[BrklynLiberal]

17. Sure hope the truth gets the publicity that this lying report got.

[defendandprotect]

28. Thanks for the list --- yes . . . ExxonMobil is still in there lying and distorting info ---

In fact, a few months ago, the Royal Academy of Scientists called ExxonMobil out for their decades --- and huge tens of millions spent --- propagandizing the public re GW.

Making clear that ExxonMobil has lied and distorted info in their long campaign to try to deny GW.

[Jackpine Radical]

12. *sigh*

There must be a lot of money flowing into this last ditch propaganda offensive.

Ya gotta wonder if any of them are sincerely deluded, or if they're all just willing to sell their children's future for a few shekels now.

[Onlooker]

13. Any idea who will respond to this report?

Obviously this report is highly manipulative. Which organization, committee, or other group is likely to formally debunk this? Any idea?

[ProSense]

15. Never trust Republicans

Scientists offered cash to dispute climate study

[mmonk]

18. Nicotine is not addictive.

Remember that one?

[PVnRT]

19. Stupid argument

Thousands have signed statements in support of the conclusions of existing research into the topic, and it's all but a certainty, as far as the research goes. Horseshit like this keeps reinforcing in the public mind that there is some kind of "scientific controversy" about global warming.

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11654">Here's one response to this kind of argument.

[Cerridwen]

20. Cherry picked and spun.

I checked this out a couple of months ago (this or a similar report). Most of the "findings" quoted are taken out of context or are twisted from their original meanings.

If you'll start clicking links in the reports and the links within the linked articles, you'll start seeing the pattern. I don't have time this morning to do more than a cursory glance at a few of the links but I recognize the pattern I saw a couple of months ago. Some of the scientists named would, I think, be furious for having their words twisted in this manner for this reason.

edit: one too many words :D

[Mass]

21. 400 throughout the world, so, about 2 or 3 by country.

Not that impressive, particularly when there is no way to ask them if the agree with Inhoffe or if they simply are more cautious than others...

[Vickers]

22. How are they disputing it?

:shrug:

[garywickert]

23. CO2 is not a pollutant.

Even those of us who believe there is global warming occurring, and even the smaller number of people who believe it is caused by man, understand that CO2 is NOT a pollutant. It is a naturally occurring byproduct of a natural chemical reaction and is created by everything from Chevy Suburbans to decaying forests to volcanoes to termites. We must be careful not to oversell our hand, as that damages the credibility of those trying to do good. The nonsense you write about needing to "clean up" CO2 from our skies is silly an uninformed. The names of the people on this Senate report are actually in existence. They actually are breathing. They actually are scientists. And they actually have disputed most of the components of Anthropogenic Global Warming. Therefore, we need to deal with it. We can't blindly run out there and say that there is a "global warming consensus". There isn't. There never has been.

[Uncle Joe]

26. Water is natural and a necessity but too much of it and you will drown.

It would seem logical to me, that the same dynamic holds true for plant life, too much carbon and they can't breathe.

The Industrial Revolution has only been around for about two hundred years, to believe that all this industry and hundreds of millions cars spewing CO2 in to the atmosphere every day on top of what nature puts out, is not having an adverse affect on climate is ludicrous. I would even go so far as to say it's insane to gamble otherwise.

[Zodiak]

29. There are over 10,000 scientists on the other side just in the U.S.

and CO2, whether or not you classifiy it as a "pollutant" (which is just word parsing) still causes solar radiation to be kept in the atmosphere, elliciting a warming effect. And that means it must be taken out of the atmosphere if we are to turn back the clock on global warming.

But continue parsing words if you like.

[riverdeep]

30. Is phosphorus naturally occurring?

Yes, it is. And when it is excessive it has the power to destroy streams, lakes and rivers by allowing uncontrolled algae growth (usually from fertilizers). How about lead? Also naturally occurring, so let those kids lick away at Chinese toys!

This terminology is no small matter. In 2003, the Bush administration succeeded in making the term a non-pollutant, thereby easing it's burden of enforcing the Clean Air and Water Act. In 2007, this ruling was shot down by the Supreme Court. One of the good things to happen this year.

[ProSense]

32. Thanks

Uncle Joe, Zodiak Ironfist and riverdeep for three wonderful smack downs!

[defendandprotect]

33. That's like ExxonMobil's arguement that petroleum appears regularly bubbling up on floors

of oceans .... !!!

A little different than spread over wildlife and thick gloppy rivers of it ...

QUOTE:
Exxon Valdez was the original name (later Sea River Mediterranean and eventually Mediterranean) of an oil tanker owned by the former Exxon Corporation. It gained widespread infamy after the March 29, 1989 oil spill in which the tanker, captained by Joseph Hazelwood, hit Prince William Sound's Bligh Reef and spilled an estimated 11 million gallons of crude oil. This has been recorded as one of the largest spills in U.S. history and one of the largest ecological disasters.UNQUOTE

And, of course, there is a GW "consensus" and has been for decades ---

Those few suicidally greedy and ignorant among us --- ExxonMobil remains the last of the oil industry to stay in there with their propaganda though recently called out by the Royal Academy of Scientists for buying scientists and distorting information and lying about Global Warming --- are suicidal and in delaying this information have endangers all of our lives and the planet, itself.

[NickB79]

31. In the next few years, when the entire Arctic ice cap collapses

I wonder how many of these same scientists will still be questioning the data.....

[defendandprotect]

34. They will be in hell somewhere with the doctors who recommended tobacco ---

[ProSense]

36. Inhofe and the wingnuts were hoping to score big with this:

Via Think Progress (Sen. Inhofe’s misleading climate denial “report.”)

Debunked: here and here.

About Marc Morano