SpidermanTUba
01-06-2009, 06:15 PM
(NOTE: I am not attempting to debate the validity of Anthropogenic Global Warming in this thread - rather, I am wanting to debate only the claim there is no consensus.)
This thread is to address the Senate Minority Report titled U. S. Senate Minority Report:
More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over
Man-Made Global Warming Claims
Scientists Continue to Debunk "Consensus" in 2008. http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=83947f5d-d84a-4a84-ad5d-6e2d71db52d9
This report has been used by many to show there is widespread skepticism regarding anthropogenic global warming. There are numerous issues with the report.
First off - this list in question originated as a list of 400+, in a similarly titled report, which can be found here: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb
This list of 400 supposed climate scientists included economists and other social scientists, retired scientists, TV weathermen, and amateurs. To be sure - the list does include some people who are practicing scientists in a relevant field, I am not disputing that. For instance, Dr. Claude Allegre, a top Geophysicist in France. But it also includes people like Bob Edleman, former Chief Engineer of Boeing's Electronic Systems Division. How does being a former chief engineer of a private company's electronics division qualify one to issue an expert opinion on climate science related issues? It doesn't.
So let's break down this original list of 413 names. Actually its done quite nicely for us.
70 have no apparent expertise in climate science
http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/inhofe-global-warming-deniers-climate-science-46011008
20 are economists (20 of those 70)
http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/inhofe-global-warming-deniers-economists-46011008
Thus 17% of the original list of 413 don't even have a background that would qualify them to comment on the issue. They are as qualified as Joe the Plumber to comment on it. Joe the Plumber's ordinary guy opinion might be important in an election but it bears no relevance on scientific truth.
44 are television weathermen
http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/inhofe-global-warming-deniers-weathermen-46011008-3)]LINK[/url]
84 have either taken money from, or are connected to, fossil fuel industries, or think tanks started by those industries.
http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/inhofe-global-warming-deniers-industry-money-46011008
49 are retired
http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/inhofe-global-warming-deniers-retired-46011008
Now just because you're retired doesn't mean your mind isn't sharp and you aren't as smart as you used to be - but it does generally mean you're not on the cutting edge anymore. Any new theory is going to have a disproportionate number of skeptics in the ranks of the retirees of the field. Quantum physics, for example, was not readily embraced by physicists who got their PhD's in 1875.
That still leaves a few hundred qualified scientists who are presently working in a relevant field and who aren't taking money from oil companies, true. But they are a very tiny minority. The American Geophysical Union has issued a statement in support of anthropogenic global warming - they have 50,000 members.
(The above is sort of a short synopses of this:
http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/inhofe-global-warming-deniers-industry-money-46011008)
This new list is just an extension of the old bullshit list.
The new lists includes gross misreprentations of the claims of some scientists whose work is quoted. http://climateprogress.org/2008/12/12/scientist-our-conclusions-were-misinterpreted-by-inhofe-co2-but-not-the-sun-is-significantly-correlated-with-temperature-since-1850/
Here's another:
Meteorologist George Waldenberger is on the list. In response, George sent an email to Inhofe's staffers that began: Take me off your list of 400 (Prominent) Scientists that dispute Man-Made Global warming claims. I've never made any claims that debunk the "Consensus". You quoted a newspaper article that's main focus was scoring the accuracy of local weathermen. Hardly Scientific ... yet I'm guessing some of your other sources pale in comparison in terms of credibility. You also didn't ask for my permission to use these statements. That's not a very respectable way of doing "research". Yet, as Dessler notes, "he's still on the list."
http://gristmill.grist.org/print/2008/12/11/134543/71?show_comments=no
One could continue to pick apart the list of "650 scientists" all day long. We might be left with a few hundred that are a) qualified b) not being misrepresented c) active in their field and most importantly of all d) actual scientists - but so what? Compared to the tens of thousands who disagree with them - that is nothing.
Every single major scientific society in the U.S. and in most of the civilized world have issued statements in support of AGW. These in include the aforementioned American Geophysical Union (50,000 members), the American Meteorological Society (11,000 members), the American Chemcial Society (160,000 members), the American Institute of Physics (46,000 members), the list goes on.
The only major American scientific society which has not issued a statement in support of AGW is the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, who has issued a statement essentially not taking a position. The originally issued a statement against it - but members started resigning their membership. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#American_Geop hysical_Union
To sum up, two points:
1) The legions of scientists who support AGW are astronomically huge compared to the very small but vocal minority who are opposed.
2) Whenever you see someone claiming to have a "list of (x number) of scientists" that are opposed to anthropogenic global warming - actually check the list out. Though there will be several entries which do support the author's claim, you will find many questionable entries, they may even outnumber the ones that make sense.
This thread is to address the Senate Minority Report titled U. S. Senate Minority Report:
More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over
Man-Made Global Warming Claims
Scientists Continue to Debunk "Consensus" in 2008. http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=83947f5d-d84a-4a84-ad5d-6e2d71db52d9
This report has been used by many to show there is widespread skepticism regarding anthropogenic global warming. There are numerous issues with the report.
First off - this list in question originated as a list of 400+, in a similarly titled report, which can be found here: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb
This list of 400 supposed climate scientists included economists and other social scientists, retired scientists, TV weathermen, and amateurs. To be sure - the list does include some people who are practicing scientists in a relevant field, I am not disputing that. For instance, Dr. Claude Allegre, a top Geophysicist in France. But it also includes people like Bob Edleman, former Chief Engineer of Boeing's Electronic Systems Division. How does being a former chief engineer of a private company's electronics division qualify one to issue an expert opinion on climate science related issues? It doesn't.
So let's break down this original list of 413 names. Actually its done quite nicely for us.
70 have no apparent expertise in climate science
http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/inhofe-global-warming-deniers-climate-science-46011008
20 are economists (20 of those 70)
http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/inhofe-global-warming-deniers-economists-46011008
Thus 17% of the original list of 413 don't even have a background that would qualify them to comment on the issue. They are as qualified as Joe the Plumber to comment on it. Joe the Plumber's ordinary guy opinion might be important in an election but it bears no relevance on scientific truth.
44 are television weathermen
http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/inhofe-global-warming-deniers-weathermen-46011008-3)]LINK[/url]
84 have either taken money from, or are connected to, fossil fuel industries, or think tanks started by those industries.
http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/inhofe-global-warming-deniers-industry-money-46011008
49 are retired
http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/inhofe-global-warming-deniers-retired-46011008
Now just because you're retired doesn't mean your mind isn't sharp and you aren't as smart as you used to be - but it does generally mean you're not on the cutting edge anymore. Any new theory is going to have a disproportionate number of skeptics in the ranks of the retirees of the field. Quantum physics, for example, was not readily embraced by physicists who got their PhD's in 1875.
That still leaves a few hundred qualified scientists who are presently working in a relevant field and who aren't taking money from oil companies, true. But they are a very tiny minority. The American Geophysical Union has issued a statement in support of anthropogenic global warming - they have 50,000 members.
(The above is sort of a short synopses of this:
http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/inhofe-global-warming-deniers-industry-money-46011008)
This new list is just an extension of the old bullshit list.
The new lists includes gross misreprentations of the claims of some scientists whose work is quoted. http://climateprogress.org/2008/12/12/scientist-our-conclusions-were-misinterpreted-by-inhofe-co2-but-not-the-sun-is-significantly-correlated-with-temperature-since-1850/
Here's another:
Meteorologist George Waldenberger is on the list. In response, George sent an email to Inhofe's staffers that began: Take me off your list of 400 (Prominent) Scientists that dispute Man-Made Global warming claims. I've never made any claims that debunk the "Consensus". You quoted a newspaper article that's main focus was scoring the accuracy of local weathermen. Hardly Scientific ... yet I'm guessing some of your other sources pale in comparison in terms of credibility. You also didn't ask for my permission to use these statements. That's not a very respectable way of doing "research". Yet, as Dessler notes, "he's still on the list."
http://gristmill.grist.org/print/2008/12/11/134543/71?show_comments=no
One could continue to pick apart the list of "650 scientists" all day long. We might be left with a few hundred that are a) qualified b) not being misrepresented c) active in their field and most importantly of all d) actual scientists - but so what? Compared to the tens of thousands who disagree with them - that is nothing.
Every single major scientific society in the U.S. and in most of the civilized world have issued statements in support of AGW. These in include the aforementioned American Geophysical Union (50,000 members), the American Meteorological Society (11,000 members), the American Chemcial Society (160,000 members), the American Institute of Physics (46,000 members), the list goes on.
The only major American scientific society which has not issued a statement in support of AGW is the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, who has issued a statement essentially not taking a position. The originally issued a statement against it - but members started resigning their membership. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#American_Geop hysical_Union
To sum up, two points:
1) The legions of scientists who support AGW are astronomically huge compared to the very small but vocal minority who are opposed.
2) Whenever you see someone claiming to have a "list of (x number) of scientists" that are opposed to anthropogenic global warming - actually check the list out. Though there will be several entries which do support the author's claim, you will find many questionable entries, they may even outnumber the ones that make sense.