Scientists condemn climate change attacks -

Scientists condemn climate change attacks

Hundreds of researchers sign an open letter against “political assaults”


In an attempt to fight the bad press swirling around the climategate scandal and restore public faith in climate research, 255 of the world’s leading scientists have written an open letter condemning attacks driven by “special interests or dogma” and “McCarthy-like” threats. The letter explains that scientists aren’t perfect, but that some theories, such as the Big Bang and Darwin’s theory of evolution, have such overwhelming and thoroughly tested evidence in their favour that they can basically be spoken of as facts. The researchers add that climate change now enjoys that same support in the scientific community, but that because of science’s adversarial nature, it’s easy for people seeking “fame” to take potshots at the theory. “There is nothing remotely identified in the recent events that changes the fundamental conclusions about climate change,” the letter says. The letter bears the signatures of 11 Nobel laureates, senior researchers from Cambridge, Oxford and Manchester universities, and a host of top anthropologists, biochemists and physicists. “Many recent assaults on climate science and, more disturbingly, on climate scientists by climate change deniers, are typically driven by special interests or dogma, not by an honest effort to provide an alternative theory that credibly satisfies the evidence,” says the letter.


Filed under:

Scientists condemn climate change attacks

  1. These guys shouldn't act so high and mighty. I know group-think when I see it. I have the sense that climatology as a science is in the stone age, that the whole debate as to whether climate change is man made or not is infected by a left-right ideological divide, that it's a bit much for these guys to be complaining of political assaults when the proponents of man made climate change are every bit as guilty.

    • "…I know group-think when I see it…" No, you don't. Stupid rightwingers think if they pretend real hard that climate change is not occurring that it won't happen. They are wrong; it is happening now.

      • Holly, freedom is a paramount principle of "right-wingers". Ya think it's just going to be given up voluntarily? Not to mention the whole "global warming" debacle was started by Al Gore.

        We're just not so willing as to say "okay, that's sufficient proof" and then hand over our freedom on a platter. As far as I can tell, it just seems like another tax to me. I'm just a regular joe that doesn't understand the science. If it can't be explained to me then forget about taxing me. If you have a problem with that, that's not my problem.

        • You are free to deny reality all you like; and I am free to point out that you are denying reality. You are free to be too lazy to try to find out why the world is getting into deep trouble and why your life is becoming more difficult.

      • Sorry but yes I do. I spent my life in the corporate world where I saw idiotic notions take root, fester and appear remarkably impervious to reason. People would emotionally invest in a scheme and they would rather things go down in flames than rethink their convictions or dispassionately consider contrary opinions or evidence. The academic world is not that different. Like I said this debate is infected by a left -right ideological divide. Your reference to "stupid right wingers" is what I'm talking about. Science is taking a back seat to ideology.

        • Rightwingers are denying the science and preferring their false ideology. This makes them stupid.

          • I would suggest to you that there are scientists that have doubts on the validity of AGW but their concerns are based in reason and not in ideology. Some skeptics are "right wingers" but some people that embrace the idea of AGW are "left wingers" who care as little about actual science as "right wingers".

            Nobody who has a clue doubts that climate changes over time. In the last two million years there have been a series of glaciations covering much of the earth for tens of thousands of years at a stretch as well as glacial recessions. This is the big kahuna of climate change. Yet the processes governing it are as yet subject to much discussion and disagreement.

          • "… there are scientists that have doubts on the validity of AGW…" Who? Oil company shills like Lindzen? No reputable scientist would deny that AGW is happening unless they had scientific evidence that negated the mountain of evidence showing that AGW is happening. All the screeching, lying, stupid rightwingers have not produced any evidence that AGW is not happening; their lies are based, not on reason, but on ideology.

            There is evidence that the fossil fuels used by humans are producing CO2 which is causing climate change; there is evidence that earth is warming as a result of human activity.

  2. If climatology is in the stone age, understanding of how DNA works is just as primitive. Until recently the field of epigenetics was unknown.So its also a bit much to talk about the theory of evolution as established fact. And how do you do "testing"? I have no doubt that populations of organisms evolve over time as shown by the fossil record but it also seems to me that the theory that describes the phenomenon is not much more than a few vague notions that are in no way falsifiable or even testable. What drives evolutionary change? How does the environment interact with a population's DNA to effect change? Cannot be just natural selection. This part of the theory doesn't even sound logical. Natural selection acts to cull the herd of maladaptive characteristics or changes but it does nothing to generate changes in a population in the first place. And it's not random mutations either…way too slow.

    • It couldn't have happened since the world is only 6000 years old, right?

  3. This is a lost cause unfortunately.
    Some people actually believe that Climate Change is a political movement, not a scientific thesis.

    • it is.

    • Oliver, when you see 255 scientists engaging in the political event described above, what else should we call it but a political movement?

      • Climate change is a fact – just like evolution.

        • Holly, neither are facts. Both are theories well supported by evidence and underlying associated hypotheses, with no compelling competing theories, but that does not make them facts. In the strictest terms, facts are only observations of the natural world and constructs of human thought (math and language, for example).

          I disagree with Gaunilon on a lot of things, but in his posts below he's right about one thing – climatologists, in public statements at least, ascribe too much certainty to their conclusions, especially their quantitative ones.

          • No, evolution is a fact; and the theory of evolution attempts to describe how it works. Climate change is a fact; and the climate scientists attempt to explain why it is happening and how it is likely to change under certain conditions. They are both material facts, not constructs, which the scientific theories are trying to explain.

            In what specific cases have climatologists ascribed too much certainty to their conclusions?

          • Past instances of evolution, just like past instances of climate change, are observations, sure, but generally speaking, when people say "evolution" or "climate change", they're referring to the theories and/or the predictions that spawn from those theories. The theories are not material facts, and unless you're far more careful about the language used than you have been, saying evolution or climate change are facts is not true.

            Temperature projections (specific ones), rates of glacier or other ice melt, sea level rises, increased drought cycles, worsening storms, etc. Pretty much any consequence of global warming that has been put forth as something along the lines of "this will happen", rather than "this easily could happen" is ascribing too much certainty to results, especially if precise numbers are given. As good as climatologists are, the climate is too complex and the predictions have thus far been too imprecise to merit certainty in subsequent predictions.

            That greenhouse gas emissions are capable to doing extreme harm to the planet by way of altering atmospheric chemistry and an exacerbated greenhouse effect, is something that seems beyond reasonable doubt. But just because those emissions are capable of doing such harm, does not mean that they will, only that they could. Don't get me wrong, that possibility, even if it's more remote than the evidence indicates, is enough reason for rational action on the matter, but that's another issue…

          • So you don't have specific instances; not surprising since scientists tend to predict what will happen, given certain circumstances, within a range of probabilities; if you want specific wrong predictions look at the media and the internet for that kind of amateurish thing. You're not familiar with the scientific literature, are you?

            The fact is that greenhouse gases are changing the climate now; the decade 2000-2009 was the hottest on record.

    • The signatories to this statement expose their real intent by their use of the derogatory term"climate change deniers" to describe the scientists that have blown enormous holes in AGW theory.

      I hereby withdraw my candidature for a Nobel Peace Prize – once again. I did before when Yassah Arafat got one as well as Barak Obama.

  4. I find it hard to believe that Climate Change can be equated with Evolution or the Big Bang in terms of solid evidence. If they are referring to Athropogenic Global Warming (as many will doubtless interpret the statement) then it's even harder to believe.

    I can understand people who think the evidence for Climate Change is conclusive (although I disagree with them) and even people who believe in AGW, but they lose credibility as soon as they try to put either one (or indeed, almost any conclusion from climate science) on par with well-established theories in physics such as the Big Bang.

    • Who loses credibility? The "11 Nobel laureates, senior researchers from Cambridge, Oxford and Manchester universities, and a host of top anthropologists, biochemists and physicists?"

      Do your credentials compare?

      • The proof is in the work, not the diploma or award. Search the internet for "Appeal to authority".

      • Remember the 30 thousand american scientists who signed a petition saying AGW science was full of holes. They also argued that the peer review process has been high jacked by activists and "UN Bureaucrats".

        What did Obama win a nobel prize for again?

        • Said letter has been debunked. And this, too, is an appeal to authority.

          • debunked? who said this? Newsweek? please describe.

          • Holly,

            You would be much more effective in your arguments if you refrained from personal attacks. This type of debate only weakens your position….just sayin.

  5. Yes, they lose credibility.

    • G, I'm with you on this. The problem with these scientists is that they're doing advocacy with this letter, not science. And like so many people doing advocacy, they overreach in their assertions. It is patently preposterous to claim that AGW theory is the equivalent of the theory of evolution. The latter has a century and a half of hard science behind it. AGW is a comparative infant.

      I honestly think that if the proponents of AGW didn't overreach so much in their claims, they'd be much better off. Making preposterous statements like this just opens them up to easy attack.

      • Yep, and if Climate Change really is a global imperative, they're doing the world a great disservice by turning off objective observers who, if persuaded of its veracity, would be strong allies in the fight.

        • Gaunilon, the people studying climate change are about as cross-disciplinary as you can find. You know, you rightwingers are entirley predictable, pushing the same old lies, trying to pretend you know what you are talking about. You know nothing about the science and you have never put in the hard work and effort required to learn what every one of those scientists have learned; and you pretend that you are more knowledgeable than them?

          Don't you realize how silly you look?

        • I'd like you to find a cross-disciplinary objector of AGW, that doesn't have any kind of tie to carbon emitting industries.

          The whole debate has been muddied with special interests group on both side of the issue. You should know, it's your favorite argument fallback argument.

          That's what the letter is about, could at least stick to THAT subject?

  6. To begin, AGW is cause and climate change is effect. Climate change is the appropriate term for what we are now experiencing.

    The Attorney General of Virginia is seeking to conduct criminal investigations on climate scientists, including Dr. Mann, under state laws. It is one thing to disagree or disapprove of the scientists' findings, but to accuse them of criminal activity (allegations of fabrication or manipulation of data were in recent weeks investigated and dismissed) is nothing short of a return to the Dark Ages. Scientific and cultural breakthroughs require do not flourish without freedom to push the envelope.

    Of course it's easier to acknowledge the truths of the Big Bang or evolution; not because the science of climate change is weaker, but rather the Big Bang and evolution don't cost us anything. They don't require us to change our habits and try to live in a more sustainable manner.

    Yes, it's that simple.

    • The whole theory of AGW (not climate change, which has been happening for the last 4.5 billion years plus or minus) reeks. I see lots and lots of predictions but little discussion when those predictions fail. They have been making predictions of doom since Rio (and before) that have not come to pass. Al Gore, the movement's chief spokesperson, has multiple large homes and a carbon footprint larger than a subdivision.
      The validation of the whole AGW thesis must begin with a repeatable and repeated validation of climate models with physical measurements on the climate system. Dendroclimatology, used to try and measure temperatures far in the past, has not matched up with the recent instrumental record. As far as I can tell the scientists involved just hacked off the bits that don't fit, called dendroclimatology ok, and continued using the historical predictions from their model. This is horrible.
      In no way, shape or form does this AGW theory have the rigour of physical theories, such as QED, which have been validated by an incredible number of experiments.

      • How illogical of you. Claiming that the predictions have failed (without giving specific examples because there are none, of course) and whining in the same paragraph about Al Gore having houses?

        As far as I can tell, you are not capable of understanding dendrochronology. Don't bother your little head about it. You would have to study hard and pass a bunch of tests before you would have anything worthwhile to say about it.

        • Not illogical at all Holly Stick. If Al Gore, the chief proponent of this AGW theory, does not believe enough to change his lifestyle then why should I? Why aren't scientists telling Big Al to shut his trap because he doesn't know what he is talking about and because he is killing the planet? The answer is that Big Al dupes the ignorant in to donating money – that's why.

          As for bad predictions, try typing 'AGW predictions' in to google and see what you get. Try this one:

          • Understanding AGW from a scientific perspective gets a lot easier when you ignore Al Gore, who is – as many proponents of the theory including myself readily admit – an opportunistic d-bag.

  7. No, it's not quite that simple, since most established theories don't have the vested interests behind them that Climate Change does. Whenever a scientist has a vested or ideological interest in the theory he is propounding it behooves one to step back and take a skeptical view until shown otherwise.

    • But what vested interest does a climate scientist have in the promotion of climate change that a biologist would not in the promotion of evolution, or a physicist in the promotion of gravity? I mean yes, the scientists get paid for the work they do and the studies they put forth, but so do all scientists.

      • Neither evolutionary theory nor General Relativity imply global catastrophe that demands a huge influx of funding in order to avoid worldwide chaos. Also, neither can be used to further ideological goals such as population control.

        If GR researchers suddenly start trumpeting the notion that gravity is changing and that we must give them billions of dollars to understand the problem and recommend a fix, and that Malthusian ideology is suddenly vindicated, then I assure you I'd take those claims cum grano sale as well.

        • The huge funding necessary to combat climate change (though, as I have argued, is in no way huge) doesn't go to the researchers though. Most of them don't recommend fixes, because that's not their area of expertise – they describe what they see, try to see the progression of the climate, and provides reasons why it is progressing as it is and how it will progress into the future. Economists, politicians and to a lesser extent engineers, biologists and businessmen are the ones who provide the fixes, not climatologists.

          Besides, the funding for research would be forthcoming whether or not global warming was a potential reality. The climate is always in need of study, regardless of what is found and concluded. I mean, look at the number of string theorists we fund – they're not producing anything remotely testable, and we still do for the sake of exploration and advancement of our understanding of our world. Also, while you obviously do not agree with conclusions of most climatologists, or at least the concreteness of those conclusions, any lack of concreteness certainly applies in the other direction – we may not know for certain the effects of greenhouse gas emissions, but as such, we can't say that the effect is neutral or positive, so in any case, further study is warranted. It's the lack of certainty of safety, not the certainty of damage, that makes the case for further funding – and the objection you and most reasonable skeptics seem to have is with the claims of certainty.

          As for using scientific discoveries for ideological goals, that's a complete side-issue and not relevant to the discussion, unless you have evidence that climatologists are engaged in a conspiracy to falsify data in order to push whatever ideology they might have. Evolution was presented as support for eugenics, but that doesn't make evolution wrong.

          • Everyone in science knows that politically hot research fields get more funding. That is why almost everyone in the physical sciences right now is trying to show a connection between their research and "green energy", for example. The fact is that politicians dole out the money, so if a field can make itself a matter of international survival its researchers will be drowning in grant money. If you continue into higher research after you graduate, trust me: you will see this phenomenon first hand.

            The ideological goals issue is entirely relevant as well, although as in most things money is king. It's not a question of a "conspiracy", it's just a question of what causes tend to be supported by those who've been subjected to at least four years of political indoctrination in university arts classes.

          • "If a field can make itself a matter of international survival its researchers will be drowning in grant money"

            Two things with that statement. First, the evidence itself supports the possibility of significant, potentially catastrophic problems related to greenhouse gas emissions. You've raised the objection that climatologists present this possibility as more of a certainty, or that they engage in unsubstantiated hyperbole about the severity of these problems, beyond what the evidence actually shows, and that's a fair criticism, but that does not mean they have any greater incentive to deceive, manipulate data, or misrepresent results than any other field, as other fields also have incentive to present findings with greater certainty or with heightened importance to society than may be objectively true.

            Once again, the justification for funding for further research has already been established by the uncertainty of safety – the reported certainty of damage might add fuel to the fire, but it's not a tactic unique to climatology. Most importantly, it does not in itself provide any reason to disbelieve the hyperbole-less claims which are the basis for justifying both action on the matter.

            And no, ideological goals are not relevant without some sort of conspiracy or demonstration of results tampering to further those goals. Yeah, there are people who would use AGW to push their ideological goals, just as there are people who push against AGW because dealing with it runs against their ideological goals. But ultimately, what people use a scientific conclusion for has no bearing on the validity of that conclusion. Again, genetics isn't false because some nutjobs want to use it to justify eugenics.

          • "Again, genetics isn't false because some nutjobs want to use it to justify eugenics."

            No one is claiming that the science is false because there are ideological motivations attached to it. Let's maintain some semblance of logical rigour here.

            What's being claimed is that we should be skeptical because there are vested interests, both ideological and financial, at stake.

          • You accuse me of throwing up a straw-man, but I haven't – you threw up the spectre of population control as a response to the conclusions of global warming, just as some have pushed eugenics in response to the conclusions of evolutionary biology. It's an apt analogy. What people want to do with the conclusions of scientific research has no bearing on the validity of that research, that's the point I was making with that statement.

            "What's being claimed is that we should be skeptical because there are vested interests, both ideological and financial, at stake."

            There are financial and ideological vested interests on both sides. There are many industries who would pay a lot of money if they could get credible research against AGW published. Our own Conservative government, considering its base and reluctance to make any action on the matter, would likewise welcome such research. Being subject to temptation, why are you only entertaining the idea that scientists are being persuaded by those with an ideology opposed to your's?

            Really though, the existence of vested interests is irrelevant unless it can be demonstrated that they're having an impact on produced research, in any direction, above and beyond that of other fields of study. In the absence of evidence of academic misconduct that includes fraud or falsification of data, on what grounds do you remain skeptical of the conclusions of climatologists?

        • Thank you for proving my point.

  8. Who are these top scientists and what do they specialize in–if you can give us their names and their claim to fame–that would be some honest reporting.

    • If you follow the Gallup link, the article provides a link to the names of the signatories, including their institution of employment and a link to their research websites.

  9. Is Darwin's theory of evolution generally accepted as fact? I don't go to chuch much buy I think most religious people would beg to differ.

    • Many religious people, but not all, accept the broad idea of evolution. It becomes a problem, however, when people start suggesting to religious people that evolution means that God does not exist. The Catholic Church, for instance, does not take a position on the truth of the theory of evolution but does teach that God created the universe and everything in it, including human beings. How God went about creating the universe is an open question that may be beyond human understanding.

    • It's accepted as fact in scientific circles. Those with a religious slant might beg to differ (though in Canada, I've found most to be fairly accepting of evolution), but science is derived from evidence, not popular opinion.

      • but science is derived from evidence, not popular opinion.

        Cool. Would the AGW "scientists" care to share their evidence? Oh, right. Their dog ate it.

        • Or it's freely available online.

          There are also thousands upon thousands of articles printed in journals, which are accessible to anyone, though a subscription is often required.

          • I wonder: the NASA admission that folks should rely on the more reliable but not nearly accessible CRU data (that darn dog…) more than on NASA's own data (which can "extrapolate station measurements as much as 1200 km")…

            Is that found in your link?

          • The link you gave only indicates that the NASA data is not more reliable than the CRU data, according to one of the responders. Jim Hansen actually follow-ups by saying that he believes both to have some advantages and disadvantages, further saying that there shouldn't be a single authority on this subject.

            All said, however, the NASA data is still fine. As for more tangible evidence, I like to point to the contrast in temperature between Venus and Mercury, a difference nearly impossible to explain without the greenhouse effect caused by carbon dioxide – exactly the effect AGW rests upon.

            Either way, you asked for evidence, I provided it. Have some institutions been less than completely open about their data? Sure. But do you expect the same level of openness from biologists, physicists, or chemists? I don't have complete and open access to particle accelerator data either, but I don't see much complaining about that.

          • A scientist who will not permit his or her data to be available for replication of analysis, scrutiny and criticism? Is not a scientist.

            A scientist who shields his or data from view while simultaneously insisting that this hidden data proves beyond any politically-motivated skeptic's doubt that we must radically alter everything we're doing on this planet? Is not a scientist.

          • Are you going to respond to my points, or just continue spouting rhetoric?

            Yes, scientists should be open about their research and the CRU have been overly reclusive with it, but AGW does not depend on the CRU and other evidence is freely available which more than makes the case for the general conclusions of the AGW theory (the doomsday scenarios that receive the most media attention and skeptic scrutiny are another matter). Furthermore, the extent you expect the CRU to provide information goes above and beyond what any other scientist is expected to provide.

          • Are you going to respond to my points? Forgive me. I charitably assumed you were making a point about the transparency of scientists. Maybe it wasn't a point, after all.

            the extent you expect the CRU to provide information goes above and beyond what any other scientist is expected to provide. Yup. You're right. Do you want to know why? Because the scientist reporting on the mating habits of some recently discovered species in the Amazon rainforest is not bossing me around about where I should set my thermostat, or about whether I can take the kids on a flight across the country to visit their grandparents, or about whether it's ok to buy the kiwis on sale at the supermarket even though they schlepped from quite aways. So, yeah, I could stand a little more discussion, debate, replication of analysis, etc. And if the "scientist" is not prepared to stand behing his or her political statements that emanate from the hidden data, well, I can offer him or her all the attention he or she has earned: Squat.

          • "So, yeah, I could stand a little more discussion, debate, replication of analysis, etc."

            That's great. But when I present you with information, you ignore it, and simply say that climatologists, including the ones that provide all the information you desire, are not credible. It's fine to say you want more debate, but that claim has no credibility if you're unwilling to engage in that debate.

            As for the transparency of scientists, as I've said, the CRU was not transparent enough – but other institutions have been, and AGW does not rest on the CRU, exactly the point Jim Hansen made in the e-mail you linked.

            But, as you've just agreed, what you're asking of climatologists is beyond what other scientists have to provide. That extra scrutiny may be warranted, but the hyperbole in the criticism is not – if climatologists are behaving in the same way other scientists are, then their work is just as scientific as what is produced by any other field. Just because you don't like the conclusions of certain scientists or what the reasonable response to those conclusions should be, that does not discredit those conclusions. Science doesn't change because it produces an unwanted result.

          • You know, not one of these rightwingers is capable of honestly admitting they don't know what they are talking about.

            Here's more data, madeyoulook, not that you would know what to do with it except lie some more about it.:

          • OK, let me ask you. Do you still believe in the hockey stick? The now discredited horror image that was supposed to fry us all to hell?

            And, ok, I'll bite, just for fun. About that "information" you offered. Well, you mentioned Mars and Venus, without any particular information. So please feel free to expand.

            The rest of your information basically says "Fear not, the rest of the data is just fine." Which sounds a lot more like conjecture, not information.

            And yes, dammit, if someone in a white coat joins a few other people in white coats in front of the microphones to say "Everybody, change what you're doing NOW even though our models tell us it might already be too late," the white coats are going to get a well-deserved request for proof. Because they're not engaging in science when they are trying to rule my life. They are practicing politics.

    • Darwin's no, but evolution in general, yes.

  10. Scientists would condemn criticism, wouldn't they? They will fight like alley cats against anyone or any theory which erodes their celebrity status,so recently acquired by playing the oldest trick in the totebag of all demagogues – "doomsday is upon you". Even Darwin was not so arrogant as to assume his theories were "proven", and anything more than theories.

  11. Funny how they're fine with the vast left leaning politcos in their respective government bureacracies, peddling their "science" for political purposes,

    but opposition based on very real skepticism, based on very real questions, becomes "political".

    You can't get more political than the snake oil that is AGW theory.

    • There is no real skepticism here, just rightwing liars, peddling the same dreary old lies. Go and tell a drought it doesn't exist, tell a hurricane to stop blowing, tell the sun to stop shining. Idiots.

  12. Well that shows how much those scientists know. My understanding is that big bang theory is pretty up in the air right now, after the new finding that the expansion of the Universe is accelerating. Therefore one cannot linearly extrapolate back to a big bang point. So for all we know, the history of the universe could be totally different from a big bang. Two examples are, an exponential expansion that has been going on for ever, or a sinusoidal oscillation in an accelerating outward phase.

    Evolution, and Big Bang, in the most common context are ideology not science. So what this article describes is really: "you believe in the ideology of evolution and big bang, so you should keep the faith in the ideology of AGW"

    • I don't think that's quite right. While it is strange that the expansion is accelerating, it is still the case that everything we observe is moving outward from a starting point in time and space: i.e. the Big Bang.

  13. By my calculation, it seems that over 80% of the members of the USA National Academy of Science have chosen not to sign this letter.

    I think it is good for Democracy when a minority opinion such as that held by this relatively small cadre of biologists, anthropologists, zoologists, etc. is published.

  14. Climate always changes, with or without humans. Although it is commendable that we as citizens of the world has to take good care of our environment, these scientists has been attacking many agencies and government vigorously – yet they could not stand a much lesser heat. They do easily cry foul in getting their own medicines, don't they?

    • Yes they are learning about DNA. But DNA is a massively compex molecule the workings of which are as yet only dimly understood. There is a long, long way to go. The component parts of the molecule are known. What isn't understood is how all these parts work together to produce a viable organism. It's like pulling apart a machine with billions of microscopic parts, cataloguing all the parts but not understanding how all the parts function and interact with one another. Until recently it wasn't even known how many genes humans have.

      What wisegeek is giving is not a remotely comprehensive account of how evolution works.

      • What is the basis of your own implied knowledge? Some creationist website? How would you know anything about how complex DNA is?

  15. The is more arrogance and pompous posing by "scientists" who want the world turning on its head because they say there is a problem they cannot demonstrate is happening yet and propose solutions they can't show will make any difference. The whole projection of the global warming "problem" is based on computer models as are the impacts of any "solutions" Trillions of dollars later we will find out 1. was there a problem and 2. did their solutions work.
    No thanks. Consensus isn't science, computer models about climate are pathetic in their capabilities at prediction of next week nevertheless 100 years from now. Skeptics don't have to prove global warming arguments are wrong, the proponents have to prove it is correct. So far they haven't come close.

    • Fasle, false, false, and false. Fail.

  16. Only 255?

  17. Yet again, no specific instances with backup. Sorry, your vagueness suggests a concern troll to me, who argues that the scientists are making extreme predictions, which is not true. Kind of Lomborgian of you.

    "…The IPCC prediction on glacier melt in the Himalayas is one glaring example of inaccurate predictions…"

    What that is really about:

    • Holly, I gave you several specific instances. Want a source? Here ya go.

      Yes, it's from a skeptic's site, but if you look at the current record and Hansen's 1988 paper, their analysis is basically correct – while Hansen expected significant rises because of accelerating CO2 levels, the actual temperature rise since 1990 was modest, about what he predicted if CO2 emissions decreased.

      Yes, the Himalayan glacier thing was a mistake, but you asked for inaccurate predictions, and that one qualifies.

      "Kind of Lomborgian of you."

      Kinda insulted by that. Lomborg, to me, is the worst kind of skeptic, one who admits the problem but goes out of his way to prevent action to solve it. Besides, Lomborg's criticism comes in the response to global warming, whereas mine come in the details of the theory itself – with that one term you mis-characterize my position on global warming in two ways.

      I mean, my whole point is that climatologists get some things wrong and they would be wise to maintain a level of uncertainty when presenting their finding, which many are fortunately starting to do. I have to ask – do you really think there are no flaws in the AGW hypothesis?

      Again, I don't know how many times I'll have to say this to get a response from you that isn't laced with not-so-subtle contempt, but I believe AGW to be a well-support theory, I believe that our greenhouse gas emissions are doing and will do notable damage to our environment and that we need to reduce the amount we are emitting quickly. Ultimately, I feel we're on the same side here, which is why I'm really confused about the anger I take from your posts simply for acknowledging some flaws in the science.