Climate Change Remains Unsettled, Say 31,072 Scientists

[Crick]

What's your point? The claim here recently is that Steyer and others are unfairly spending their fortunes pushing climate "alarmism" - that far more money is being spent by the as-yet-unnamed interests who stand to get rich from reducing everyone's carbon footprint than has been spent by fossil fuel industry advocates spreading lies. Do you support that position?

Let's cut to the chase. Ian, what do you think of the work of the Heartland Institute?

 

[HelenaHandbag]

Since most of the media are corporate shills who bend over backwards to give air time to denier liars, why on earth would you want to bring that up? It just shoots down your claims of victimhood.

 

[IanC]

What's your point? The claim here recently is that Steyer and others are unfairly spending their fortunes pushing climate "alarmism" - that far more money is being spent by the as-yet-unnamed interests who stand to get rich from reducing everyone's carbon footprint than has been spent by fossil fuel industry advocates spreading lies. Do you support that position?

Let's cut to the chase. Ian, what do you think of the work of the Heartland Institute?

Im not sure what your point is. are you trying to compare the $100M Steyer is willing to fork over to combat Republican AGW deniers with, say the $25,000 over the last decade that the Koch brothers have given Heartland (earmarked for healthcare)? I think we all know that your side is fantastically better funded than my side.

Although I am not an American, I still believe people have a right to spend their money supporting any group or cause that they see fit.

Heartland has many various 'issues' with which it tries to make an impact. I dont know them all but I imagine they have a well thought out rationale for each. I personally was against their billboard showing the Unibomber supporting AGW, as were many other skeptics. but it certainly got a lot of publicity for a few thousand bucks, didnt it?

 

[polarbear]

Oh my, ol' Staph is trotting out the venerable OISM petition project. If you are stupid enough to be taken in by that peice of crap, you are stupid indeed.

Oregon Petition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Global Warming Petition Project, also known as the Oregon Petition, is a petition urging the United States government to reject the global warming Kyoto Protocol of 1997 and similar policies.[1] It was organized and circulated by Arthur B. Robinson, president of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine in 1998, and again in 2007.[2][3] Past National Academy of Sciences president Frederick Seitz wrote a cover letter endorsing the petition.[4]

According to Robinson, the petition has over 31,000 signatories. Over 9,000 report to have a Ph.D.,[1][2][3] mostly in engineering.[5] The NIPCC (2009) Report lists 31,478 degreed signatories, including 9,029 with Ph.D.s.[6] The list has been criticized for its lack of verification, with pranksters successfully submitting Charles Darwin, members of the Spice Girls and characters from Star Wars, and getting them briefly included on the list.[7]

So why don`t you show us where the name "Charles Darwin" is on the list of 1464 names under "D" ?

Signers D - Global Warming Petition Project

[FONT=Geneva,Arial,Helvetica,Helv][SIZE=+2]Signers D [/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Geneva,Arial,Helvetica,Helv][SIZE=+1]1,464 Signers Out of 31,072 Total in US
[/SIZE][/FONT]

Even if it were there that would still leave 1463 signatories just under "D"
And where are the members of the Spice girls?

The group consisted of five members, who each later adopted nicknames initially ascribed to them: Melanie Brown ("Scary Spice"), Melanie Chisholm ("Sporty Spice"), Emma Bunton ("Baby Spice"), Geri Halliwell ("Ginger Spice"), and Victoria Beckham, née Adams ("Posh Spice").

Nothing under "S" for "Spice"

[FONT=Geneva,Arial,Helvetica,Helv][SIZE=+2]Signers S [/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Geneva,Arial,Helvetica,Helv][SIZE=+1]3,316 Signers Out of 31,072 Total in US
[/SIZE][/FONT]

No Melanie Brown either under the "B"s, but there are lots of other Browns:

Robert Alan Brown, PhD, James Melton Brown, PhD, Kenneth Taylor Brown, PhD, James R. Brown, PhD, John M. Brown, PhD, Charles J. Brown Jr., PhD, Bahngrell W. Brown, PhD, David P. Brown, PhD, Herbert Brown, PhD, Arlen Brown, PhD, Gerald Richard Brown, PhD, Richard B. Brown, PhD, Robert E. Brown, PhD, Olen Ray Brown, PhD, Henry S. Brown, PhD, Albert L. Brown, PhD, William M. Brown, PhD, Robert S. Brown, PhD, Lewis F. Brown, PhD, Leonard F. Brown Jr., PhD, Murray Allison Brown, PhD, Robert G. Brown, PhD, Glenn Lamar Brown, PhD, Billings Brown, PhD, Jerry W. Brown, PhD, Elise A. Brown, PhD, Ronald A. Brown, PhD, Alfred L. Brown, Delton L. Brown Jr., Richard E. Brown, MD, Stephen R. Brown, Lansing E. Brown, MD, S. Kent Brown, MD, Will K. Brown, Stephen E. Brown, Linton A. Brown, Howard J. Brown, Hal W. Brown, Raymond E. Brown, Ben D. Brown, DVM, Lynne A. Brown, Fredrick G. Brown, MD, Gary L. Brown, Robert E. Brown, William Brown, James Brown, John W. Brown, Ward W. Brown, DVM, Delos B. Brown, Wilson L. Brown, Walter Redvers John Brown, Robert G. Brown, Richard Brown, Roderick B. Brown, Allan D. Brown, Ben Brown, Robert C. Brown, MD, David Brown, M. Frank Brown, Jeremy J. Brown, Bruce L. Brown, James Brown, Richard L. Brown, James S. Brown, Donnie E. Brown, Melvin H. Brown, Karen Brown, Robert Brown, Timothy H. Brown, Thane A. Brown, Thomas V. Brown, Roy W. Brown, P. T. Brown, Larry D. Brown, Bob Diggs Brown, C. A. Brown, F. L. Brown, Fitzhugh Lee Brown, Robert E. Brown, Jerrold L. Brown, Lloyd L. Brown, Marvin K. Brown, Jim Brown, Byron L. Brown, MD, Steven Brown, Brenda E. Brown, Charles D. Brown, Jim Brown, John T. Brown, Charles R. Brown ll, John N. Brown, Jeffrey P. Brown, James A. Brown, Henry B. R. Brown, Doug L. Brown, J. Paul Brown, Christopher J. Brown, Charles E. Brown, DVM, Jeremy J. Brown,

So please do tell us which of the above were members of the "Spice Girls" !

It`s easy to verify any of the other Browns on that list:
http://www.bu.edu/president/biography/

Robert A. Brown, a distinguished chemical engineer, became president of Boston University in September 2005.
A Texas native, Dr. Brown, 62, earned B.S. and M.S. degrees in chemical engineering at the University of Texas at Austin. He received his Ph.D. in chemical engineering from the University of Minnesota

Be my guest and keep going down the list!

Let`s see if this can be verified:

and prank names such as "I. C. Ewe"

Really?
OOPS he is not on the list either!
And while you are at it show me a link where the list of names is, for that idiotic 97% consensus survey skepticalscience.org fabricated

I`ll give you some names which were on that list (which Cook does not make public)..:

Cook et al. (2013) team falsely classified scientists' papers as "endorsing AGW", apparently believing to know more about the papers than their authors.
Update 1: Dr. Tol also found problems with the classifications
Update 2: Dr. Morner, Soon and Carlin also falsely classified
Dr. Idso, your paper 'Ultra-enhanced spring branch growth in CO2-enriched trees: can it alter the phase of the atmosphere’s seasonal CO2 cycle?' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; "Implicitly endorsing AGW without minimizing it".

Is this an accurate representation of your paper?

Idso: "That is not an accurate representation of my paper. The papers examined how the rise in atmospheric CO2 could be inducing a phase advance in the spring portion of the atmosphere's seasonal CO2 cycle. Other literature had previously claimed a measured advance was due to rising temperatures, but we showed that it was quite likely the rise in atmospheric CO2 itself was responsible for the lion's share of the change. It would be incorrect to claim that our paper was an endorsement of CO2-induced global warming."

Dr. Scafetta, your paper 'Phenomenological solar contribution to the 1900–2000 global surface warming' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; "Explicitly endorses and quantifies AGW as 50+%"

Is this an accurate representation of your paper?

Scafetta: "Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman argument because it does not correctly define the IPCC AGW theory, which is NOT that human emissions have contributed 50%+ of the global warming since 1900 but that almost 90-100% of the observed global warming was induced by human emission.

What my papers say is that the IPCC view is erroneous because about 40-70% of the global warming observed from 1900 to 2000 was induced by the sun. This implies that the true climate sensitivity to CO2 doubling is likely around 1.5 C or less, and that the 21st century projections must be reduced by at least a factor of 2 or more. Of that the sun contributed (more or less) as much as the anthropogenic forcings.

The "less" claim is based on alternative solar models (e.g. ACRIM instead of PMOD) and also on the observation that part of the observed global warming might be due to urban heat island effect, and not to CO2.

By using the 50% borderline a lot of so-called "skeptical works" including some of mine are included in their 97%."

Dr. Shaviv, your paper 'On climate response to changes in the cosmic ray flux and radiative budget' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; "Explicitly endorses but does not quantify or minimise"

Is this an accurate representation of your paper?
Shaviv: "Nope... it is not an accurate representation. The paper shows that if cosmic rays are included in empirical climate sensitivity analyses, then one finds that different time scales consistently give a low climate sensitiviity. i.e., it supports the idea that cosmic rays affect the climate and that climate sensitivity is low. This means that part of the 20th century should be attributed to the increased solar activity and that 21st century warming under a business as usual scenario should be low (about 1°C).

Dr. Tol found 7 papers falsely classified and 112 omitted,

Tol: "WoS lists 122 articles on climate change by me in that period. Only 10 made it into the survey.

I would rate 7 of those as neutral, and 3 as strong endorsement with quantification. Of the 3, one was rated as a weak endorsement (even though it argues that the solar hypothesis is a load of bull). Of the 7, 3 were listed as an implicit endorsement and 1 as a weak endorsement.

...from 112 omitted papers, one strongly endorses AGW and 111 are neutral"​

On Twitter Dr. Tol had a heated exchange with one of the "Skeptical Science" authors of Cook et al. (2013) - Dana Nuccitelli,

Tol: "@dana1981 I think your data are a load of crap. Why is that a lie? I really think so."

Tol: "@dana1981 I think your sampling strategy is a load of nonsense. How is that a misrepresentation? Did I falsely describe your sample?"​

Dr. Morner, your paper 'Estimating future sea level changes from past records' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as having; "No Position on AGW".

Is this an accurate representation of your paper?

Morner: "Certainly not correct and certainly misleading. The paper is strongly against AGW, and documents its absence in the sea level observational facts. Also, it invalidates the mode of sea level handling by the IPCC."


Dr. Soon, your paper 'Polar Bear Population Forecasts: A Public-Policy Forecasting Audit' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as having; "No Position on AGW".

Is this an accurate representation of your paper?
Soon: "I am sure that this rating of no position on AGW by CO2 is nowhere accurate nor correct. Rating our serious auditing paper from just a reading of the abstract or words contained in the title of the paper is surely a bad mistake.

Dr. Carlin, your paper 'A Multidisciplinary, Science-Based Approach to the Economics of Climate Change' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; "Explicitly endorses AGW but does not quantify or minimize".

Is this an accurate representation of your paper?
Carlin: "No, if Cook et al's paper classifies my paper, 'A Multidisciplinary, Science-Based Approach to the Economics of Climate Change' as "explicitly endorses AGW but does not quantify or minimize," nothing could be further from either my intent or the contents of my paper. I did not explicitly or even implicitly endorse AGW and did quantify my skepticism concerning AGW. Both the paper and the abstract make this clear.


​

So face it. There is a lot of REAL DIRT to be found in that 97% consensus crap!
And the only dirt you can find is the mud flinging the likes of Cook & cohorts have been flinging at the Oregon petition...
All you got are the allegations made on Wikipedia and they all go "poof" when you follow them up..but that`s par for the course when it comes to global warming "science"
take a look at the edits happening on wiki`s Oregon petition page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oregon_Petition&action=history

This one is interesting:
Older version:

Revision as of 00:01, 31 October 2012 (edit)
As of 2008, the petition's website states, "The current list of 31,072 petition signers includes 9,021 PhD; 6,961 MS; 2,240 MD and DVM; and 12,850 BS or equivalent academic degrees. Most of the MD and DVM signers also have underlying degrees in basic science."<ref name=qualifications>{{cite web | url=http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdatabase/GWPP/Qualifications_Of_Signers.html | title=Qualification of Signers (2008)

Now:

Latest revision as of 14:26, 12 April 2014 (edit)

As of 2013, the petition's website states, "The current list of 31,487 petition signers includes 9,029 PhD; 7,157 MS; 2,586 MD and DVM; and 12,715 BS or equivalent academic degrees. Most of the MD and DVM signers also have underlying degrees in basic science."

Seems that petition is gaining momentum
415 more scientists signed up !

 

[Crick]

Why don't you show us a majority of climate scientists having signed the OISM petition.

 

[Iceweasel]

I say let's call it a done deal. Pat the warmers on the back and remove all funding.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

I say let's call it a done deal. Pat the warmers on the back and remove all funding.

Let them get their funding from all the wildly successful "green" corporations, like Solyndra and Sun Tech.

 

[Crick]

What is a done deal? Funding for what?

 

[skookerasbil]

Why don't you show us a majority of climate scientists having signed the OISM petition.

s0n.....their shit is rigged......of course they're not going to sign the petition. The OISM petition exists because tens of thousands of scientists are sick as shit of the rigging.

 

[IanC]

Oh my, ol' Staph is trotting out the venerable OISM petition project. If you are stupid enough to be taken in by that peice of crap, you are stupid indeed.

Oregon Petition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Global Warming Petition Project, also known as the Oregon Petition, is a petition urging the United States government to reject the global warming Kyoto Protocol of 1997 and similar policies.[1] It was organized and circulated by Arthur B. Robinson, president of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine in 1998, and again in 2007.[2][3] Past National Academy of Sciences president Frederick Seitz wrote a cover letter endorsing the petition.[4]

According to Robinson, the petition has over 31,000 signatories. Over 9,000 report to have a Ph.D.,[1][2][3] mostly in engineering.[5] The NIPCC (2009) Report lists 31,478 degreed signatories, including 9,029 with Ph.D.s.[6] The list has been criticized for its lack of verification, with pranksters successfully submitting Charles Darwin, members of the Spice Girls and characters from Star Wars, and getting them briefly included on the list.[7]

So why don`t you show us where the name "Charles Darwin" is on the list of 1464 names under "D" ?

Signers D - Global Warming Petition Project

[FONT=Geneva,Arial,Helvetica,Helv][SIZE=+2]Signers D [/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Geneva,Arial,Helvetica,Helv][SIZE=+1]1,464 Signers Out of 31,072 Total in US
[/SIZE][/FONT]

Even if it were there that would still leave 1463 signatories just under "D"
And where are the members of the Spice girls?
Nothing under "S" for "Spice"
No Melanie Brown either under the "B"s, but there are lots of other Browns:
So please do tell us which of the above were members of the "Spice Girls" !

It`s easy to verify any of the other Browns on that list:
Boston University Office of the President
Be my guest and keep going down the list!

Let`s see if this can be verified:
Really?
OOPS he is not on the list either!
And while you are at it show me a link where the list of names is, for that idiotic 97% consensus survey skepticalscience.org fabricated

I`ll give you some names which were on that list (which Cook does not make public)..:
So face it. There is a lot of REAL DIRT to be found in that 97% consensus crap!
And the only dirt you can find is the mud flinging the likes of Cook & cohorts have been flinging at the Oregon petition...
All you got are the allegations made on Wikipedia and they all go "poof" when you follow them up..but that`s par for the course when it comes to global warming "science"
take a look at the edits happening on wiki`s Oregon petition page:
Oregon Petition: Revision history - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This one is interesting:
Older version:

Revision as of 00:01, 31 October 2012 (edit)
As of 2008, the petition's website states, "The current list of 31,072 petition signers includes 9,021 PhD; 6,961 MS; 2,240 MD and DVM; and 12,850 BS or equivalent academic degrees. Most of the MD and DVM signers also have underlying degrees in basic science."<ref name=qualifications>{{cite web | url=http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdatabase/GWPP/Qualifications_Of_Signers.html | title=Qualification of Signers (2008)

Now:

Latest revision as of 14:26, 12 April 2014 (edit)

As of 2013, the petition's website states, "The current list of 31,487 petition signers includes 9,029 PhD; 7,157 MS; 2,586 MD and DVM; and 12,715 BS or equivalent academic degrees. Most of the MD and DVM signers also have underlying degrees in basic science."

Seems that petition is gaining momentum
415 more scientists signed up !

interesting post. for those that dont follow the skeptical side of the news......the Univ of Queensland is threatening to sue someone if they release the metadata from Cook's paper. the same data that was repeatedly refused to academics like Tol who wish to replicate the results. their reason? it might identify the raters, who are all publically identified in the paper itself. they even threatened to sue if the letter threatening to sue was released. copyright infringement, doncha know. the data was left lying around SkS, not even password protected. you would think those idiots would have learned their lesson by now.

the SkS boys left their photoshopped Nazi selfies lying around too. twice!!

 

[IanC]

What's your point? The claim here recently is that Steyer and others are unfairly spending their fortunes pushing climate "alarmism" - that far more money is being spent by the as-yet-unnamed interests who stand to get rich from reducing everyone's carbon footprint than has been spent by fossil fuel industry advocates spreading lies. Do you support that position?

Let's cut to the chase. Ian, what do you think of the work of the Heartland Institute?

Im not sure what your point is. are you trying to compare the $100M Steyer is willing to fork over to combat Republican AGW deniers with, say the $25,000 over the last decade that the Koch brothers have given Heartland (earmarked for healthcare)? I think we all know that your side is fantastically better funded than my side.

Although I am not an American, I still believe people have a right to spend their money supporting any group or cause that they see fit.

Heartland has many various 'issues' with which it tries to make an impact. I dont know them all but I imagine they have a well thought out rationale for each. I personally was against their billboard showing the Unibomber supporting AGW, as were many other skeptics. but it certainly got a lot of publicity for a few thousand bucks, didnt it?

slightly off topic...

Columbia University’s Climate Center has received $5.7 million from the National Science Foundation for the university’s “PoLAR Climate Change Education Partnership,” to “engage adult learners and inform public understanding and response to climate change.”

The funding was used to create climate change “games”, including fake voicemails from the future, one of which bizarrely warns that in 2035 neo-luddites would kill scientists, anyone who “knows anything”, and other oddities such as advertisements for Tsunami insurance.

so one wasteful funding, at one university, is larger than the total yearly output at Heartland. tell me again about that story where the skeptics are lavishly funded. hahahaha

 

[skookerasbil]

LMAO....hey Ian.....check this out. More evidence of rigging................

Sponsors of Pentagon's alarm-raising climate study could benefit from action - Washington Times


Lotsa people getting their pockets lined from this ******* hoax.

Stoopid meatheads still think it is about the climate!!!