Remember the 400+ anti-gw report ?

[Calrissian]

Inhofe's 400 Global Warming Deniers Debunked

List of "Scientists" Includes Economists, Amateurs, TV Weathermen and Industry Hacks - the dailygreen.com

see: Inhofes 400 report dismissed

--

As I expected, that much touted piece of junk report was supported by a group of people, few of whom have any relevance or understanding of the issue. Even worse, many of them are arguably have been totally bought out by companies/agencies who are actively promoting 'don't worry about GW, its not a problem'.

As ever, regardless of which side of the debate you sit on, it'd be at least reasonable to attempt to ascertain the background of those who are writing the reports. Thats often not easy, but then, who said research was meant to be easy.

Calrissian: time for Flash Gordon

[Stratos Ferric]

see: Inhofes 400 report dismissed

--

As I expected, that much touted piece of junk report was supported by a group of people, few of whom have any relevance or understanding of the issue. Even worse, many of them are arguably have been totally bought out by companies/agencies who are actively promoting 'don't worry about GW, its not a problem'.

As ever, regardless of which side of the debate you sit on, it'd be at least reasonable to attempt to ascertain the background of those who are writing the reports. Thats often not easy, but then, who said research was meant to be easy.

Calrissian: time for Flash Gordon

As ever, I find reading the comments below the article as eye-opening.

The economists' inclusion in any list is always dangerous because it moves the discussion - potentially - away from 'are we warming / is man culpable'? towards 'if we admit this then what might the economic repercussions be'? These are very different conclusions and positions, and I'd be bothered that further extrapolation might be - and in the US often is - GW isn't all bad news economically, for the US, in the short-term: we need less oil and will get heavier crops. The risk is that one used reductive logic to get back to a starting point which is that "GW is bunkum". Dangerous!

One of the points in the main body is that science is built on scepticism. It is indeed, but as I find with my clients, good scepticism requires that we look in every direction on the compass and test EVERY hypothesis, not just the ones we don't like.

[Calrissian]

It is all very odd indeed how this kind of nonsense 'group of people support campaign x' stuff gets any respect.

If I went to a doctor, whose only specialism was in fact Stellar Physics, just WHY would I - or anyone else, take any notice of what he thought about health ?

-

Indeed, the inclusion of the economists was particularly lame. By default their mindset is one of money, profit, and outright 'to hell with everything else, capitalism WILL rule' doctrine.

-

The only people who should be endorsing/compiling climate reports are indeed...none other than climatologists.

*I remind the deniers of just how lame the IPCC report was, because it was hacked together, edited, and released by....politicians. In many respects, the IPCC report is perhaps the least scientific report ever released into the mainstream press.

Calrissian: time for battlefield 2142

[jethro]

There's always two sides to any argument, you'll be hard pushed to find anyone's Mum on this list:

http://www.berlingske.dk/article/20071216/verden/71216035/

And when it comes to funding:

http://www.berlingske.dk/article/20071216/verden/71216035/

[Calrissian]

Yes, 2 sides (or more) to an issue, but if the issue is CLIMATE SCIENCE, why would you be interested in the views of anyone who is not a climatologist ?

[jethro]

Well, you'd need Astro-physicists to look into the Solar and planetary influences, Atmospheric scientists for the well, the clue is in the title, Oceanographers, because there's an awful lot of water and water vapour out there, etc etc etc. There are many separate disciplines which make up a complete view of climate, then you have to take into account how climate change of today is similar/different to climate change of the past. Then you need specialists who measure and judge the impact upon animals and plants. Plus experts to look at the expected impact upon humans, plus if we're to blame you need folk to figure out alternative technology which will provide for increasing energy demands in a more sustainable, cleaner way. I guess you'd need a few financial whizz kids to figure out where all the money's coming from to pay for this, I expect thrown into the pot there would have to be folk who decide whether or not financial outlay is justified in land/lives saved or emissions cut.

This is just an off the cuff list, I'm sure people could add to it.

At the end of the day, we've got to figure out what is happening, why it's happening, has it happened before, if so, what happened next, where do we go from here, what do we need to do, can we do it, will it make any difference, how do we pay for it, who pays for it, what do we do first; that's an awful lot of decisions, it's going to take more than just climatologists to answer that lot.

[Chris Knight]

Well, you'd need Astro-physicists to look into the Solar and planetary influences, Atmospheric scientists for the well, the clue is in the title, Oceanographers, because there's an awful lot of water and water vapour out there, etc etc etc. There are many separate disciplines which make up a complete view of climate, then you have to take into account how climate change of today is similar/different to climate change of the past. Then you need specialists who measure and judge the impact upon animals and plants. Plus experts to look at the expected impact upon humans, plus if we're to blame you need folk to figure out alternative technology which will provide for increasing energy demands in a more sustainable, cleaner way. I guess you'd need a few financial whizz kids to figure out where all the money's coming from to pay for this, I expect thrown into the pot there would have to be folk who decide whether or not financial outlay is justified in land/lives saved or emissions cut.

This is just an off the cuff list, I'm sure people could add to it.

At the end of the day, we've got to figure out what is happening, why it's happening, has it happened before, if so, what happened next, where do we go from here, what do we need to do, can we do it, will it make any difference, how do we pay for it, who pays for it, what do we do first; that's an awful lot of decisions, it's going to take more than just climatologists to answer that lot.

Don't forget the computer programmers needed to completely hash the models up.

[Calrissian]

We were talking about CLIMATE SCIENCE, not the implications on scciety.

Sure, economists and even sociologists would be useful in a report on 'possible' outcomes, but the ONLY people who should be touting data/research/theories are the climatologists.

[Bobby]

I personally couldn't give a toss if 99.99% of all climate scientists, meteorologists, geographers etc completely laughed off AGW theory. It doesn't make the science right or wrong. The science is the science - it's right or it's wrong, no matter how many people believe in it.

But it is quite telling nonetheless that many sceptics aren't really qualified or are dodgy.

Edited January 13, 2008 by Magpie

[Stuka]

But it is quite telling nonetheless that many sceptics aren't really qualified or are dodgy.

[jethro]

We were talking about CLIMATE SCIENCE, not the implications on scciety.

Sure, economists and even sociologists would be useful in a report on 'possible' outcomes, but the ONLY people who should be touting data/research/theories are the climatologists.

But the science needs the input from every possible discipline which could have an impact. How are climatologists going to figure out if, say for arguments sake, Solar output has played a role, without Astro Physicists? How are they going to decipher the role of ocean currents, both past and present, without Oceanographers? It's a very long list of separate information which is needed to be compiled before Climatologists can unravel the info and figure out how it all fits together.

Magpie: How can you say this?

But it is quite telling nonetheless that many sceptics aren't really qualified or are dodgy.

Yes there are people who are quoted in the media as saying this, or that who aren't qualified; but there are a many, many eminently qualified people who also are sceptics. It just reduces the argument down to "oh sceptics must all be wrong because blah blah said this" or "blah blah got money from here, so it must be wrong". Both stances do nothing to answer the basis for the scepticism, neither stance refutes the science of sceptics with sound scientific arguments.

There are maverick characters on both sides of this debate, that is the nature of any game when oodles of publicity is on the table, ready for the taking; if we want to reduce this down to "unqualified to comment, dodgy, shouldn't be involved" then I think the pro AGW side have scored an enormous own goal; the chosen front man is.....Al Gore!! Scientist? Climatologist? Any kind of Ologist?

[jethro]

I personally couldn't give a toss if 99.99% of all climate scientists, meteorologists, geographers etc completely laughed off AGW theory. It doesn't make the science right or wrong. The science is the science - it's right or it's wrong, no matter how many people believe in it.

But it is quite telling nonetheless that many sceptics aren't really qualified or are dodgy.

Forgot to say in previous post.....

The science is the science - it's right or wrong, no matter how many people believe in it.

Absolutely! So why are we being driven by consensus?

[Devonian]

Forgot to say in previous post.....

The science is the science - it's right or wrong, no matter how many people believe in it.

Absolutely! So why are we being driven by consensus?

Why would anyone think the consensus isn't driven by the science? Because Met O (all all the worlds various science bodies) are in on some conspiracy to deceive us? Poppycock.

[jethro]

Why would anyone think the consensus isn't driven by the science? Because Met O (all all the worlds various science bodies) are in on some conspiracy to deceive us? Poppycock.

I didn't say that, nor did I infer that.

[keithtod43]

Why would anyone think the consensus isn't driven by the science? Because Met O (all all the worlds various science bodies) are in on some conspiracy to deceive us? Poppycock.The met office isent driven by science but by money [there funded by goverment] and a lot of scientists are paid for by the goverment.Thats the the problem a lot of the global warmind debate has be clouded because the goverment as seen gw as a way of raising taxes.

[Devonian]

I didn't say that, nor did I infer that.

Then, I'm sorry but I don't see what you meant.

....then I think the pro AGW side have scored an enormous own goal; the chosen front man is.....Al Gore!! Scientist? Climatologist? Any kind of Ologist?

Roger Revelle was one of the first people to show how CO2 was a problem "...Revelle co-authored a paper with Hans Suess that suggested that the Earth's oceans would absorb excess carbon dioxide generated by humanity at a much slower rate than previously predicted by geoscientists, thereby suggesting that human gas emissions might create a "greenhouse effect" that would cause global warming over time.". Al Gore studied under Revelle in the 70's. Mocking Al Gore's qualifications will work for many here, but not me. Gore is well versed in the whole AGW issue

The met office isent driven by science but by money [there funded by goverment] and a lot of scientists are paid for by the goverment.Thats the the problem a lot of the global warmind debate has be clouded because the goverment as seen gw as a way of raising taxes.

Such cynicism in one so young .

I'm going to the Met Office next week and for an open day later in the month. I have to say I wont be putting your point forward to anyone there, the idea people who work at the Met O should not be paid for working is too radical for me...

Edited January 13, 2008 by Devonian

[Gray-Wolf]

If I were more of a Deity than I am I would make sure that all those filibusters who helped put us into an inescapable crises for the sake of cash, 15mins of fame or worse, would spend the rest of eternity watching those they had any feeling for (probably themselves in reality) peeled and rubbed in salt and vinegar on a daily basis as a form of penance.

So many areas of humanity are in such unsustainable overshoot that to allow us the ignorance to squander the only thing capable of 'offsetting' the worse to come is beyond criminal.

Capitalism and greed allow us to maintain poverty, disease and ignorance for the sake of the few but the climates response to our tinkerings is still, presently, beyond our capacities to forsee and the range of 'possible effects' all include mega death in the developing world.............so lets procrastinate some more eh? Can't go spending our 'paper wealth' on saving folk who may not need saving eh?

Anyone who has done a 'favour' knows cash is unnecessary so why hide from our greed and call it something else?

Oooh I love Sundays, so much preaching to be done...so little time.....

Ho Hum

Edited January 13, 2008 by Gray-Wolf

[jethro]

Then, I'm sorry but I don't see what you meant.

Roger Revelle was one of the first people to show how CO2 was a problem "...Revelle co-authored a paper with Hans Suess that suggested that the Earth's oceans would absorb excess carbon dioxide generated by humanity at a much slower rate than previously predicted by geoscientists, thereby suggesting that human gas emissions might create a "greenhouse effect" that would cause global warming over time.". Al Gore studied under Revelle in the 70's. Mocking Al Gore's qualifications will work for many here, but not me. Gore is well versed in the whole AGW issue

Magpie said he didn't care how many scientists agreed, so long as the science is correct. I agree. However, when sceptics (god I hate that word) point to science which disputes the IPCC, regardless of whether or not that sceptical science is proven or peer reviewed; it is dismissed on the basis that it is not consensus. I'm not sure I follow the logic or reasoning of this. Either we say consensus is right and the majority view is the right one or we say science and facts are right, even if it is a lone voice which goes against the majority. You cannot have it both ways as, and when the mood suits.

Again Magpie said " But it is quite telling nonetheless that many sceptics aren't really qualified or are dodgy", Calrissian said only climatologists should have a voice, those are the only ones qualified to make statements. Again I don't understand the logic or reasoning here if this is the premise we should work upon, then why have Al Gore heading up the campaign? You cannot say people are not qualified, dodgy or have professional degrees and careers and that they shouldn't be listened to, their opinion is invalid but have an unqualified spokes person. Either these rules of qualified scientists only apply, or they do not - you cannot have it both ways as and when it suits.

Al Gore has a degree in government, he went to Divinity School and attended Vanderbilt Law School; presumably this makes him qualified to speak on government, law and religion. Where's the climatology degree? Any form of science degree? In the words of Maureen Lipman, does he have an 'ology?

http://www.ontheissues.org/Profile_Al_Gore.htm

[Devonian]

Magpie said he didn't care how many scientists agreed, so long as the science is correct. I agree. However, when sceptics (god I hate that word) point to science which disputes the IPCC, regardless of whether or not that sceptical science is proven or peer reviewed; it is dismissed on the basis that it is not consensus.

I'd like to see an example. I might 'dismiss' something 'sceptic' (it's not a word I like either - I'm a sceptic as well) but I very much doubt I would becuase it goes against the consensus but than the science as currently accepted.

I'm not sure I follow the logic or reasoning of this. Either we say consensus is right and the majority view is the right one or we say science and facts are right, even if it is a lone voice which goes against the majority. You cannot have it both ways as, and when the mood suits.

Again Magpie said " But it is quite telling nonetheless that many sceptics aren't really qualified or are dodgy", Calrissian said only climatologists should have a voice, those are the only ones qualified to make statements. Again I don't understand the logic or reasoning here if this is the premise we should work upon, then why have Al Gore heading up the campaign? You cannot say people are not qualified, dodgy or have professional degrees and careers and that they shouldn't be listened to, their opinion is invalid but have an unqualified spokes person. Either these rules of qualified scientists only apply, or they do not - you cannot have it both ways as and when it suits.

Al Gore has a degree in government, he went to Divinity School and attended Vanderbilt Law School; presumably this makes him qualified to speak on government, law and religion. Where's the climatology degree? Any form of science degree? In the words of Maureen Lipman, does he have an 'ology?

http://www.ontheissues.org/Profile_Al_Gore.htm

jethro, do you have an relevant ology? No. Do I? No. So what, this is a bulletin board we all just say what we think.

Now, which of us is qualified to speak rather than voice our opinions or quote those who are? None of us? Well, I'm not qualified and as such I listen to those who are - many of them just down the road from me in Exeter. I am not going to start saying I know better than people at Hadley when I don't - that would be arrogant.

Now, I could listen to the 400. I don't because I think they're wrong. That's my opinion, it's my view formed from listening to the experts for a good long while. Time will tell.

[jethro]

I'd like to see an example. I might 'dismiss' something 'sceptic' (it's not a word I like either - I'm a sceptic as well) but I very much doubt I would becuase it goes against the consensus but than the science as currently accepted.

jethro, do you have an relevant ology? No. Do I? No. So what, this is a bulletin board we all just say what we think.

Now, which of us is qualified to speak rather than voice our opinions or quote those who are? None of us? Well, I'm not qualified and as such I listen to those who are - many of them just down the road from me in Exeter. I am not going to start saying I know better than people at Hadley when I don't - that would be arrogant.

Now, I could listen to the 400. I don't because I think they're wrong. That's my opinion, it's my view formed from listening to the experts for a good long while. Time will tell.

There are lots of peer reviewed papers which are discounted, dismissed because they are not in agreement with the consensus view.

Do I have an "ology", yes I do, but not a science based one. Do I listen to others, absolutely. Do I think I know better than those at Hadley, no but there are other's who are more qualified than I, that do.

I've merely been pointing out the inconsistencies in these discussions on here. Sometimes the consensus view is the right one, the only one according to the AGW argument; sometimes it isn't. Sometimes you have to be a qualified climatologist, sometimes you don't. On the one hand we have Al Gore being credible, able to be a spoke person and on the other hand we have Lord Monkton who isn't. Which is it to be? Either we just look at the science, all of the science, not just that of the IPCC consensus or we spend oodles of time bickering over who said what, and whether or not they are credible. If it is the former, then there is a growing body of science which throws doubt on the consensus view and it needs assessing and discussing sensibly. If it is the latter then I cannot see it will achieve much in furthering our understanding.

[Devonian]

There are lots of peer reviewed papers which are discounted, dismissed because they are not in agreement with the consensus view.

Do I have an "ology", yes I do, but not a science based one. Do I listen to others, absolutely. Do I think I know better than those at Hadley, no but there are other's who are more qualified than I, that do.

I've merely been pointing out the inconsistencies in these discussions on here. Sometimes the consensus view is the right one, the only one according to the AGW argument; sometimes it isn't. Sometimes you have to be a qualified climatologist, sometimes you don't. On the one hand we have Al Gore being credible, able to be a spoke person and on the other hand we have Lord Monkton who isn't.

Ah, but Gore reports the science, Monckton has made (pretty damn feeble) attempt to do science. Big difference!

Which is it to be? Either we just look at the science, all of the science, not just that of the IPCC consensus or we spend oodles of time bickering over who said what, and whether or not they are credible. If it is the former, then there is a growing body of science which throws doubt on the consensus view and it needs assessing and discussing sensibly. If it is the latter then I cannot see it will achieve much in furthering our understanding.

It's like evolution. Do we look at all the science? What do we filter out as not up to scratch and how?

Edited January 13, 2008 by Devonian

[Gray-Wolf]

Any idiot can end up with an 'ology'......I did, it means nothing without the intelligence to use it. My view is that many parrots come through with firsts yet those who deserve most (and really fought ,and won, to gain an understanding and insight of their subject) end up with a 2/1.

In so far as these discussions are concerned their most valuable thing to bring along is a mind full open.

If you have a modicum of intelligence then you can form as valid an opinion as anyone as you will understand how the data interacts with reality (and if not folk will help you along to a better understanding........knowledge isn't like cash, folk love to share it).

I still find it intriguing to try and assess what motivates many posters in their opinions

.

Edited January 13, 2008 by Gray-Wolf

[Roger J Smith]

I think it is useful to read the debunking statement and subject it to the harsh light of objective criticism.

Below, I have reproduced the article with some comments of my own in bold type.

THE DEBUNKING ARTICLE -- DEBUNKED

Sen. James M. Inhofe once famously called global warming the "greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people." It's a deliciously concise phrase – so well said, in fact, that it demands repeating, because it is so sure of itself, and so wrong.

Entirely a clash of two opinions, nothing resolved so far.

In the delirious tradition of American conspiracy theories (like that old farce, the Apollo 11 moon landing) Inhofe backs up categorical declarations with voluminous documentation.

No proof offered that Inhofe believes that the moon landings are a hoax, I'm sure he doesn't. Another "delirious conspiracy theory" presumably is that Lee Harvey Oswald did not act alone, currently accepted by over half the people in the United States and I would imagine the U.K. as well. Not a very good foundation laid here for conspiracy theories being wrong-headed from the outset, and no actual proof that Inhofe is particularly subject to believing them.

Inhofe's latest claim is that "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." It's a claim backed up by honest-to-goodness research, of the cut-and-paste kind.

Gratuitous insults of the research methods of the skeptics, entirely without proof or even anecdotal reference, therefore entirely dismissable.

Like any conspiracy theory, the sheer magnitude of the effort lends it a first-blush air of credibility. And, like any conspiracy theory, it just doesn't hold up under scrutiny.

The above has already been shown to be a very faulty piece of logic, should have been edited out of this statement.

But it takes a Hercules up to 12 labors-worth of boredom to prove it. Our Hercules is Mark V. Johnson, who works for AOL's Propeller.com. He endured 413 labors, one for each supposed expert on Inhofe's list, so you wouldn't have to.

Okay, so give Mark a medal for volunteering to be Ideologue of the Month. I guess Michael Moore was busy.

He combed through university profiles, oil money think tank rosters, news stories and the now-robust literature of climate skeptic debunking. He couldn't identify every name, and we'll say at the outset that there may well be a handful of skeptics on this list with legitimate knowledge of climate science who question some aspect of the theory. It is, however, useful to remember that a theory, in science, is as good as gold (lest we start doubting something so incredible as the theory of gravity).

Surely the logic above reduces to this absurdity -- we have a theory, and that's as good as you can ask for in science, so why bother even trying to disprove it? ... With this standard of logical analysis, no wonder the AGW lobby has wandered so far into scientific no man's land.

Here's a quick breakdown of Johnson's findings:

Inhofe's list includes 413 people. (Score one Inhofe; the math holds up.)

So amusing, I nearly fell off my chair.

84 have either taken money from, or are connected to, fossil fuel industries, or think tanks started by those industries.

This sounds far worse than it really is, why should large industries not be allowed to contract research, and if these skeptics are blacklisted by the profession, who are they supposed to work for? Also, 413 minus 84 equals 329 who have no documented connection with the fossil fuel industries -- which in itself debunks the common perception that all skeptics are in the employ of the oil companies.

49 are retired

and are therefore presumably older and wiser than some of the 20-somethings who claim they know everything about climate after living through the past five years and reading about the fifty before them. ... a clear case of age discrimination by the authors of this report.

44 are television weathermen

In North America, most television weathermen (and women) are accredited meteorologists and have been making independent daily forecasts for ten or twenty years in many cases, they are not like UK weather people who just repeat the Metoffice forecast in their own words. So they have as much legitimacy in this field as anyone else -- in fact, using the prevailing logic on this forum, they are paid to make weather forecasts. That is always the first line of objection to non-professionals who dare to doubt the theories of the AGW lobby. So you can't have it both ways.

20 are economists

Okay, show them the door, now we're down to 393 skeptics.

70 have no apparent expertise in climate science

I am quite aware that this is the sort of near-libel that would be levelled at a person like myself, blacklisted out of the profession for holding dissenting views, and therefore unable to document "expertise" but really, expertise is a willingness to agree with the majority view, I mean what else can it be when there is no proof possible that the observed warming is anthropogenic and not natural? The science is bogus so how can there be expertise in connection to it?

Several supposed skeptics have publicly stated that they are very concerned about global warming, and support efforts to address it. One claims he was duped into signing the list and regrets it.

Not everyone is equally brave under pressure -- I would not be surprised to hear about skeptics becoming unskeptical after a session in the lunchroom with the likes of those on this forum who place enormous social and professional pressure on dissenters. And I have to ask this -- if you're so sure you're right, why are you so worked up? That bluster is usually a sign of uncertainty. In truth, you don't know what's causing the warming, and you want the political benefits of the AGW theory more than the scientific truth value.

Before we get ahead of ourselves, here are some concessions and explanations:

Taking money from companies that have an established stake in burning fossil fuels doesn't mean your science is junk, but it ought to sound alarm bells for anyone aiming for the label of "skeptic."

So just starve to death or drive a taxi, skeptics, is that what we're saying here?

Being retired doesn't mean you've lost your smarts, but it does make it harder to be considered "prominent" on a cutting-edge issue.

This gets an A+ for fallacious reasoning -- who cares whether the author of this report considers a retired climate expert "prominent" or not -- I sure don't, and I would take the comments of a Reid Bryson over half a dozen eager PhD candidates any day of the week, especially in such a disputed scientific area as this.

Weathermen help us navigate the vagaries of weather on a local level every day, but this isn't a discipline that requires forecasting world climate conditions decades from now. (Prominent? In one sense: They are more frequently seen and heard.)

Totally ignores the fact that many TV weathermen have an avid interest in global climate issues, and in any case, are very well qualified to assess whether current patterns are unusual in one way or another -- I would pay considerable attention to how they view the issue, because they've seen warm weather patterns before, and would be very attuned to changes in them. The whole debate really centers around what's causing the more frequent warmth of present times, and more so in Europe than North America. Are we to blame for it, or is the atmosphere dealing the cards differently? Surely the people who spend all day looking at weather patterns would have as good a contribution to make here as anyone.

Economists, clearly, are valuable participants in policy debates. Clearly, they aren't climate scientists.

Like I said, the economists can take a walk, the argument still doesn't change.

Finally, we could line up 59 regular people (hi Mom!) who don't have any particular expertise in climate science, but believe adamantly in it. You wouldn't care what they think.

Finally, they said something sensible. But the real point is obscured, the people in this group without "expertise" are probably well qualified to offer an opinion based on a combination of intelligence and detailed study of the issue. If not, then why do some of you comment in favour of AGW? Same thing, we're not asking you to remain silent while the so-called experts debate ... because anyone with any degree of honesty realizes that this issue is far from settled, and may not be settled for decades to come ... to know this would require the ability to predict accurately the course of temperatures over that period of time, and more, to be able to explain how that related to greenhouse gas emissions.

Here is our conclusion: Any list with that much "filler" ought to raise the hair on any skeptic's neck.

They demonstrated in their own twisted logic that the "filler" was less than half the total. So all they are really saying is that two hundred people who have credibility found two hundred more who might not have so much, to produce a report debunking global warming theory. This is hardly a debunking of the skeptics, more like a slap on their wrists.

Science is the only discipline built on skepticism. It's the job of every scientist to question, and test, his or her own conclusions, and those of colleagues.

Ssh, you're not supposed to mention that, remember what we said in the lounge at Montreal, or was that Bali?

The whole fact Inhofe was trying to debunk – that there is a broad consensus among scientists that global warming is real, caused by humans and a serious threat – was only articulated because of hoaxes perpetrated by the so-called skeptics on this list. (Why not assume Inhofe found them all?) By undermining the press and politicians on the issue, those global warming skeptics helped keep the problem from being recognized, let alone addressed, for years. One could say they stood squarely in the path of truth, and thwarted its progress, jujitsu-style, until finally being overrun by a triumphantly emboldened mass.

Why do I have this image of Stalin reviewing the troops in Red Square?

If you hunger for lists of skeptics – the scientific kind with true expertise – we have some recommendations.

For instance, the American Geophysical Union, which includes 50,000 earth, ocean and atmospheric scientists, among others, whose first mission is to value the scientific method (rational skepticism), has stated since 2003 that "Human activities are increasingly altering the Earth's climate. These effects add to natural influences that have been present over Earth's history. Scientific evidence strongly indicates that natural influences cannot explain the rapid increase in global near-surface temperatures observed during the second half of the 20th century. ... The unprecedented increases in greenhouse gas concentrations, together with other human influences on climate over the past century and those anticipated for the future, constitute a real basis for concern."

If this isn't the most lukewarm and arm-twisted statement imaginable under the circumstances, then what is?

And if you, like Inhofe, value international expertise, consider the Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change. By some estimates, 2,000 scientists have participated. Their sole purpose is to state consensus about global warming, humankind's role in causing it and its likely effects. The panel spoke clearly last year that it is nearly certain that human pollution is making the climate warmer, and that it will have dire consequences around the world.

A good online resource for information on global warming and the wars over science information is DeSmogBlog.

The best thing about Inhofe's latest hoax is that so few people paid it any mind, outside of his allies in the conspiracy theory blogosphere. Thankfully, the senator's best hoaxes are behind him. And thanks to Johnson, we can all peer right up this tired old magician's sleeves.

I just peered up your sleeves, and found a disturbing lack of rigour. There is nothing here but smoke and mirrors, and to say that this is some ringing defeat of the skeptical position is total nonsense. It seems that the standards of scientific rigour tolerated in the AGW camp readily transfer to their politics, something that would surprise nobody familiar with the politics of global warming. At the same time, I have to concede, they have won many political battles in the past five years. Stalinism was on the ascendancy for two generations itself, of course, and may not be entirely dead today.

Just for the record, I am not a member of the 413-member panel and I do not know any of them personally. I do not work for any fossil fuel company and I believe that the observed warming is indeed partly anthropogenic and partly natural. I believe that the proportions of each contribution to the warming is the essential scientific question, and one that has been obscured in this sort of debate. And I believe that because it impacts on both our understanding of climate and weather, and on public policy.

Edited January 13, 2008 by Roger J Smith

[Calrissian]

Again I don't understand the logic or reasoning here if this is the premise we should work upon, then why have Al Gore heading up the campaign? You cannot say people are not qualified, dodgy or have professional degrees and careers and that they shouldn't be listened to, their opinion is invalid but have an unqualified spokes person. Either these rules of qualified scientists only apply, or they do not - you cannot have it both ways as and when it suits.

Al Gore has a degree in government, he went to Divinity School and attended Vanderbilt Law School; presumably this makes him qualified to speak on government, law and religion. Where's the climatology degree? Any form of science degree? In the words of Maureen Lipman, does he have an 'ology?

http://www.ontheissues.org/Profile_Al_Gore.htm

Al Gore indeed. He is merely a washed up politician who has found himself now on a great bandwagon that gives him great credability and a lot of conference/speech-making money.

I'm fine with the guy, but he is no climatologist, and does not merit serious attention when it comes to the issue.

Same goes for the all the media hacks who proclaim themselves 'environmental correspondents', when almost none of them even have the most rudimentary understanding of climate science.

[Devonian]

Al Gore indeed. He is merely a washed up politician who has found himself now on a great bandwagon that gives him great credability and a lot of conference/speech-making money.

So cynical :huh: Do check the link I gave please. Al Gore is NOT a mug when it comes to climate science.

I'm fine with the guy, but he is no climatologist, and does not merit serious attention when it comes to the issue.

Same goes for the all the media hacks who proclaim themselves 'environmental correspondents', when almost none of them even have the most rudimentary understanding of climate science.

Again, this is really cynical . The BBC have science correspondents who I for one am in no position to so criticise (as do some of the better newspapers).

Edited January 13, 2008 by Devonian