UN Blowback: More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warm

[Yazman]

I thought this was interesting. I have been unconvinced of anthropogenic climate change for the past year or so**** - , and I just figured you guys would be interested in seeing this:

Source: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2158072e-802a-23ad-45f0-274616db87e6

Snippet from source:



POZNAN, Poland - The UN global warming conference currently underway in Poland is about to face a serious challenge from over 650 dissenting scientists from around the globe who are criticizing the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore. Set for release this week, a newly updated U.S. Senate Minority Report features the dissenting voices of over 650 international scientists, many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN. The report has added about 250 scientists (and growing) in 2008 to the over 400 scientists who spoke out in 2007. The over 650 dissenting scientists are more than 12 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.

The U.S. Senate report is the latest evidence of the growing groundswell of scientific opposition rising to challenge the UN and Gore. Scientific meetings are now being dominated by a growing number of skeptical scientists. The prestigious International Geological Congress, dubbed the geologists' equivalent of the Olympic Games, was held in Norway in August 2008 and prominently featured the voices and views of scientists skeptical of man-made global warming fears.

A hint of what the upcoming report contains:

“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.

“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical.” - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”

Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists,” - Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.

“The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.” - Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico

“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.

“Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.” – . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.


Please click on the link to read the whole article.

****note for people who need every single word in a post to be defined to death lest they make ridiculous inferences: I'm saying I'm unconvinced only of "anthropogenic" climate change; I have been somewhat skeptical lately of the idea that humans are directly responsible for the climate changes witnessed.

[IcarusAngel]

More scientists express doubts on Darwin
600 dissenters sign on challenging claims about support for theory


More than 600 scientists holding doctoral degrees have gone on the record expressing skepticism about Darwin's theory of evolution and calling for critical examination of the evidence cited in its support.

All are signatories to the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism (http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/) statement, which reads: "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account (http://www.wnd.com/#) for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged." The statement, which includes endorsement by members of the prestigious U.S. National Academy of Sciences and Russian Academy of Sciences, was first published by the Seattle-based Discovery Institute in 2001 to challenge statements about Darwinian evolution made in promoting PBS's "Evolution" series.

list of 610 signatories includes scientists from National Academies of Science in Russia, Czech Republic, Hungary, India (http://www.wnd.com/#) (Hindustan), Nigeria, Poland, Russia and the United States. Many of the signers are professors or researchers at major universities (http://www.wnd.com/#) and international research institutions such as Cambridge University, British Museum of Natural History, Moscow State University, Masaryk University in Czech Republic, Hong Kong University, University of Turku in Finland, Autonomous University of Guadalajara in Mexico, University of Stellenbosch in South Africa, Institut de Paleontologie Humaine in France, Chitose Institute of Science & Technology (http://www.wnd.com/#) in Japan, Ben-Gurion University in Israel, MIT, The Smithsonian and Princeton.
"Dissent from Darwinism has gone global," said Discovery Institute President Bruce Chapman. "Darwinists used to claim that virtually every scientist in the world held that Darwinian evolution was true, but we quickly started finding U.S. scientists that disproved that statement. Now we're finding that there are hundreds, and probably thousands


More at the wonderful website worldnet daily and discovery institute:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/06/dissent_from_darwinism_goes_gl.html

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50747

_______________________

Does that prove that there is a debate in biology as to whether evolution exists, because people are able to get a "list of scientists" to be signatories to a statement put together by a think tank? That "sentate committee" was put together by right-wing hacks here in the US, and are much like these "dissent on darwin" lists.

[Decolonize The Left]

I think it's safe to be skeptical regarding the extent of anthropogenic global warming, as well as the hype regarding this extent. But the facts seem pretty straight forward...

- August

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Icarus, as I am sure you know, the 'Discovery Institute' is a right-wing, creationist organisation.

No wonder they can find only 600 scientists (out of the many hundreds of thousands of scientists who dissent from their views) to support their whacko ideas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Institute

[Yazman]

More scientists express doubts on Darwin
600 dissenters sign on challenging claims about support for theory


More than 600 scientists holding doctoral degrees have gone on the record expressing skepticism about Darwin's theory of evolution and calling for critical examination of the evidence cited in its support.

All are signatories to the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism (http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/) statement, which reads: "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account (http://www.wnd.com/#) for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged." The statement, which includes endorsement by members of the prestigious U.S. National Academy of Sciences and Russian Academy of Sciences, was first published by the Seattle-based Discovery Institute in 2001 to challenge statements about Darwinian evolution made in promoting PBS's "Evolution" series.

list of 610 signatories includes scientists from National Academies of Science in Russia, Czech Republic, Hungary, India (http://www.wnd.com/#) (Hindustan), Nigeria, Poland, Russia and the United States. Many of the signers are professors or researchers at major universities (http://www.wnd.com/#) and international research institutions such as Cambridge University, British Museum of Natural History, Moscow State University, Masaryk University in Czech Republic, Hong Kong University, University of Turku in Finland, Autonomous University of Guadalajara in Mexico, University of Stellenbosch in South Africa, Institut de Paleontologie Humaine in France, Chitose Institute of Science & Technology (http://www.wnd.com/#) in Japan, Ben-Gurion University in Israel, MIT, The Smithsonian and Princeton.
"Dissent from Darwinism has gone global," said Discovery Institute President Bruce Chapman. "Darwinists used to claim that virtually every scientist in the world held that Darwinian evolution was true, but we quickly started finding U.S. scientists that disproved that statement. Now we're finding that there are hundreds, and probably thousands


More at the wonderful website worldnet daily and discovery institute:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/06/dissent_from_darwinism_goes_gl.html

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50747

_______________________

Does that prove that there is a debate in biology as to whether evolution exists, because people are able to get a "list of scientists" to be signatories to a statement put together by a think tank? That "sentate committee" was put together by right-wing hacks here in the US, and are much like these "dissent on darwin" lists.

This is a poor comparison, particularly as many of those dissenting in the link I posted were IPCC members themselves, and are generally very credible sources.

[MarxSchmarx]

This is a poor comparison, particularly as many of those dissenting in the link I posted were IPCC members themselves, and are generally very credible sources.

Actually the analogy is apt. Both (essentially right-wing) ideologies pervert science in the same fashion.

Hypothesis A. Human activity is causing climate change
Hypothesis B. Evolution by natural selection explains biological adaptations.

600+ "eminent" scientist critics: OMG this is wrong look there are holes a,b,c in your "theory".

They rebut the hypotheses thusly:

Hypothesis A. Rebuttal. Because there are "holes" a,b,c, in the "theory" of man made climate change, therefore, your explanation for hypothesis A is wrong. Therefore, our explanation (natural processes and historical "climate cycles") must be correct, even though it makes more predictive errors/lacks a mechanistic explanation/experimental evidence than hypothesis A.

Hypothesis B. Rebuttal. Because there are "holes"a,b,c, in the "theory" of natural selection, therefore, your explanation for hypothesis B is wrong. Therefore, our explanation (God created the earth in seven days) must be correct, even though it makes more predictive errors/lacks a mechanistic explanation/experimental evidence than hypotheses B.

Critics of man-made climate change have no compelling alternative explanation. They use a double standard, just like the ID people who want us to ASSUME that they're explanation is correct by default whenever the slightest bit of controversy develops in the prevailing view.

I think these scientists should consider themselves fortunate they weren't compared to holocaust deniers.

[ZeroNowhere]

essentially right-wingPlease explain how not believing in anthropogenic global warming is 'right-wing'. That isn't my position on the issue, but regardless, that made no sense whatsoever.

[scarletghoul]

yeah i never understood why everyone goes along with the man made global warming thing.. tbh if anything its more rightist to go along with it unquestioningly than to debate it. the climate is changin all the time anyway

[thundertail19921]

This is really interesting. I hadn't really thought about it from this point of view, but I see a point.

[Josef Balin]

tbh if anything its more rightist to go along with it unquestioningly than to debate it.
What a penetrating material analysis. Marx would be proud.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

This debate is so ridiculous. Global warming is a serious issue. I don't care if the man-made theory has some issues. This isn't the time to be playing devil's advocate. Serious efforts need to be made to deal with this issue.

Some kids are stuck in a pit. Every day you do nothing, more kids get thrown in. These people are basically arguing that the rope you're trying to use to pull them up is longer than necessary. You're wasting money! They're wasting a lot more time arguing about the issue when we need action.

See our worsening air quality and its connection to serious diseases even in children? That's a problem. Stop arguing semantics and go deal with it scientists. You're paid to be scientists not politicians. Go mix things in your test tubes please.

[ZeroNowhere]

yeah i never understood why everyone goes along with the man made global warming thing.. tbh if anything its more rightist to go along with it unquestioningly than to debate it. the climate is changin all the time anywayThis is also crap. 'Going along with things unquestioningly' is not 'rightist'.


See our worsening air quality and its connection to serious diseases even in children? That's a problem. Stop arguing semantics and go deal with it scientists. You're paid to be scientists not politicians. Go mix things in your test tubes please.Except that the cause determines what solution is applicable.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

It's pretty clear man-made contributions are a factor. I don't see why anyone is denying this.

[redSHARP]

the climate does change, however, we are definitely helping it change faster. besides, do we have anything to lose if we go along with a green earth idea? if we are wrong about man made climate change, then we live and say "thank god we were wrong", if we are right, then we might have saved our asses. i rather be cautious and be on the safe side of things.

[MarxSchmarx]

AFAIK, every penny that goes into claiming that "man made global warming" is overblown comes from the fossil fuel industry and the capitalist apologists. There are a few leftists who dispute man made global warming as well, but the science they cite (they are almost never leftist climate scientists) is funded and largely conducted by the fossil fuel industry to safe guard its profits. Another major group that consistently insists man-made global warming is overblown are the right-libertarians. This unsurprisingly coalition of a segment of the capitalist class and right wing politics is almost alone in advocating against anthropogenic global warming.

It is frankly the case that I know of no earth scientist of strongly leftist credentials who argues, based on their own research or public evaluation of the existing evidence that man made global warming doesn't exist. I would even settle for a group of geoscientists who generally believes corporate interests have an excessive role in research and understands that science is a social product AND also finds the case for anthropogenic global warming unpersuasive. Alas, the bulk of the critique from the left comes from non-specialists who rely almost exclusively on the aforementioned right-wing research. Fruit of a poisoned tree indeed.

[Coggeh]

This debate is so ridiculous. Global warming is a serious issue. I don't care if the man-made theory has some issues. This isn't the time to be playing devil's advocate. Serious efforts need to be made to deal with this issue.

What action can we take if its not man made? surely that would matter in dealing with the problem , if its just a natural cycle then we can really do nothing ...

[mikelepore]

The people who are skeptical about global warming have no reason to dissent even if there is doubt. Suppose if it's not really necessary for climate reasons to stop burning hydrocarbons, and yet people still convert to the use of solar, wind and geothermal energy. What would be the harm done by that choice, worst case? Then we would only have the advantage that we have converted to the use of energy sources that nature provides continuously and won't run out. But that's enough of an advantage by itself to justify the conversion. So the dissenters are, in effect, saying: "Don't adopt that good idea, because I believe there's only one vital reason to do so, and not two vital reasons." What great logic!

[New Tet]

The people who are skeptical about global warming have no reason to dissent even if there is doubt. Suppose if it's not really necessary for climate reasons to stop burning hydrocarbons, and yet people still convert to the use of solar, wind and geothermal energy. What would be the harm done by that choice, worst case? Then we would only have the advantage that we have converted to the use of energy sources that nature provides continuously and won't run out. But that's enough of an advantage by itself to justify the conversion. So the dissenters are, in effect, saying: "Don't adopt that good idea, because I believe there's only one vital reason to do so, and not two vital reasons." What great logic!

True. And yet your first question practically answers itself:


Suppose if it's not really necessary for climate reasons to stop burning hydrocarbons, and yet people still convert to the use of solar, wind and geothermal energy. What would be the harm done by that choice, worst case?

Enormous and irreparable to the capitalist oil mongers. Hasten the day!

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

What action can we take if its not man made? surely that would matter in dealing with the problem , if its just a natural cycle then we can really do nothing ...

The point is that it is (at least partially) a man-made problem. There are actions we can take.

[Coggeh]

The point is that it is (at least partially) a man-made problem. There are actions we can take.
This is where the conflict comes in .The debate isn't the existence of global warming/climate change but what caused it .

As Mikelepore already pointed out you don't have to believe in saving the planet to know that wind, solar , tidal , geothermal , nuclear fusion and nuclear fission(to an extent) make sense and not to be relying on oil/gas/coal which are going to run out .I have nothing against the movement to help stop global warming even though Im not sure its actually anthropogenic/man made .

However when you get billionaires talking about 'over-population' and yuppies using it as an excuse to try and stop building of just about anything that is on green grass it really ticks me off .In socialism production (even though it will be planned far far more efficiently ) will still undoubtedly go up .The solution isn't cutting production of this or stop the building of that , or make people have less children , its education ,economic planning , a society where people come before profit , its socialism.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Enormous and irreparable to the capitalist oil mongers. Hasten the day!

Puh-leeze! They would simply find something else to make stupid amounts of money out of. It's not like capitalism trembled when the horse and carriage industry went the way of the dodo. Instead, the mass-produced motor vehicle industry took its place.

In fact, I could easily see capitalists making a killing off renewables if they put their minds to it. And believe me, they will put their minds to it once fossil fuels are truly no longer tenable.

[Zurdito]

I thought this was interesting. I have been unconvinced of anthropogenic climate change for the past year or so****

why doesn't this surprise me?

[Yazman]

why doesn't this surprise me?

What the hell is this supposed to mean? If your only reason to post this is character assassination you need to get the fuck outta this forum, because even people in the OI aren't so stupid as to make bullshit posts like this. I would trade you for TomK any day of the week. I didn't say anything against the development of renewable energy sources or the green movement in general - I just said that I am not really convinced that climate change is anthropogenic, especially given a number of facts that seem to point in the other direction. We probably contribute to it but I think its silly to assert that we were/are responsible for it.