Outpouring of Skeptical Scientists Continues as 59 Scientists Added to Senate Report. ‘The science has, quite simply, gone awry’

Washington DC: Fifty nine additional scientists from around the world have been added to the U.S. Senate Minority Report of dissenting scientists, pushing the total to over 700 skeptical international scientists - a dramatic increase from the original 650 scientists featured in the initial December 11, 2008 release. The 59 additional scientists added to the 255-page Senate Minority report since the initial release 13 ½ weeks ago represents an average of over four skeptical scientists a week.  This updated report - which includes yet another former UN IPCC scientist - represents an additional 300 (and growing) scientists and climate researchers since the initial report’s release in December 2007. 

The over 700 dissenting scientists are now more than 13 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers. The 59 additional scientists hail from all over the world, including Japan, Italy, UK, Czech Republic, the U.S. and many are affiliated with prestigious institutions including, NASA, U.S. Navy, U.S. Defense Department, Energy Department, U.S. Air Force, the Philosophical Society of Washington (the oldest scientific society in Washington), Princeton University, Tulane University, American University, Oregon State University, U.S. Naval Academy and EPA. 

The explosion of skeptical scientific voices is accelerating unabated in 2009. A March 14, 2009 article in the Australian revealed that Japanese scientists are now at the forefront of rejecting man-made climate fears prompted by the UN IPCC. Prominent Japanese Geologist Dr. Shigenori Maruyama, a professor at the Tokyo Institute of Technology’s Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences who has authored more than 125 scientific publications, said in March 2009 that “there was widespread skepticism among his colleagues about the IPCC’s fourth and latest assessment report that most of the observed global temperature increase since the mid-20th century ‘is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.” Maruyama noted that when this question was raised at a Japan Geoscience Union symposium last year, ‘the result showed 90 per cent of the participants do not believe the IPCC report.” [Also See: 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 of scientists skeptical of man-made global warming fears. [See: Skeptical scientists overwhelm conference: ‘2/3 of presenters and question-askers were hostile to, even dismissive of, the UN IPCC’ & see full reports here & here – More analyses of recent developments see report’s introduction here. ]

“I do not find the supposed scientific consensus among my colleagues,” noted Earth Scientist Dr. Javier Cuadros on March 3, 2009. Cuadros is of the UK Natural History Museum, who specializes in Clay Mineralogy and has published more than 30 scientific papers. 

Award-Winning Princeton University Physicist Dr. Robert H. Austin, who has published 170 scientific papers, was elected a member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences lamented the current fears over global warming. “Unfortunately, Climate Science has become Political Science. It is tragic that some perhaps well-meaning but politically motivated scientists who should know better have whipped up a global frenzy about a phenomena which is statistically questionable at best,” Austin told the minority staff on the Environment and Public Works Committee on March 2, 2009. 

See the full report here. See also this Cleveland Weather Examiner coverage here.

See Marc’s powerpoint “Global Warming ‘Consensus’ in Freefall” from the Heartland ICCC here.

More and more anthropogenic global warming skeptics are coming out of the closet. The field of astrophysics, in particular, is replete with doubters about the importance of CO2 in the current context of global temperature rise. The most obvious reason being that the “model” the weathermen use does not contemplate the recent cooling trend. At all. And this development is worrisome to the Warmists. That is because many Warmists are not scientists, or are well outside of their field, or are relative light weights. For instance Dr Willie Soon, an astrophysicist at Harvard writes:

“The most recent scientific evidence shows that even small changes in solar radiation have a strong effect on Earth’s temperature and climate. In 2005, I demonstrated a surprisingly strong correlation between solar radiation and temperatures in the Arctic over the past 130 years. Since then, I have demonstrated similar correlations in all the regions surrounding the Arctic, including the US mainland and China.”

See larger slide here.

“There is no such match between the steady rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration and the often dramatic ups and downs of surface temperatures in and around the Arctic. I recently discovered direct evidence that changes in solar activity have influenced what has been called the “conveyor-belt” circulation of the great Atlantic Ocean currents over the past 240 years. For instance, solar-driven changes in temperature, and in the volume of freshwater output from the Arctic, cause variations in sea surface temperature in the tropical Atlantic 5-20 years later.

These previously undocumented results have been published in the journal Physical Geography. They make it difficult to maintain that changes in solar activity play an insignificant role in climate change, especially over the Arctic.”

“What WILL they think of next? Conference labels skeptics as having mental disorder”

That is right. If you disagree with the warmists then you are mentally ill. “This weekend, the University of West England is hosting a major conference on climate change denial. Strikingly, it’s being organised by the university’s Centre for Psycho-Social Studies. It will be a gathering of those from the top of society - ‘psychotherapists, social researchers, climate change activists, eco-psychologists’ - who will analyse those at the bottom of society, as if we were so many flitting, irrational amoeba under an eco-microscope. The organisers say the conference will explore how ‘denial’ is a product of both ‘addiction and consumption’ and is the ‘consequence of living in a perverse culture which encourages collusion, complacency and irresponsibility’ (1). It is a testament to the dumbed-down, debate-phobic nature of the modern academy that a conference is being held not to explore ideas - to interrogate, analyse and fight over them - but to tag them as perverse.”

Now, the most striking thing about this is that the diagnosis of mental instability has already been made by these organizers. And none of them are equipped to discuss the issue on its merits. Not only are they well outside of their field of study, but even actual knowledge of the subject matter does not seem to be a criteria for participation. Frankly, that sounds a bit crazy to us here at DBKP. Not only are we skeptics, and have duly reported on solar developments over the existence of global warming on this website, but as libertarians, we are concerned about the call for unlimited government intervention in our lives, as well as the apparent desire of Warmists to shut down all energy sources that aren’t considered green.

“The labelling of those who question certain scientific ideas or green ways of life as ‘deniers’, ‘addicts’ and ‘reptiles’ with a ‘baffling’ inability to understand The Science and act accordingly has a deeply censorious bent. If ‘climate change denial’ is a form of mass denial and self-deception, a fundamentally psychological disorder, then there is no need to engage in a meaningful public debate; instead people just need to be treated. Thus the Ecologist says ‘denial cannot simply be countered with information’; indeed there is apparently ‘plentiful historical evidence that increased information may even intensify denial’”

“Psychologising dissent, and refusing to recognise, much less engage with, the substance of people’s disagreements - their political objections, their rational criticisms, their desire to do things differently - is the hallmark of authoritarian regimes.”

Witch Hunt

Now this should be laughable. AGW is a theory. The impact of solar radiation on climate change is a fact. So who are the nut cases? Is it Dr. Soon’s fault that the theory is falling apart? In the minds of these elitists, the answer is yes. And he should be punished. So who is crazy? Read more here.

Icecap notes: If they want to see mental disorder’s firsthand they should look in the mirror or should have been in Copenhagen at last week’s IPCC meeting warm-up where the alarmist claims got so extreme, they had to be reminded that exaggerations would turn more people away and Andy Revkin called it bordering on ‘climate porn’. The professors can also look in their mirror or read When Prophecies Fail which we wrote about here and here and Chris Horner here.

At the December 2008 NRC meeting “Detection and Attribution of Solar Forcing on Climate” [see] there was extensive criticism by Gavin Schmidt and others on the research of Nicola Scafetta with respect to solar climate forcings.  He was not, however, invited to that December meeting.

There is now a new paper that he has published that needs to be refuted or supported by other peer reviewed literature (rather than comments in a closed NRC meeting in which the presentors would not share their powerpoint talks).

The new paper is “Scafetta N., R. C. Willson (2009), ACRIM-gap and TSI trend issue resolved using a surface magnetic flux TSI proxy model, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L05701, doi:10.1029/2008GL036307”

The abstract reads:

“The ACRIM-gap (1989.5-1991.75) continuity dilemma for satellite TSI observations is resolved by bridging the satellite TSI monitoring gap between ACRIM1 and ACRIM2 results with TSI derived from Krivova et al.’s (2007) proxy model based on variations of the surface distribution of solar magnetic flux.  ‘Mixed’ versions of ACRIM and PMOD TSI composites are constructed with their composites’ original values except for the ACRIM gap, where Krivova modeled TSI is used to connect ACRIM1 and ACRIM2 results. Both ‘mixed’ composites demonstrate a significant TSI increase of 0.033%/decade between the solar activity minima of 1986 and 1996, comparable to the 0.037% found in the ACRIM composite. The finding supports the contention of Willson (1997) that the ERBS/ERBE results are flawed by uncorrected degradation during the ACRIM gap and refutes the Nimbus7/ERB ACRIM gap adjustment Frohlich and Lean (1998) employed in constructing the PMOD.”

A key statement in the conclusion reads:

“This finding has evident repercussions for climate change and solar physics. Increasing TSI between 1980 and 2000 could have contributed significantly to global warming during the last three decades [Scafetta and West, 2007, 2008]. Current climate models [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007] have assumed that the TSI did not vary significantly during the last 30 years and have therefore underestimated the solar contribution and overestimated the anthropogenic contribution to global warming.” See post here.

Earlier Dr. Richard Willson reconstruction of the TSI filling the gap between the two ACRIM1 and ACRIM2 results using Nimbus7 ERB. See larger image here. Process was described in this ICECAP paper.

See decline of the TSI since 2003 in this extended solar minimum above. See larger image here.

Sen. John Kerry warns that deferring cap-and-trade in a recession is a “mutual suicide pact.” In an effort to keep the glaciers from melting, he proposes putting the American economy in the deep freeze. “You don’t enter a mutual suicide pact because the economy is having a hard time right now,” the failed presidential hopeful and noted climatologist said Wednesday. “Climate change is not governed by a recession.” But trying to prevent a bogus apocalypse can drive one into a depression.

Kerry ignores the growing body of evidence presented by reputable scientists and including satellite observations, not computer models, that the earth has been cooling demonstrably since 1998 due to declining solar activity and other natural factors. He also ignores the warnings of cap-and-trade’s economic consequences. The winter of 2008-09 has seen record cold temperatures and snowfalls around the globe, with snow reported in such unlikely places as Las Vegas and Malibu, Calif.

As Al Gore might say (with apologies to Groucho Marx), who are you going to believe, me or your own lying eyes? “The sun has gone quiet with fewer and fewer sun spots, and the global temperatures have gone into decline,” notes Weather Channel founder and meteorologist John Coleman. “Earth has cooled for almost 10 straight years. So, I ask Al Gore: Where’s the global warming?”

More and more Americans are asking the same question (see “In Hot Pursuit Of CO2” on previous page). The skepticism of global warming and its dangers shown in the Gallup poll comes on the heels of a conference held by the Heartland Institute in New York earlier this week. It was attended by some 700 scientists, economists and policy makers confronting the issue “Global Warming: Was it ever really a crisis?” The consensus (sorry, Al) was a resounding no.

Willie Soon, a Harvard University astrophysicist and geophysicist with scores of peer-reviewed papers and books to his credit, said he’s “embarrassed and puzzled” by the shallow science in papers that undergird the proposition that the Earth faces a climate crisis caused by global warming. He called for a “fairness doctrine” to be “applied to the funding of research and to the journal-review and publishing of papers.”

One target of the attendees’ scorn was NASA’s Dr. James Hansen, himself recently caught fudging the numbers in declaring last October the warmest on record. Hansen helped organize a recent global warming march in Washington, D.C., during a snowstorm. John Theon, retired senior atmospheric scientist at NASA, and Hansen’s former boss, accused Hansen, Gore’s favorite scientist and Kerry’s too, of “embarrassing NASA.” Hansen, a NASA astronomer, once received a six-figure grant from the Heinz Foundation, run by Theresa Heinz Kerry, the wealthy wife of Sen. Kerry, and afterwards endorsed Kerry for president. Yet Hansen was never accused of having his opinions bought and paid for - unlike the many skeptics of global warming’s claims.

It’s not the glaciers of the Antarctic that face a meltdown, but the American economy.

An analysis by the George C. Marshall Institute estimates GDP losses of as much as 3% in 2015 and 10% in 2050 as a result of this cap-and-trade measure.
This enormous cost will make the mortgage and market meltdowns a fond memory and undo any good the stimulus package may have produced.
Cap-and-trade, the most popular way to address climate change, is a regressive tax that would hit the poor hardest.

The Congressional Budget Office calculates that higher prices caused by a forced 15% cut in CO2 emissions would cost those in the bottom quintile $680 a year, or about 3.3% of their income. They’re the poorest of the poor. The three middle quintiles would be socked between $880 and $1,500, or 27% to 2.9% of income. The rich would lose a mere 1.7%. Clearly Joe Sixpack in his modest Midwest bungalow would be hit harder than the Al Gores of the world. We call that spreading the poverty around. Cap-and-trade would be an economic tsunami. Rising prices, not rising sea levels, are what threaten us. Scrap the cap. Read more here. Hear this podcast on Not Evil, Just Wrong. See trailer here.

ICECAP PHOTO OF THE DAY