Why are global warming skeptics making such a big deal about the "400 skeptical scientists" report?

Favorite Answer

The same reason the creationist celebrate when they get 300 supporters to sign a paper (most aren't biologists). These fringe movements gain credibility when they says they have x hundred members, which seems like a significant number to many people....Show more

Dana, a great deal of peer-reviewed research has come out in 2007 that shows AGW will not be catastrophic. This has changed the minds of many scientists. Not long ago people in other countries would complain because all of the skeptical scientists were in the U.S. This reports makes it clear that scientists around the world are leaving the AGW camp and have become skeptics. Even the Washington Post admitted the number of skeptical scientists is growing all the time.

Did you bother to read the report? Or the full press release?

EDIT-
Dana, we have talked about some of the peer-reviewed research here. Here are links to some of the articles.

http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf
http://blog.acton.org/uploads/Spencer_07GRL.pdf
http://www.spacecenter.dk/publications/scientific-report-series/Scient_No._3.pdf
http://www.ncasi.org/publications/Detail.aspx?id=3025
http://www.agu.org/journals/jd/jd0723/2007JD008740/
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/publications/pdf/R-337.pdf

By the way, the report was much more than a list of names. It also included quotes by the scientists explaining why they changed their positions. It also included quotes from newspapers like the Washington Post admitting the number of skeptical scientists is growing all the time. So, I really do not believe you read the report....Show more

I used the ratio of 99-1 in another question and got flak for it.

I figured the ratio at 2-3 thousand top climate scientists to maybe a couple dozen well known skeptics. That would be less than 1%. Is this correct?

In this example the ratio would 100 thousand to 400. Or as you say less than 1%....Show more

Ron:

Here is an excerpt from the JGR_Atmos article you cite:

"The deduced climate sensitivity is lower than suggestions of most climate models, however, it is in the same range as the climate sensitivity obtained with cloud resolving models embedded in global climate models [Miura et al., 2005; Wyant et al., 2006], and it is considerably higher than the climate sensitivity derived from the ocean heat capacity and climate time lag response [Schwartz, 2007]."

In other words, the best climate models, the ones that get used to determine the response and which the IPCC base their conclusions on, predict the same climate sensitivity as this study. Furthermore, this study contradicts the results of Schwartz, whom you also cite. I don't see how this paper proves that we need not be concerned about anthropogenic climate change. It seems to me to be more evidence that the models are right and we should be concerned....Show more

Are you going to ask the same question every hour?

All this does is prove there is no consensus on the subject and that it's still being debated.

If you were a scientist you would understand that a consensus does not exist in science. New evidence is always being analyzed and thus theories are always in flux. If it were a proven fact like gravity, there would be no arguments....Show more