650 International Scientists dissent over man-made Global Warming claims? ?

The qoutes below are taken from the Senate report (another 11 scientists have already joined the list since it was published including a former scientific advisor to Al Gore), they are all IPCC reviewers or authors. If the IPCC find them credible to comment on global warming, then they must be taken seriously right?

“When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” IPCC Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh

“It is all a fiction” Dr. Tom V. Segalstad, a former IPCC expert reviewer

“This [the IPCC] is not an acceptable scientific review process” IPCC Expert Reviewer Madhav Khandekar

“The main purpose of the report is to provide a spurious scientific backup for the absurd claims of the worldwide environmentalist lobby” Dr Vincent Gray, IPCC Expert Reviewer

"To date, no convincing evidence for AGW has been discovered” Dr. Richard Courtney, IPCC expert reviewer

"The public is not well served by this constant drumbeat of false alarms fed by computer models manipulated by advocates” Dr. David Wojick, IPCC expert reviewer

"Warming is not a big deal and is not a bad thing” Dr. John T. Everett, Lead IPCC reviewer and author

“Global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural ‘noise.‘” Hans H.J. Labohm, UN IPCC reviewer

“It is a search for a mythical CO2 sink to explain an immeasurable CO2 lifetime to fit a hypothetical CO2 computer model that purports to show that an impossible amount of fossil fuel burning is heating the atmosphere” Prof. Segalstad, former IPCC expert reviewer

Of course even the IPCC reports contain skeptical comments aswell that are either removed by the "politcal" review process or hidden in the scientific text, for example:

“In climate research and modelling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.” IPCC 3AR (Section 14.2.2.2, p. 774)

“None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases.” IPCC 2001

“No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to man–made causes” IPCC 2001

“The fact that the global mean temperature has increased since the late 19th century and that other trends have been observed does not necessarily mean that an anthropogenic effect on the climate has been identified. Climate has always varied on all time-scales, so the observed change may be natural.”

(Houghton et. al., 2001, IPCC, 2001)

"Local temperature fluctuations, even those over just a few decades, can be several degrees celsius, which is larger than the global warming signal of the past century of about 0.7°C." (IPCC AR4 2007)

"Bard et al shows that solar activity was only reduced by 0.25% during the Maunder Minimum which triggered the little iceage, it is therefore clear that minor changes in solar activity can cause dramatic climate shifts (Bard et al, 2000, IPCC, 2007)"

"a comprehensive mechanistic explanation of these variations [climate changes] remains to be articulated. Similarly, the mechanisms of abrupt climate change are not well enough understood, nor are the key climate thresholds that, when crossed, could trigger an acceleration in sea level rise or regional climate change" (IPCC AR4 2007)

"it is unlikely that CO2 variations have triggered the end of glacial periods. Antarctic temperature started to rise several centuries before atmospheric CO2 during past glacial terminations." (IPCC AR4 2007)

"widespread, abrupt climate changes have occurred repeatedly

throughout the past glacial interval (Rahmstorf, 2002)." (IPCC AR4 2007)

"Radiative forcing is a simple measure for both quantifying

and ranking the many different influences on climate change;

it provides a limited measure of climate change as it does not

attempt to represent the overall climate response" (IPCC AR4 2007)

Read the full IPCC report and you will come to realise just how little they know about the climate system and how crude and unreliable their estimates are. Anyone who thinks otherwise acts purely on belief or for self/political gain. We do not know how the climate works naturally, so we can not identify a humansignal, if there is one - full stop.

I'm sorry, but this is getting a bit sad This list, what ever the number, has been ripped apart many times.

(further to Kens comments)

The circle of these denier arguments starts to draw a bit smaller as Marc Morano was also the key note speaker at the phony New York climate conference put together by the Heartland Institute.

There are millions of scientists in the world. It's hardly surprising that Inhofe has managed to scrape up a group of six hundred who agree with him (or can be made to seem as if they do). I'm a little surprised that he wasn't able to find *more.* He must not have been trying very hard.

This aside from the fact that few of the people on his list have any relevant expertise in the area of climate science. In fact, many of them have no expertise relevant to *any* sort of science at all.

Also, it should be well noted that creationists have been using puffed up lists of "experts" to argue their case for many decades now. This fact shouldn't be taken lightly, since creationists are some of the most scientifically illiterate and ill educated people in the world.

Wow! Senator's Inhofe's list of 650 (recently updated from 400) deniers! That's incredible evidence that proves that global warming is a hoax!!! (Not.) Actually, you've missed the boat on this one. There have already been 20 questions/rants posted on Inhofe's list.

All that Inhofe's multiple lists prove is that there are only a handful of scientists nowadays who still dispute that anthropogenic climate change is real and happening. My favorite person on Inhofe's list is Chris Allen, weather director at WBKO, the ABC affiliate for south-central Kentucky. On his blog, Mr. Allen says this about global warming, and I quote:

“My biggest argument against putting the primary blame on humans for climate change is that it completely takes God out of the picture. It must have slipped these people's minds that God created the heavens and the earth and has control over what's going on. (Dear Lord Jesus...did I just open a new pandora's box?) Yeah, I said it. Do you honestly believe God would allow humans to destroy the earth He created? Of course, if you don't believe in God and creationism then I can see why you would easily buy into the whole global warming fanfare. I think in many ways that's what this movement is ultimately out to do - rid the mere mention of God in any context. What these environmentalists are actually saying is ‘we know more than God - we're bigger than God - God is just a fantasy - science is real...He isn't...listen to US! I have a huge problem with that.”[1]

These comments do cause me to wonder, "What exactly does Senator Inhofe base his public policy on?"

Very few of these scientists are climatologists, and even fewer have published anything in peer-reviewed journals on the subject of climatology within the past 10 years. Very few of these scientists are climatologists, and even fewer have published anything in peer-reviewed journals on the subject of climatology within the past 10 years.

Six hundred fifty people are a lot, but just a drop in the bucket when considering the total number of scientists with a relevant experience in climate research. For example, the AGU is one organization that has over 50, 000 members,[2] the majority of whom hold a Ph.D. in Earth Science. I'm willing to bet that not a single AGU member can be found on Inhofe's list.

Spending only a few minutes with the list, I noticed three things right away.

1. Many of the opinions were equivocal, expressing uncertainty or skepticism. There is nothing wrong with uncertainly, but uncertainty doesn't prove much.

2. Many of the opinions came from scientists who were not climatologists. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but some opinions are entitled to more weight than others. As Ken points out, many of these people are chemists, TV weathermen, geologists, and and hydrogeologists.

3. Many of the opinions were dated in early 2007, before the extent of the arctic ice melt in the summer of 2007 and 2008 was known. I wonder if any have changed their minds.

2007 Arctic Sea ice

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic...

Current information on Arctic Sea ice.

http://www.nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/faq.html

Sure I can. The very first scientist listed is Ivar Giaever, Nobel Prize Winner for Physics. If you look up his research, you will see that his area of expertise is tunneling in superconductors, which has absolutely nothing to do with global warming in any way, shape or form.

This is nothing more than Marc Morano's (Oil industry Senator Inhofe's lackey) annual nonsense he releases just before Christmas (he did the same BS last year) when most real scientists and journalists are on vacation. He gets a lot of attention from those who don't follow science very closely and fires up the right-wing blogsphere for a week or two.

Check out the "credibility" of his previous list at the link below:

http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/la...

Hopefully you understand the difference between a TV weatherman and an atmospheric Physicist working for NASA or NCAR publishing their research in peer reviewed scientific journals. One looks good on camera and reads well, the other understands the physics of climate.

At least one of them seems to be misquoted.

Dr. Stanley Goldenberg rather than saying Climate Change is a hoax, is saying that the recent increase in hurricane activity has been due to a phenomena other than anthropogenic climate change. Rather, it is due to a multidecadal oscillation in the thermohaline circulation of the Atlantic Ocean.

This does not mean that he believes climate change is a hoax, only that some of the evidence presented by the media is inaccurate (e.g. hurricane Katrina)

However, he does say that the recent increase in hurricane activity might be slightly worse due to anthropogenic sea surface temperature warming.

That's a pretty low count.

The myth of global warming, will hurt our society more than global warming itself.