What does the new letter from 114 leading scientists to Secretary-General of UN mean for AGW?

Question

Please see below 

Climate change science is in a period of ‘negative discovery’ - the more we learn about this exceptionally complex and rapidly evolving field the more we realize how little we know. Truly, the science is NOT settled.

Therefore, there is no sound reason to impose expensive and restrictive public policy decisions on the peoples of the Earth without first providing convincing evidence that human activities are causing dangerous climate change beyond that resulting from natural causes. Before any precipitate action is taken, we must have solid observational data demonstrating that recent changes in climate differ substantially from changes observed in the past and are well in excess of normal variations caused by solar cycles, ocean currents, changes in the Earth's orbital parameters and other natural phenomena.

We the undersigned, being qualified in climate-related scientific disciplines, challenge the UNFCCC and supporters of the United Nations Climate Change Conference to produce convincing OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE for their claims of dangerous human-caused global warming and other changes in climate. Projections of possible future scenarios from unproven computer models of climate are not acceptable substitutes for real world data obtained through unbiased and rigorous scientific investigation.

Specifically, we challenge supporters of the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused climate change to demonstrate that:

   1. Variations in global climate in the last hundred years are significantly outside the natural range experienced in previous centuries;
   2. Humanity’s emissions of carbon dioxide and other ‘greenhouse gases’ (GHG) are having a dangerous impact on global climate;
   3. Computer-based models can meaningfully replicate the impact of all of the natural factors that may significantly influence climate;
   4. Sea levels are rising dangerously at a rate that has accelerated with increasing human GHG emissions, thereby threatening small islands and coastal communities;
   5. The incidence of malaria is increasing due to recent climate changes;
   6. Human society and natural ecosystems cannot adapt to foreseeable climate change as they have done in the past;
   7. Worldwide glacier retreat, and sea ice melting in Polar Regions , is unusual and related to increases in human GHG emissions;
   8. Polar bears and other Arctic and Antarctic wildlife are unable to adapt to anticipated local climate change effects, independent of the causes of those changes;
   9. Hurricanes, other tropical cyclones and associated extreme weather events are increasing in severity and frequency;
  10. Data recorded by ground-based stations are a reliable indicator of surface temperature trends.



It is not the responsibility of ‘climate realist’ scientists to prove that dangerous human-caused climate change is not happening. Rather, it is those who propose that it is, and promote the allocation of massive investments to solve the supposed ‘problem’, who have the obligation to convincingly demonstrate that recent climate change is not of mostly natural origin and, if we do nothing, catastrophic change will ensue. To date, this they have utterly failed to do so.

Signed by 114 of the worlds leading scientists!

More here http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/comment.php?comment.news.123

Voice of Reason · Accepted Answer

Bravo! It has long been my contention that the burden of proof falls upon those who propose a theory; not upon those who would argue against it.

Carl Sagan once said, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. “ When listening to the exaggerated claims of the climate alarmists, this statement certainly applies. But instead of this time-tested approach of applying scientific method, AGW proponents have invoked the “Precautionary Principle” that is the antithesis of logic. With it anyone can make a claim and place the burden of proof on those who would oppose it. It is time to start thinking clearly and rationally about global warming, and hopefully this is a first step.

pegminer · Answer

I like how you claim this is signed by 114 of the world's leading scientists, but by looking at your link there are 141 names on the list.  Finally you guys are getting realistic and admitting that some of the people that sign your petitions are just taking up space.  I recognized a few names--Tipler is reasonably famous in physics, although I wouldn't say that he's convinced many people of the validity of his beliefs there either.  William Gray has had a long and productive career as a hurricane meteorologist, contributing a lot to the field. Of course, he's also responsible for many poor seasonal hurricane forecasts (like the ones deniers were complaining about a month or two ago), and he seems pretty far afield from his area of expertise when speaking on climate change--and I have heard him speak on it, he spoke in the same session I did at AMS a couple of years ago.

One guy I hope you're not considering a "leading scientist" is the blowhard Joe Bastardi, forecaster and self-promoter for Accuweather.  I used to subscribe to Accuweather and would read his daily blog, which consisted of (1) promoting his own forecasts, and (2) trashing the National Weather Service.  After reading his column for months I came to the conclusion that the NWS was vastly better than he was and that he never admitted when he was wrong.

This list is much better than that silly Oregon petition anyway.

Bob · Answer

Not much.

Every major scientific organization in the US, and most in the world have issued official statements that warming is real, and mostly caused by us. There are some individual scientific skeptics. There always are.

Serious people (world leaders, business leaders, military leaders, the courts, etc.) take the word of the vast majority of the scientific community, over the often conflicting theories of a relatively few skeptics.

Anonymous · Answer

Sadly the IPCC has a remit to assume that AGW is real and therefore will wilfully obscure and ignore anything which shows it to be a fantasy. 

Back in the real world though, very few people still buy into the fiction though.

Anonymous · Answer

These are hardly 141 of the worlds leading scientists.

Just look up these peoples names in google scholar.

#8 Douglas W. Barr: 0 scientific publications
#28 Allan Cortese: 0 scientific publications
#37 James E Dent: 0 scientific publications
#44 Louis Fowler: 0 scientific publications
#54 Thomas B. Gray: 0 scientific publications
#70 Bill Kappel: 0 scientific publications
I'm not going to continue down this list.

Ok, look some of these people aren't even published.  Their most significant contribution to climate science is that they signed this petition.

? · Answer

I think it would be like flashing a card which said "thow shall not steal" at a bank robber.  It wouldn't likely change his original intent to steal as much money as he could.  The truth is a mere inconvenience to these clowns.

Facts Matter · Answer

I think about three qualify as leading scientists and maybe one as any kind of expert on climate?

Anonymous · Answer

Smart people who understand the realities of science are beginning to get very tired of listening to liberal hogwash being accepted as science and as the world cools more will be heard. It will be very interesting in a few years to see if disgusted citizens return to the old practice of tarring and feathering liberals like they used to do. In any case the ridding of liberal con men out of town on a fence rail will probably return to popularity first!


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sunspot_Numbers.png
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/12/another-parallel-with-the-maunder-minimum/
http://www.stsci.edu/stsci/meetings/lisa3/beckmanj.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png
http://www.deadfishwrapper.com/fish_wrapper_wont_publish_global_cooling_study
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NTlhOTNiOWFlMmMzNmJkOWM3ZTk5NWJkNTU2Nzk5NWI=
http://www.dakotavoice.com/2009/06/nasa-study-shows-sun-responsible-for-planet-warming/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volumetric_heat_capacity
http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/natural-cycle
http://s216.photobucket.com/albums/cc111/fcduffy76/?action=view¤t=missmeyet.jpg&sort=ascending

Benjamin · Answer

It means that you've been spending too much time scanning blogs written by professional deniers and not enough time trying to understand the physics involved.

Trending News

What does the new letter from 114 leading scientists to Secretary-General of UN mean for AGW?

9 Answers