Britain's Amazing Hypocrisy

I thought I'd have to research it, but it's all in one short article. A campaign has begun to censor The Global Warming Swindle, due out on DVD.

Ward has also complained to Britain's media regulator, which said it was investigating the matter. British broadcast law demands impartiality on matters of major political and industrial controversy -- and penalties can be imposed for misrepresentations of fact.

Meanwhile:

As for the former vice president, Gore has been hired as an adviser to the British government, which plans to send copies of his film to schools around England.

Even big fans of Gore acknowledge important errors in his film and many insist they are much more in number than just these. But that isn't a problem for the British government. (chirp chirp)

There are a few scientific errors that are important in the film. At one point Gore claims that you can see the aerosol concentrations in Antarctic ice cores change "in just two years", due to the U.S. Clean Air Act. You can't see dust and aerosols at all in Antarctic cores -- not with the naked eye -- and I'm skeptical you can definitively point to the influence of the Clean Air Act. I was left wondering whether Gore got this notion, and I hope he'll correct it in future versions of his slideshow. Another complaint is the juxtaposition of an image relating to CO2 emissions and an image illustrating invasive plant species. This is misleading; the problem of invasive species is predominantly due to land use change and importation, not to "global warming". Still, these are rather minor errors. It is true that the effect of reduced leaded gasoline use in the U.S. does clearly show up in Greenland ice cores; and it is also certainly true that climate change could exacerbate the problem of invasive species.

Comments

[LOL]

do you even know how to read?

from the link you cite relating to "important errors":

"For the most part, I think Gore gets the science right, just as he did in Earth in the Balance. The small errors don't detract from Gore's main point"

Come on Dan, people will think you are pretending to be stupid when you make these kinds of errors.

At least Gore's movie didn't have its interviewees say they were misrepresented.

[Buzzy]

Yeah Dan we can't let all the little errors get in the way of Gore's huge carbon offset scam. Heaven forbit anyone hold the great Goreacle to any kind of mortal code of ethics, he's busy trying to fulfill his elite political agenda and make tons of money at the same time.

Al Gore is an assclown.

[okie]

This is a good sign that the surge against GloboWarmoFascism is working.

[scarshapedstar]

"At one point Gore claims that you can see the aerosol concentrations in Antarctic ice cores change "in just two years", due to the U.S. Clean Air Act. You can't see dust and aerosols at all in Antarctic cores -- not with the naked eye"

Wow, that's heavy stuff. Up next... Bacteria: Communist Plot in our Schools?

[Buzzy]

How about the "heavy stuff" of Man Made Global Warming, shameless scam to sell carbon offsets instead of actually doing something about pollution.

[seekeronos]

I think the point Dan is making is that Gore has not, to date, removed any of the factual errors in his presentation.

Don't you libs think that (let us go the extra mile here and say that Gore is actually a scientific authority here) a good research scientist would go back and correct his errors?

Oh wait... I forgot. Liberals aren't allowed to think for themselves; my apologies.

Y'all must stick to the secret agenda to destroy the USA and never depart from it, lest their moon god Allah and thier earth goddess Gaea smite them hip and thigh with a great slaughter.

Surge on, brave hippies!

[Nth]

The Great Global Warming Swindle is coming to DVD? sweet!

I had already seen it on Youtube, but to have that as a DVD would just be great. As for Gore he can't go back and correct his errors! Why? Because he has already invested so much in to his projects to claim that they are "factual" and without error. If he went back and changed some of those Minor-yet-not-so-minor errors it would bring attention to the rest of his film and people would start questioning his "scientific" authority.

He wont do it, but I AM confident that he will start yammering on about Gleise (that new planet) here pretty soon.

[nowinger]

GIve it up guys, the top scientists in Britain have already debunked this 'debunking' video as full of lies and misinformation. Big lies and big mistakes, like falsely claiming that volcanoes emit more carbon that human activity.

I realize you don't understand the difference between 'minor' errors and 'major' errors. You also don't seem to realize that the global warming deniers have finally pissed off the real scientists, who are increasingly coming out very quickly to debunk the lies being told.

[charles]

the global warming deniers have finally pissed off the real scientists, who are increasingly coming out very quickly to debunk the lies being told.

i love how scepticism equals denial, and there are now "real" and "false" scientists/ the real, false scientist thing is one of my favorites - i've been seeing it around a lot lately

nowinger hits all the lockstep points in less than one sentence

please tell me how one determines the difference between a real scientist and a false scientist?

where does one study to become a false scientist, as opposed to the real ones?

[nowinger]

I never said anyone was a false scientist.

A 'real' scientist is one who is schooled in the areas pertinant to climate change, who has studied climate change and who understands the data.

The majority of the global warming deniers are crackpots or ph.d.s NOT scientists who study the issue or have degrees in disciplines that enable them to understand the data.

Just like the dimwit that Dan posted about who wanted to debate Gore and Dan quoted all his nonsensical rantings as if they were real science. As soon as the denier made his challenge a REAL scientist debunked all of his stupid interpretations and showed that he..the denier...didn't understand the science, which is why he misinterpreted and misstated it. Same with this video, the wingers gave it a big boost and now, the top 30 scientists in Britain are fighting back and calling the deniers on their bad science. Get it?

[templar knight]

charles, you know all the false scientists study at Bible Colleges, after all, we've been told that how many times on this blog? About a thousand. And here comes Pavlov's dogs with 1001.

As for Britain, it's gone. It's a crime to see the cradle of modern W. Civilization going down the tubes, but not unexpected considering who is now in control over there.

[nowinger]

Our bested friend Tony Blair, who has seen his legacy crash and burn becuase he hitched his star to the decider, you mean?

You guys are getting so boring, you never have anything new to say, its the same line on ALL of your issues that you've been spouting for the last 6 years, you will be spouting the same tired, wrong talking points for the next 20 years, and once the Rep. lose more seats in Congress your rantings will become even more hysterical, if that is even possible.

YOu've lost on global warming, you've lost on war for peace, lost the high ground on political corruption, lost on sex education, lost the high ground on small government and lower taxes, lost on no child left behind.

George Bush is going to spend his remaining time in office like the spoiled brat he is, he will keep Gonzales, too stupid in reality to be a law clerk, he and Wolfie will see the World Bank go down in flames before giving in, just like he doesn't care how many more people die in Iraq or what the price is, he won't give in because he wants to WIN. He doens't give a fuck about the country or the troops. He's a petulant baby who won't ever admit failure, no matter what it costs anybody else.

[charles]

is the goracle a real scientist? is he a)someone who "is schooled in the areas pertinent to climate change, who has studied climate change and who understands the data"

or is he b)"crackpots or ph.d.s NOT scientists who study the issue or have degrees in disciplines that enable them to understand the data."

if there are "real" scientists there have to be "false" scientists or you would not be able to tell the difference

is prof lindzer fom mit a real scientist? after all he is someone who - "is schooled in the areas pertinent to climate change, who has studied climate change and who understands the data"

is gore a real scientist? is lindzer a false scientist?

be careful how you label people at the risk to your own credibility

[nowinger]

No, there are "real" scientists and "non" scientists, Gore has never claimed to be a scientist. And unless you think that Al Gore himself has singlehandedly cooerced the top scientists around the world to participate in the global warming 'conspiracy' it doens't really matter what Gore thinks.

What matters is what the qualified scientists in countries around the world who study climate change think, and they have spoken loud and clear.

[charles]

templar - i'm just trying to hone a dull wit

i'm doing him a favor by trying to sharpen his critical thinking skills,he'll totally miss the point and it will probably be another waste of time and fall on deafened ears

he's going to make the mistake that i am debating global warming here

gotta hit the road, have a salubrious day!

[charles]

instant gratification!

"qualified scientists"

what's an unqualified scientist?

[nowinger]

The term is self evident.

Would you hire a corporate attorney to defend you in a criminal trial? Would you go to an oncologist for plastic surgery? HIre a gardner to rebuild your deck?

[charles]

too bad i've really got to leave now - oh, well - carry on!

[Nth]

I still think it's funny how people are still actually contemplating Global Warming and seeing it as some catastrophic event. Technically the Earth has been "warming" since the last ice age, but whatever.

Nowinger - The scientists around the world have come to a "consensus" and as anyone who taken a 9th grade science class can tell you, Consensus is not science. You cant just agree-to-disagree or come to some vote to claim that a theory should be known as fact. Hell, Global Warming cant even be TESTED (Diagrams in PC's don't count as tests because they only show what you TELL THEM to show.) and therefore cannot even pass the second step of the scientific method.

Oh, just wanted to remind everyone that this was the coldest April on record since they started recording tempuratures. Yes! that wacky global warming and it's below freezing temperatures in the middle of spring! My gardan thanks you for killing it o'bringer of frost.

This just in: Scientists came to agreement to day that Global Warming shall now be the replacement name for what was more commonly known as "The Weather"

[Hard Right]

"The term is self evident."

In leftard speak-whoever agrees that GW is human caused. That's a "qualified" scientist.

Too bad other "real and qualified scientists" have come out and shown that there is no proof that man is responsible for GW.

[Hard Right]

Next they'll put Bill Clinton in charge of an all girls school.

[Phoenix]

Man is responsible for global warming. All the hot air spewed by liberals is heating the planet and is sure to cause its destruction. Here's a solution to stop GLOBAL SMARMING:

Abort liberal babies. We can replace them with Mexicans.

[Phoenix]

"British broadcast law demands impartiality on matters of major political and industrial controversy -- and penalties can be imposed for misrepresentations of fact."

This is a joke, right? If we did that here, we wouldn't have a media. Are the penalities fines? Cool way to get rid of the deficit in a week.

[Kelvin]

"Abort liberal babies. We can replace them with Mexicans."

I've always thought that we should do that with the rednecks. Mexicans are cheaper and work harder.

[seekeronos]

instant gratification!

"qualified scientists"

what's an unqualified scientist?

Posted by: charles | Thursday, April 26, 2007 at 10:38 AM
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The term is self evident.

Would you hire a corporate attorney to defend you in a criminal trial? Would you go to an oncologist for plastic surgery? HIre a gardner to rebuild your deck?

Posted by: nowinger | Thursday, April 26, 2007 at 10:40 AM
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Now we get into the semantics game, no?

In order for their to be such a thing as a "qualified" scientist, there must, by definition, exist "unqualified scientists". I'd go for the earlier point about there being "scientists" and "non-scientists".

Even then, scientists, particularly *research* scientists (that is, to spell it out clearly for some of our troglodyte readers) deal with data that is imcomplete or theories that have not attained the status of "physical laws" or actions/reactions:

For example, if I up-end a bottle of clorox into a pail of ammonia, I'm going make a big, ugly mess. Action, reaction.

If I drop an anvil on top of someone, they will get squished. Law of Gravity, and a bit of that Law of Thermodynamics... potential and kinetic energy makes unsuspecting victim into ground pizza. Boom.

If I stick my finger in an elctrical socket, I will get a hairdo like Don King. Law of Thermodynamics/Electric shock.

Then there is "theory", such as "Anthropogenic Global Warming", vs. "Geologic Time-Cycle Global Warming". Some scientists may even dispute that there is a "global warming crisis".

Theory like Archimede's or Euclid, one of whom proposed a round earth model well before Copernicus, and a calculation for the earth's diameter within some degree of error by today's measure, but quite accurate enough for a toga-wearing Greek dude from nearly 3,000 years ago. Theory then, proven today by empiric evidence (orbital photos, observable curvature of the earth).

Or that whacky theory about how we evolved from tree shrews into monkeys into apes into cave-men, somehow ... with scant evidence to link us to those monkey-critters we supposedly come from. People treat Darwinism these days as if it were the very word of Allah, ineffably and invoilate! WOE to the heathen that says otherwise, that a real God could indeed make man in His image, for he shall surely be ridiculed, and his children taken away to captivity (to a Darwinist indoctrination session, a.k.a. HS Biology class).

Oh, but to cling on to a shred somehow, that we are like gods, and that we can be so arrogant as to think that our insignificant presence on this planet can somehow have little more effect than a pustulent pimple on the butt of a cow.

Perhaps if all 7 billion inhabitants lived exactly as the average middle class American, maybe I could see it.

But I can only see maybe 1 billion at the outside, living anywhere close to our profligately wasteful standards. The rest are too busy slaughtering each other in the name of their moon god, or eking out a mud-hut existence as tribal warlords vie for local supremacy.

If we really want to believe that GW is anthropogenic, then let's start by closing our borders to all the 3rd world folks that want a piece of the American pie (of course, at as little personal cost or with as much entitlement as they can muster). The less folks using microwaves and SUVs and aerosol underarm deodorant and toilet paper, the better off we are, right?

Or could it well be that this so-called "groupthinking" gaggle of climatologists (or are they scientists from all sorts of other disciplines adding chaos to confusion?) be indeed wrong, and the few dissenters be correct in thinking that both CO2 levels and the warmth of the earth are cyclical and BEYOND the control of humankind ... as it was when our slope-browed, sway-backed monkey ancestors were plucking ants out of dunghills?

Of course, the non-thinking Left doesn't want us to question their insane version of "reality", which of course, has no absolutes anyway. What a madhouse, the Lefty Loonie mind!

[Phoenix]

I've always thought that we should do that with the rednecks. Mexicans are cheaper and work harder.

Posted by: Kelvin | Thursday, April 26, 2007 at 11:35 AM

Kelvin/Bob,

I have a confession to make. I love you. I want to have your baby. Your steadfast surges turn me on so, I just can't tell you. If I drive up to Stamford's Trailer Park Palace, I know I can find you. Your trailer will be the one leaning to the left with the wheels sunk down a bit in the mud. I would like to give your peepee a blowjob.

What say you?

Your gal, Phoenix

[Kelvin]

No thanks. Your kind is repulsive. Save it for your sweaty 'kinfolk' after a round of paintball.

[Cindi]

What say you?

Your gal, Phoenix

Posted by: Phoenix | Thursday, April 26, 2007 at 01:04 PM

LMFAO

BobinKelvin only goes after chicks wiff dicks

[ET]

Global Climate Change is manmade alright...promoted by liberal idiots with so much money and time on their hands that they have to create an issue to make themselves feel fulfilled and soothe their egos by positioning themselves savoirs of the planet.

Laurie David, Cheryl Crow? These nimrods don't have a brain between them. people who espouse the "stop asking questions - act now" position are laughingstocks. Real scientific debate is emerging now in response to these morons, and much evidence points away from co2 as the main culprit. Calm down and read a little. The sky is not falling.

http://www.standard-freeholder.com/webapp/sitepages/content.asp?contentid=502332&catname=Local%20News&classif=

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/04/how_about_economic_progress_da.html

[Hard Right]

Phoenix, you know LBiS prefers MEN with long hair.

The left wants to stifle debate, free speech, and several constitutional rights, but we're the fascists? Yup, they sure got our number. (roll eyes)

[Phoenix]

Phoenix is sad. I've been rejected. Oh well. At least he said 'thanks'.

[Phoenix]

"BobinKelvin"?

ha ha ha.... Cindi..... darn it. I hate when I don't think of stuff. But that's why we make a good team.... haw...

[Capitalist Infidel]

Since it's been proven that CO2 FOLLOWS the actual increase in temperature that proves that it's not man made, or at least that CO2 is not a factor whatsoever in that huge .7 degree increase over the past 100 years. But to liberals "global warming" is their religion, no matter how many facts debunk their theory they will continue to believe their narrative.

[bloodrage bob]

3 words, baby: "ministry" "of" "truth".

[ZZMike]

From the link:

"Mr. Gore merely states that Revelle was one of his most admired professors. "

Let's see how Gore deals with one of his most admired professors:

http://media.hoover.org/documents/0817939326_283.pdf

"[Revelle wrote in "Cosmos"] ... the scientific base for a greenhouse warming is too uncertain to justify drastic action at this time."
...
"In his article, Estabrook wrote: "Earth in Balance does not mention that before his death last year, Revelle published a paper that concludes," [see quote above]

So far, Revelle is one of Gore's admired professors. Now it appears that Revelle does not support Gore's position. So the smear campaign against Revelle started. Singer (I assume you're reading along) was told to remove Revelle's name from that paper. He couldn't, because (1) Revelle was dead, and (2) Revelle really did co-author it.

Here's another:

http://www.opinioneditorials.com/guestcontributors/msheppard_20060630.html
Ted Koppel on Gore:

“There is some irony in the fact that Vice President Gore, one of the most scientifically literate men to sit in the White House in this century, that he is resorting to political means to achieve what should ultimately be resolved on a purely scientific basis.”

Beside that, "one of the most scientifically literate men" does not start out with a "D" in a college science class:

"Gore's lowest grade of D came in a natural sciences course, while his top grades were an A in French and English, an A in Visual and Environmental Studies."

[nowinger]

NEWSFLASH: THe studying of climate change has advanced significantly since 1990 when Revelle published his paper. Or did you think nothing had changed in 17 years? I'd say the global warming deniers are in BIG trouble if you have to reach back almost 20 years to find a credible scientist who wasn't sold on 'drastic action' to combat global warming.

[TomB]

Can someone give me a list of this "consensus" of experts?

Because I keep reading dissenting opinions from experts like Lindzen, Gray, Michaels, Ball, etc., and I can't figure out how you get "consensus" when there are experts out there that disagree.

"THe studying of climate change has advanced significantly since 1990 when Revelle published his paper."

You mean like in the past four years where the IPCC has lowered their estimates on temperature increase by half?

[templar knight]

TomB, quit trying to rain on the liberals parade, dammit. This global warming biz is just the thing for the liberal boys. Now, in the name of science, they shall declare and decide.
________________________

The dirty liberal AlGore, to the nice, young man, "That car is too big. Why, because I say so, and it doesn't get 60 mpg".

The nice, young man, "But, Mr. Liberal Decider Gore, the other car is very dangerous. It is light and small, and could be a death trap."

"STFU, who cares if it's dangerous, you little redneck bastard. You deserve to have to take your chances. You screwed everything up. You're lucky we don't send you to the reeducation camp."
___________________

"Nowinger, go get my limo, what do you think I hired you for, to post on the internets all day? I feel like riding around the rest of the day. Get the government credit card out, and fill it up, nowinger, mush mush."

"But sir, you will be wasting a lot of gas".

"Who the fuck do you think you are, you little shit? The law doesn't apply to me. I am the law. See, these regulations passed by the Democrats made me an agent of the global warming initiative. I do what I want, and if I want to waste gas, and have the government pay for it, who's to say it's wrong?"

"But sir, the environment," said nowinger, in a cowarding manner.

"The environment, you think this is about the environment. You dumb ass, this is about POWER, the environment was just a way for us to obtain it. You need to get a clue, nowinger. You're as stupid as the wingers, nowinger. Geez, I would never have let you be my driver if I had known you were one of those enviro freaks."

[TomB]

TK, just call me "thread killer". Because every time I ask that question, the thread, inexplicably, dies. I've NEVER gotten a useful answer.

Strange, that.

[nowinger]

All you need to do, Tom, is google 'global warming consensus' and you can find a gazillion peer reviewed papers, data and the names of all the scientific bodies throughout the world whose members are in agreement. You might also look up the definition of "consensus" which doesn't mean 100% agreement, but an opinion held by the majority. There are always a handful of crackpots on every issue: 9/11 was orchestrated by Cheney, the moon landing was filmed on a soundstage, Elvis lives.

[TomB]

"All you need to do, Tom, is google 'global warming consensus' and you can find a gazillion peer reviewed papers, data and the names of all the scientific bodies throughout the world whose members are in agreement."

So, in other words, you can't do it.

Look, you are the one claiming "consensus". It is up to you to prove it.

Googling for papers is not evidence. If contributors to the IPCC study don't agree, how can you possibly claim consensus?

[TomB]

"There are always a handful of crackpots on every issue"

While at Colorado State, the media went to Bill Gray every year for his hurricane predictions, and seriously reported them. Now that he doubts AGW, he is a "crackpot". Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and was a contributing scientist to the last IPCC report, yet now he is a "crackpot".

How convenient.

[nowinger]

I don't need to prove the earth is round, the evidence of scientific consensus is so overwhelming that its a straw man argument to say 'prove it' the proof is all around you, in every recent report on climate change that has been released, every statement by scientific bodies around the world. Every statement by BP, Shell Oil, the EU countries about the science. I'm not going to prove that the sky is blue either.

[TomB]

Nowinger, I must make a confession. Prior to responding to you I did not google 'global warming consensus', but now that I did I see the results are 'interesting':

In order:

Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global ...- anti-consensus

Search Cato - anti-consensus

Climatologists Reject Media Claims of Global Warming Consensus ...- duh

Aliens Cause Global Warming - anti

Undeniable Global Warming (washingtonpost.com) - pro-consensus

BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change ... pro-consensus

Talking Points on the Environment #38 - Global Warming "Consensus ... anti

Global Warming Consensus Alert - Acton Institute PowerBlog - anti

Pursuing Holiness » Blog Archive » Global Warming Consensus: It’s ... anti

BW Online | August 16, 2004 | Global Warming - pro

Global warmingconsensus - anti

Please Stop Talking About the Global Warming Consensus: Sciam ... another duh

Global Warming Consensus is a Myth - speaks for itself

Global Warming: Consensus vs. Certainty - suprisingly neutral

OpinionJournal - Extra - anti

The Fake Consensus on 'Global Warming' - anti

_________________________________________

Seems google has a decidedly anti-consensus "consensus

NW, what, exactly was your point?

[TomB]

BTW, I posted this a few months ago, but I'll repost it again for NW's sake.

AGW Skeptics:

Chris de Freitas, Associate Professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland

Claude Allègre, French geophysicist, Institute of Geophysics (Paris)

Robert C. Balling, Jr., director of the Office of Climatology and an associate professor of geography at Arizona State University

David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma

Richard Lindzen, MIT meteorology professor and member of the National Academy of Sciences

Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville

Khabibullo Ismailovich Abdusamatov, at Pulkovskaya Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences and the supervisor of the Astrometria project of the Russian section of the International Space Station

Sallie Baliunas, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics

Robert M. Carter, researcher at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University in Australia

George V. Chilingar, professor of civil and petroleum engineering at the University of Southern California

William M. Gray, professor of atmospheric science and meteorologist, Colorado State University (now at NOAA)

Zbigniew Jaworowski, chair of the Scientific Council at the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Warsaw

Marcel Leroux, former Professor of Climatology, Université Jean Moulin

Tim Patterson , paleoclimatologist and Professor of Geology at Carleton University in Canada

Frederick Seitz, retired, former solid-state physicist, former president of the National Academy of Sciences

Nir Shaviv, astrophysicist at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem

Fred Singer, Professor emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia

Willie Soon, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics

Henrik Svensmark, Danish National Space Center

Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, Professor Emeritus from University of Ottawa

Sherwood Idso, former research physicist, USDA Water Conservation Laboratory, and adjunct professor, Arizona State University

Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa.

Dr. Tad Murty, former senior research scientist, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, former director of Australia's National Tidal Facility, and professor of earth sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide; currently adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa

Dr. R. Timothy Patterson, professor, Department of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University, Ottawa.

Dr. Fred Michel, director, Institute of Environmental Science and associate professor, Department of Earth Sciences, Carleton University, Ottawa.

Dr. Madhav Khandekar, former research scientist, Environment Canada. Member of editorial board of Climate Research and Natural Hazards.

Dr. Paul Copper, FRSC, professor emeritus, Department of Earth Sciences, Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ontario.

Dr. Ross McKitrick, associate professor, Department of Economics, University of Guelph, Ontario.

Dr. Tim Ball, former professor of climatology, University of Winnipeg; environmental consultant.

Dr. Andreas Prokocon, adjunct professor of earth sciences, University of Ottawa; consultant in statistics and geology.

Mr. David Nowell, M.Sc. (Meteorology), fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, Canadian member, and past chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa.

Dr. Christopher Essex, professor of applied mathematics and associate director of the Program in Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario.

Dr. Gordon E. Swaters, professor of applied mathematics, Department of Mathematical Sciences, and member, Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Research Group, University of Alberta.

Dr. L. Graham Smith, associate professor, Department of Geography, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario.

Dr. G. Cornelis van Kooten, professor and Canada Research Chair in environmental studies and climate change, Department of Economics, University of Victoria.

Dr. Peter Chylek, adjunct professor, Department of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax.

Dr./Cdr. M. R. Morgan, FRMS, climate consultant, former meteorology advisor to the World Meteorological Organization. Previously research scientist in climatology at University of Exeter, U.K.

Dr. Keith D. Hage, climate consultant and professor emeritus of Meteorology, University of Alberta.

Dr. David E. Wojick, P.Eng., energy consultant, Star Tannery, Virginia, and Sioux Lookout, Ontario.

Rob Scagel, M.Sc., forest microclimate specialist, principal consultant, Pacific Phytometric Consultants, Surrey, B.C.

Dr. Douglas Leahey, meteorologist and air-quality consultant, Calgary.

Paavo Siitam, M.Sc., agronomist, chemist, Cobourg, Ontario.

Dr. Chris de Freitas, climate scientist, associate professor, The University of Auckland, N.Z.

Dr. Freeman J. Dyson, emeritus professor of physics, Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, New Jersey.

Mr. George Taylor, Department of Meteorology, Oregon State University; Oregon State climatologist; past president, American Association of State Climatologists.

Dr. Ian Plimer, professor of geology, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide; emeritus professor of earth sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia.

Dr. R.M. Carter, professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia.

Mr. William Kininmonth, Australasian Climate Research, former Head National Climate Centre, Australian Bureau of Meteorology; former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology, Scientific and Technical Review.

Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, former director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute.

Dr. Gerrit J. van der Lingen, geologist/paleoclimatologist, Climate Change Consultant, Geoscience Research and Investigations, New Zealand.

Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner, emeritus professor of paleogeophysics and geodynamics, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden.

Dr. Gary D. Sharp, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, California.

Dr. Al Pekarek, associate professor of geology, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Dept., St. Cloud State University, St. Cloud, Minnesota.

Dr. Marcel Leroux, professor emeritus of climatology, University of Lyon, France; former director of Laboratory of Climatology, Risks and Environment, CNRS

Dr. Paul Reiter, professor, Institut Pasteur, Unit of Insects and Infectious Diseases, Paris, France. Expert reviewer, IPCC Working group II, chapter 8 (human health).

Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, physicist and chairman, Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw, Poland.

Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, reader, Department of Geography, University of Hull, U.K.; editor, Energy and Environment.

Dr. Hans H.J. Labohm, former advisor to the executive board, Clingendael Institute (The Netherlands Institute of International Relations), and an economist who has focused on climate change.

Dr. Lee C. Gerhard, senior scientist emeritus, University of Kansas, past director and state geologist, Kansas Geological Survey.

Dr. Asmunn Moene, past head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, Norway.

Dr. August H. Auer, past professor of atmospheric science, University of Wyoming; previously chief meteorologist, Meteorological Service (MetService) of New Zealand.

Dr. Vincent Gray, expert reviewer for the IPCC, and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of "Climate Change 2001," Wellington, N.Z.

Dr. Howard Hayden, emeritus professor of physics, University of Connecticut.

Dr. Benny Peiser, professor of social anthropology, Faculty of Science, Liverpool John Moores University, U.K.

Dr. Jack Barrett, chemist and spectroscopist, formerly with Imperial College London, U.K.

Dr. William J.R. Alexander, professor emeritus, Dept. of Civil and Biosystems Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa. Member, United Nations Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, 1994-2000

Dr. Harry N.A. Priem, emeritus professor of planetary geology and isotope geophysics, Utrecht University; former director of the Netherlands Institute for Isotope Geosciences; past president of the Royal Netherlands Geological & Mining Society.

Dr. Robert H. Essenhigh, E.G. Bailey professor of energy conversion, Department of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University.

Dr. Sallie Baliunas, astrophysicist and climate researcher, Boston, Mass.

Douglas Hoyt, senior scientist at Raytheon (retired) and co-author of the book, The Role of the Sun in Climate Change; previously with NCAR, NOAA, and the World Radiation Center, Davos, Switzerland.

Peter Dietze, independent energy advisor and scientific climate and carbon modeller, official IPCC reviewer, Bavaria, Germany.

Dr. Boris Winterhalter, senior marine researcher (retired), Geological Survey of Finland, former professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, Finland.

Dr. Wibjörn Karlén, emeritus professor, Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden.

Dr. Hugh W. Ellsaesser, physicist/meteorologist, previously with the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, California; atmospheric consultant.

Dr. Art Robinson, founder, Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, Cave Junction, Oregon.

Dr. Arthur Rörsch, emeritus professor of molecular genetics, Leiden University, The Netherlands; past board member, Netherlands organization for applied research (TNO) in environmental, food, and public health.

Dr. Alister McFarquhar, Downing College, Cambridge, U.K.; international economist.

Dr. Richard S. Courtney, climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, U.K.

Note: there may be some repeats. I got the names from more than one source. There may be deletions as some may have been cowed into renouncing their previous views.

[nowinger]

I knew it! I knew the list would be coming next. Look, dude, the consensus is out there. Read the UN reports, NASA reports, read the statements from the EU, read the peer reviewed papers, read the statements from BP and Shell. Read the congressional testimony from gov. scientists who say their views and reports on global warming were censored by the Bush Admin.

You aren't worth my time. I'm sure I can find a list of morons who have been abducted by aliens, too.

[TomB]

You told me to "google it", and I did. 13 out of the first 16 were anit-consensus.

It is intellectually lazy to make a claim and then expect someone who doubts the claim to confirm it themselves.

You also failed to address my point how respected scientist can suddenly become "morons".

Now you are just handwaving.

[nowinger]

Scientific opinion on climate change
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
National and international science academies and professional societies have assessed the current scientific opinion on climate change, in particular recent global warming. These assessments have largely followed or endorsed the IPCC postition that "An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities".[1]

This page documents scientific opinion as given by synthesis reports, bodies of national or international standing, and surveys of opinion among climate scientists. It does not document the views of individual scientists or self-selected lists of individuals such as petitions.

energy Portal
Contents [hide]
1 Statements by organizations
1.1 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
1.2 Joint science academies’ statement 2005
1.3 Joint science academies’ statement 2001
1.4 U.S. National Research Council, 2001
1.5 American Meteorological Society
1.6 American Geophysical Union
1.7 Federal Climate Change Science Program, 2006
1.8 Other concurring organizations
1.9 Dissenting organizations
1.10 Scientific consensus
2 Recent surveys of scientists and scientific literature
2.1 Oreskes, 2004
2.2 Bray and von Storch, 2003
3 Older surveys
3.1 Survey of U.S. state climatologists 1997
3.2 Bray and von Storch, 1996
3.3 Other older surveys of scientists
4 See also
5 References
6 External links

[TomB]

Key point:

"This page documents scientific opinion as given by synthesis reports, bodies of national or international standing, and surveys of opinion among climate scientists. It does not document the views of individual scientists..."

Gee, I wonder why?

From what I can see there, all but 2 or 3 of that mess you cut-and-pasted are government bodies, hence written by bureaucrats. As far as the American Meteorological Society goes, there was a furor not long ago when the Weather Channel's Heidi Cullen called for members who oppose AGW to be stripped of their membership. So much for "consensus" there.

In addition, you post this as proof of consensus:

3.1 Survey of U.S. state climatologists 1997.

But this is what that survey said:

"In 1997, Citizens for a Sound Economy surveyed America's 48 official state climatologists on questions related to climate change [31]. Of the 36 respondents, 44% considered global warming to be a largely natural phenomenon, compared to 17% who considered warming to be largely manmade. The survey further found that 58% disagreed or somewhat disagreed with then-President Clinton's assertion that "the overwhelming balance of evidence and scientific opinion is that it is no longer a theory, but now fact, that global warming is for real". Eighty-nine percent agreed that "current science is unable to isolate and measure variations in global temperatures caused ONLY by man-made factors," and 61% said that historical data do not indicate "that fluctuations in global temperatures are attributable to human influences such as burning fossil fuels."

60% of the respondents said that reducing man-made CO2 emissions by 15% below 1990 levels would not prevent global temperatures from rising, and 86% said that reducing emissions to 1990 levels would not prevent rising temperatures. 39% agreed and 33% disagreed that "evidence exists to suggest that the earth is headed for another glacial period," [32] though the time scale for the next glacial period was not specified."

________________________________________________

A "consensus" of state climatologists are AGW skeptics!

You don't even bother to read what you post. Pathetic.

[nowinger]

I notice you have to go back 10 years. You are global warming denier, there is no talking to you. You don't care that if the consensus is CORRECT and nothing is done it will be a catastrophe on a scale unmatchedc in human history. Scientists are not bureaucrats, and the global warming deniers fail to make a case for a global conspiracy of scientists from over 100 nations all in on the fraud.