Apr 29 2008
Quotes from Some Scientists Doubting Anthropogenic Global Warming
Thanks to Richard Littlemore at DeSmogBlog.
I am horrified to find my name on such a list. I have spent the last 20 years arguing the opposite.
Dr. David Sugden. Professor of Geography, University of Edinburgh
I have NO doubts ..the recent changes in global climate ARE man-induced. I insist that you immediately remove my name from this list since I did not give you permission to put it there.
Dr. Gregory Cutter, Professor, Department of Ocean, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Old Dominion University
I don’t believe any of my work can be used to support any of the statements listed in the article.
Dr. Robert Whittaker, Professor of Biogeography, University of Oxford
Please remove my name. What you have done is totally unethical!!
Dr. Svante Bjorck, Geo Biosphere Science Centre, Lund University
I’m outraged that the “Heartland Institute” has included me as an “author” of this report. I do not share the views expressed in the summary.
Dr. John Clague, Shrum Research Professor, Department of Earth Sciences, Simon Fraser University
(2 votes, average: 3 out of 5)
Loading ...Related Posts:
16 Responses to “Quotes from Some Scientists Doubting Anthropogenic Global Warming”
To reduce spam, comments are automatically closed 30 days after the last comment. If you would like to comment on any closed thread, please use the contact form at the top of this page.
As a fun postscript, count the number of contributers to RealClimate. Did anyone actually look at that list before publishing it?
This pales in comparison to the IPCC that used the opinion of 60 scientists and said they had the consent of 2000.
Remember, for the real global warming report in the IPCC paper, less than 100 scientists reviewed.
[Reply: Well, that's clearly wrong. And please use html if you want to emphasize something instead of caps. I changed it for you here.]
I’ve found the name of two former colleagues from France in this list. I very much doubt they endorse the statement. I guess I’m going to send them an email …
Why don’t you people look at what the Heartland Institute said about the people on the list:
“The following list includes more than 500 qualified researchers whose research in professional journals provides historic and/or physical proxy evidence that:”
In other words, they are not claiming those people endorsed anything. They are simply stating that published research done by them supports the claims made by the Heartland Institute.
That said, I think they should have listed the exact papers instead of just the names (the title ‘co-authors’ is just bizarre). If they did that it would have been no worse than Oerske’s rediculous attempt at propoganda where she tried to claim that no peer reviewed literal opposed the consensus view.
FWIW - I dislike these exercises in propaganda even if happen to support the objectives. That said, warmers don’t have any right to complain unless they are willing to denounce the infinitely more deceptive and odious propaganda used to promote AGW alarmism.
Gee, Raven, up until that last comment I was still willing to give you a tiny little bit of credit. That’s sure over with.
Steve Bloom says:
“Gee, Raven, up until that last comment I was still willing to give you a tiny little bit of credit. That’s sure over with.”
Does that mean that you deny the fact that alarmists frequently engage in deceptive exercises in propoganda and misinformation? Or are you one of those people that is blind to propoganda that supports your POV?
I dislike propoganda and deceptions no matter who is peddling it and wish we could have a rational discussion of costs vs. benefits. That cannot happen as long as alarmists insist on using outrageous propoganda to support their case.
Steve, it’s best to just ignore him/her. Raven is either trolling or so dense as to be functionally indistinguishable from one.
See:
Dot Earth: Emanuel article
Open Mind: Perjury and City of Musicians
Climate Progress: Fuzzy Math on Stab Wedge
I know the saying is never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by incompetence, but from the “current cooling” canard to the false choice between CO2 reduction and world food supplies, it’s kind of hard to believe these are just a series of “honest” mistakes, especially given the blogs on which s/he is regurgitating them.
[Reply: Either your html was malformed or the spam filter ate some of your links. I tried to find them all. But didn't find the one on Climate Progress.]
Raven,
Benny Peiser was forced to retract his assertion that Oreskes’ work didn’t show what Benny wanted it to show.
Just like the “new” “list” at this denialist site, and I’m trying to show how its bogus at DotEarth, an excerpt reproduced here:
—–
I used to do this following exercise years ago at Tech Central Station. Some denialist would smugly point to paper and claim it negated AGW. Invariably, the assertion could not stand scrutiny, as the papers never said what the denialist wished it would.
It got to be so ridiculous, Alex Avery, in a trope against Tyrone Hayes, actually thought I worked in Hayes’ lab. All I did was read the paper and refute Avery’s assertions. Too simple for words.
So, in the spirit of ‘here we go again with the whack-a-mole denialist strategy’, I randomly** chose 6 papers from the list. The papers (following) said no such thing as the poor denialists wish, claim, aver, project.
This exercise has been asked and answered, dozens of times, years ago:
—–
o 1. Pielke Sr et al 2004. The paper was about:
There is nothing about the theory of AGW being overturned, addressed, questioned, wondered about in the paper. Nothing.
o Christy et al 2006. The paper attempted to show that
Now, Christy himself states that the hypothesis has not been proven. But simply having a paper with unproven speculation is good enough! It disproves AGW, by gum! It does it does it does!
o Pielke Jr et al 2005. The paper was a lit review and found
Strong words against the AGW cult, to be sure!
o Bago and Butler 2000. The paper concluded that only low clouds were affected by CRF and
Another resounding blow against the humanity-haters!
o Rusov et al (in review) It appears this paper is published, maybe in a high-energy physics journal. It has not been cited.
Nonetheless, the paper was dependent upon a model, which is an issue with denialists (models aren’t ‘data’ or ‘evidence’) when papers reach conclusions they don’t like. Hypocrisy aside, the conclusion was based on a false premise:
Thus the model is subject to GIGO. Devastating, surely.
o Raspopov and Dergachev 2007.
Nothing about anything else. Solar cycle and tree growth. There is nothing - about the theory of AGW being overturned, addressed, questioned, wondered about in the abstract. Nothing.
No mention of AGW.
—–
We also went through this exercise several years ago with Benny Peiser. He eventually retracted his assertion, as he had to admit that he didn’t understand what he was reading.
This is merely a recycling of an old tactic that has been refuted years ago.
The list is full of papers that don’t say what some wish. The list can’t stand scrutiny. It is rife with old stuff that is out of date, FUD mouthpieces (E&E.) or journals no one reads. But let’s have the small minority trumpet this feast fit for dragging down the humanity-haters!
This is the best they can do, folks. Assert that a paper says something when it does not. Old papers that have since been overturned. Journals that nobody reads. Asked and answered, years ago.
Nothing new here.
Best,
D
Raven :
Why don’t you people look at what the Heartland Institute said about the people on the list:
“The following list includes more than 500 qualified researchers whose research in professional journals provides historic and/or physical proxy evidence that:”
In other words, they are not claiming those people endorsed anything.
Why don’t “you people” stop putting words in others people mouth …
Who said anything about Heartland pretending to have an endorsement? Whether or not they pretend to have an endorsement of their statement, it does not change the fact that many scientists of their list:
1) not only do not endorse their conclusions, but more importantly
2) are “shocked” by the “misrepresentation” of their own results.
They are simply stating that published research done by them supports the claims made by the Heartland Institute.
Yeah and this claim is “simply” pure BS, except of course if you consider Avery to be more qualified to interpret papers than their own authors.
My favorite indicator may be that anything scientists say is viewed “skeptically”, but anything right-wing think-tanks say is believed outright, no questioning, total credulity.
Best,
D
Dano says:
“Benny Peiser was forced to retract his assertion that Oreskes’ work didn’t show what Benny wanted it to show.”
Peiser did no such thing.
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2008/04/12/wikipedia-s-zealots-solomon.aspx
From the link:
“Upon checking with Peiser, I found he had done no such thing. The Wikipedia page had misunderstood or distorted his comments. I then exercised the right to edit Wikipedia that we all have, corrected the Wikipedia entry, and advised Peiser that I had done so.”
The artical is simple one of many examples of how propoganda, distortions and outright lies are tactics used by many who support AGW alarmism.
I can’t believe that there is not one person on this board that is willing to at least acknowledge that theses tactics are being used by alarmists. If you are not willing to at least acknowledge that then you really have no business complaining if some outfits like the Heartland Institute engage in similar tactics.
Like I said: total credulity for the right-wing sites. No skepticism found when reading there, no sirree.
Nonetheless.
Peiser retracted his assertion in 2006, the lone remaining paper being an non-empirical paper (opinion piece).
So, technically young Raven, he found zero empirical papers that refuted the Oreskes paper. None. Zip. Zilch. Nada. Nichts. Zee-rooooo.
The hand-waving in the Nat’l Post piece is just that: hand-waving. Peiser found nothing to refute the Oreskes paper. No one has refuted/rebutted/had an answer for the Oreskes paper. Sure, we have a list that doesn’t do what denialists purport, but then, what’s new?
Anyway, the planet is moving on. Cities, states, countries, companies, corporations are looking for ways to adapt and mitigate.
Mainstream society is not discussing right-wing opinion pieces. Society is discussing what to do in the face of AGW. In fits and starts, sure. But we’ve moved on past the fringe denialist elements who wish for delay to distract away from the challenge to their identities.
Best,
Ð
The smoke bombs the inactivist commenters are throwing out are hilarious!
And perhaps understandably, the professional inactivists — such as Marohasy, Watts, the Pielkes, etc. — don’t actually want to talk about the Heartland list itself. I’m therefore starting a sort of campaign to get them to talk about it.
– bi, International Journal of Inactivism
As the cooling continues (RSS and UAH within .1C of 0 for at least 4 months in a row) will these same “Scientists” demand that their names be put back on the list?
Bruce, trend, statistics, innumerate.
Hank … cooling is cooling.
[Reply: In 3-7 years when we're in an El Nino, I imagine you'll be saying "warming is warming" then?]