Do you think skeptical scientists believe what they say, or are they purposefully dishonest?

Question

Some claims made in an open letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations by a group of scientists skeptical of anthropogenic global warming.

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164002

1) "The average rate of warming of 0.1 to 0. 2 degrees Celsius per decade recorded by satellites during the late 20th century falls within known natural rates of warming and cooling over the last 10,000 years."

Ridiculous. In the Younger Dryas (abrupt cooling period about 10,000 years ago), the prevailing theory holds that the cooling was caused by a significant reduction or shutdown of the North Atlantic thermohaline circulation. This major natural change still only caused a cooling period one-third as fast as the current warming.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas#Causes_of_the_Younger_Dryas

2) "There has been no net global warming since 1998."

Flat-out lie.

http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/t1998.jpg

Do you think they believe these claims?

Christy is an odd one. My theory is that ever since he screwed up the satellite data analysis and claimed the troposphere was cooling, he has a vested interest in the AGW theory being wrong so he can claim 'ha! I was right all along!'.

Raven - I ask you again to support your claims. I can say "the planet has warmed 10 degrees in the past 2 years". That doesn't make it true.

1998 was the hottest year on record. However, 2001-2007 have all been hotter than every previous year, with the exception of 1998. If you analyze the trend instead of just looking at 1 year, it's obvious that global warming has not stalled (as the graph I linked above indicates).

Claiming otherwise shows either a lack of understanding of science and statistics (in your case) or an intentional dishonesty (as I can only assume is true of the skeptical scientists).

Tomcat - your linked plot stops at 2000. Nobody denies that 1998 was warmer than 1999 and 2000. A 2 year cooling "trend" is just a bit on the cherrypicking side.

Answer 1

There are a small number of skeptical scientists who genuinely beleive what they're saying and it appears that in order to maintain this belief they have dispensed with some of the most important principles of science - to keep an open mind about everything, to be guided by fact not opinion and to remain impartial.

Then of course, there are those funded by and connected to the oil and power indusrty.

Take the letter written to the Sec Gen of the UN. There's 100 signatories on the letter, as normal for any letter or document coming from the skeptics it's necessary to first discount all the irrelevant names.

START WITH 100 NAMES...

It's claimed that the letter is from climate experts but the signatories include politicians, computer programmers, wildlife consultants, engineers etc. Weeding out all the non experts there's a total of 25 signatories that claim to have qualifications or a professional background linked to some form of climate science.

25 NAMES REMAIN...

5 of the 25 have no relevant qualifications or expertise despite claims to the contrary...

• Richard Courtney - Claims to be a climate scientist, is a spokesperson for the coal industry, several links to tobacco and oil funded organisations

• Hans Erren - Described as a climate specialist, is a geographer / geologist

• Asmun Moene - Claims to be former head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, Norway. The Forecasting Centre state he was employed in the 'administration of weather forecasting'. Linked to George C Marshall Instutute which is funded by Exxon, refutes smoking is harmful but unable to find direct links to tobacco industry.

• Gary D Sharp - Listed as working for Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, his job is a tuna researcher

• Roy W Spencer - Listed as a climatologist, is a scientific advisor to the Interfaith Stewardship Alliance which is funded by Exxon, has links to multiple organisations also funded by Exxon and the tobacco industry

20 NAMES REMAIN...

11 of these are funded by or directly connected to the oil and power industries...

• Tim Ball - Consultant at Freinds of Science - funded by the oil industry; also an executive of NRSP - controlled by energy industry lobbyists.

• Ian Clark - An executive of NRSP - controlled by energy industry lobbyists.

• Vincent Gray - An executive of NRSP - controlled by energy industry lobbyists.

• William Kininmouth - Funded by Western Mining Corporation

• Douglas Leahey - President of Freinds of Science which is funded by the oil industry

• David Legates - Spokesman for Exxon funded organisations

• Richard Lindzen - Unspecified 'oil and coal interests', funding from OPEC and Western Fuels Alliance. Member of organisations such as Cato, Heartland, George C Marshall etc - all receive funding from Exxon

• James J. O'Brien - Member of several organisations linked to and funded by oil companies. However, he's associated with more organisations that are not funded by oil / coal than ones that are.

• R Timothy Patterson - On the board of Friends of Science, funded by the oil industry

• S Fred Singer - Where to start. Directly funded by, has organisartions funded by, multiple links to Exxon, Western Fuels Alliance, American Petroleum Institute etc etc

• Hendrik Tennekes - Close links to Fred Singer's Exxon funded organisation - SEPP

LEAVING JUST 9 FROM THE ORIGINAL 100...

• Reid Bryson (meteorologist), Stewart Franks (hydroclimatologist), Marcel Leroux (climatologist), Horst Malberg (meteorologist and climatologist), John Maunder (climatologist), David Nowell (meteorologist), Garth W Paltridge (atmospheric physicist), R G Roper (atmospheric scientist) and Gerrit J. van der Lingen (paleoclimatologist).

It's possible that by doing some research on the internet that some of these 9 would be found to have links with the oil or related industries.

So it all boils down to a maximum of nine credible names from a pool of tens of thousands of potential signatories. It's like the Oregon Petition all over again.

It must be really annoying for the skeptics having the IRS make people like Exxon publish accounts that show where their money is going and for foundations etc to have to state where their money is coming from.

Answer 2

I think you will find that scientists and others use the same tactics to prove their theories as does their counterparts on the other side of the issue. You must keep in mind that they threories, not facts. That goes for GW supporters and opponents. There is nothing proven on either side of the issue. There are too many variables that are not completely understood. Correlations are drawn using computer models that are inheritenly flawed due to lack of understanding. The fact is the more we learn about the climate and its variables the more we learn how little we understand.

Answer 3

Both of your points are false.
The ice core record temperature has gone through similar warmings (0.7 degC per century) several times in the last 4000 years. However, GW advocates find this fact inconvenient so they insist on using data from tree rings instead of ice cores despite the fact that tree rings have been shown to be poor measures of the temperature over a long period of time.
1998 was warmer that all years since which means the statement that there has been no net warming is correct. However, the difference of opinion simple illustrates how it is possible to manipulate statistics by choosing different starting points. GW advocates frequently do this - any graph or chart that starts in th 50s is a similar manipulation because it cuts out the effect of the warming trend in the 20-30s.
Lets put it another way: put your pencil on 1998 and draw a line to 2007. The line goes down which means there is no net warming since 1998 which means the statement is correct. Pick another and you get a different line which may go up and you would be correct to say that it has warmed from your starting point. This example simply illustrates how easy it is to manipulate statistics - something that GW advocates do all of the time.

Answer 4

After due consideration of the motives as to why the skeptical scientists wrote an open letter to the U.N. disclaiming AGW , I can only come to the conclusion that they were paid to do so or were just jealous of the scientists (3,000 +) that received the laurels for their theories of AGW. I don't believe that any scientists with any credibility would be nit picking on the findings of their fellow scientists unless they were very handsomely paid to do so. Its sad to believe that these proffessional scientists would sell their souls to the devil for money.

Answer 5

It's a mixture of both.

Richard Lindzen is no doubt sincere, though he's made a career of opposing things.

I find it difficult to believe that Christy doesn't understand the scientific shakiness of some of the stuff he's put his name on.

As far as the New Zealand folks go, you've identified some of the misleading statements they're making. Rather than simply do more in that area, I'll let a fellow countryman of theirs speak:

"Meanwhile, our little NZ band of cranks provide a means for the US rabid right to get their climate message out. They should be ashamed of themselves."

http://hot-topic.co.nz/category/climate-cranks/

EDIT - BOATMAN 1 - I agree, but one thing is very important. The impact of greenhouse gases is so strong that the models are "robust". You can vary the parameters quite a bit and they still give the same answer.

There's a reason why the numbers of the "skeptics" are few.

Answer 6

This is a question which you should put to the skeptic scientists directly-------- their motives --- good or bad--- are entirely unknown to us.

However I would caution you to NOT disregard the opinions of this large group of skeptic scientists and skeptic statistical experts who disagree about global warming.

This statistical data issue is actually more troubling to me....... as most "plain" folks cannot verify the data collection and calculation on their own------ but must rely on expert mathematicians.

Answer 7

Bob you incorrectly stated that Sea level will rise in the question about Antarctic ice sheet that melted recently this is incorrect science. I think you are on some kind of Government agenda. If all the floating sea ice in the world melted, there would be no change in sea level at all, as the floating ice will have displaced its own weight of water. Only land ice will cause the sea level to rise.

Answer 8

As far as Christy is concerned if he has scientific data in hand that contradicts the rewritten version of past climate that the IPCC is attempting to propagate, he has good reason to be a vocal skeptic.

If you will look at the GRIP in figure 1 you will see that temperatures have been cooling since about 1998 and you will see a rapid increase and decrease in temperatures located in the mid 1700's.

http://www.oversight.house.gov/Documents/20070320152338-19776.pdf

.
.

Answer 9

Do you believe that supporting scientiest believe what they say or are they intentionally dishonest? This is just another attempt to discredit people with different opinions and has no place in a scientific discussion. You claim to be a scientists, shouldn't you start acting like one instead of acting like a politician?

Answer 10

why dishonest ? let it melt, so theres more liquid water available to the economic groups find away to freeze that same water, and that goes also to the pollution, so they can sell us some oxygen masks, in the meantime a little contribution to the scientist community, by the way I think that we have no saying in the weather, that the mother nature working with or without us.