Why are global warming skeptics making such a big deal about the "400 skeptical scientists" report?

Question

A report on James Inhofe's blog claims "Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007"

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report

The "report" is just a list of 400 names of scientists in various disciplines who dispute some aspect of the anthropogenic global warming theory.

"The distinguished scientists featured in this new report are experts in diverse fields, including: climatology; oceanography; geology; biology; glaciology; biogeography; meteorology; oceanography; economics; chemistry; mathematics; environmental sciences; engineering; physics and paleoclimatology."

First off, many of those fields have little to do with climate science.

Secondly, do you realize how many total scientists there are in those fields? 400 isn't even 1% of the scientists in that group.

Thirdly, skeptics are always saying "consensus means nothing". Now suddenly a 400 skeptical scientist consensus means something?

Why are skeptics making such a big deal about this? Look at some of their reactions:

"Consensus debunked!"
"It's about time!!"
"That's why I am a skeptic--------- and in what looks like GOOD company."
"hallelujah, bout time too"

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AjdarEeKo9ojL6ODDSjzCW0Fxgt.;_ylv=3?qid=20071220125335AAPYhK8

You would think they just disproved the whole theory!

Ron C - funny, we never saw any of that peer-reviewed skeptical research here.

Yes I did read the report (a.k.a. list of names) linked above.

sdvwallingford - Gore's statement was correct.

http://norvig.com/oreskes.html

Answer 1

The same reason the creationist celebrate when they get 300 supporters to sign a paper (most aren't biologists). These fringe movements gain credibility when they says they have x hundred members, which seems like a significant number to many people.

Answer 2

Dana, a great deal of peer-reviewed research has come out in 2007 that shows AGW will not be catastrophic. This has changed the minds of many scientists. Not long ago people in other countries would complain because all of the skeptical scientists were in the U.S. This reports makes it clear that scientists around the world are leaving the AGW camp and have become skeptics. Even the Washington Post admitted the number of skeptical scientists is growing all the time.

Did you bother to read the report? Or the full press release?

EDIT-
Dana, we have talked about some of the peer-reviewed research here. Here are links to some of the articles.

http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf
http://blog.acton.org/uploads/Spencer_07GRL.pdf
http://www.spacecenter.dk/publications/scientific-report-series/Scient_No._3.pdf
http://www.ncasi.org/publications/Detail.aspx?id=3025
http://www.agu.org/journals/jd/jd0723/2007JD008740/
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/publications/pdf/R-337.pdf

By the way, the report was much more than a list of names. It also included quotes by the scientists explaining why they changed their positions. It also included quotes from newspapers like the Washington Post admitting the number of skeptical scientists is growing all the time. So, I really do not believe you read the report.

Answer 3

I used the ratio of 99-1 in another question and got flak for it.

I figured the ratio at 2-3 thousand top climate scientists to maybe a couple dozen well known skeptics. That would be less than 1%. Is this correct?

In this example the ratio would 100 thousand to 400. Or as you say less than 1%.

Answer 4

Ron:

Here is an excerpt from the JGR_Atmos article you cite:

"The deduced climate sensitivity is lower than suggestions of most climate models, however, it is in the same range as the climate sensitivity obtained with cloud resolving models embedded in global climate models [Miura et al., 2005; Wyant et al., 2006], and it is considerably higher than the climate sensitivity derived from the ocean heat capacity and climate time lag response [Schwartz, 2007]."

In other words, the best climate models, the ones that get used to determine the response and which the IPCC base their conclusions on, predict the same climate sensitivity as this study. Furthermore, this study contradicts the results of Schwartz, whom you also cite. I don't see how this paper proves that we need not be concerned about anthropogenic climate change. It seems to me to be more evidence that the models are right and we should be concerned.

Answer 5

Are you going to ask the same question every hour?

All this does is prove there is no consensus on the subject and that it's still being debated.

If you were a scientist you would understand that a consensus does not exist in science. New evidence is always being analyzed and thus theories are always in flux. If it were a proven fact like gravity, there would be no arguments.

Answer 6

I think one of the reasons is because the people who believe in Global Warming are always saying there are NO real scientists who do not believe man is causing it, or that it even exists. Al Gore made a statement in his movie that he could not find any scientific articles that did not support Global Warming, which is totally ridiculous. I think Global Warming is happening, but to try to get support with lies is very dangerous in the long run.

Answer 7

I read your bio and I'm dissapointed to see someone with your education (especially from UC Berkeley) would be a global warming alarmist. Being educated in astrophysics, I'm surprised that you can't (or won't) see the sun's clear role in global warming, and the current warming on Mars, Jupiter and other planets.

Anyway, I admire your pre-emptive strike against this report, but the reason it is indeed important is because the messiah of global warming himself has already said "the debate is over". It most certainly is not. Consensus science flies in the face of everything science has ever stood for. However, I'm not surprised Algore is so quick to claim the debate is over...since he knows his argument is on thin ice.

Answer 8

Der Vorteil der Klugheit besteht darin, daß man sich dumm stellen kann.
Das Gegenteil ist schon schwieriger.“

Answer 9

Because they are supposed to be prominent scientists but they just can't prove their views scientifically. Just wondering if their prominent "views" were of any monetary value to the oil corps.

Answer 10

It's grasping at straws from the guy who received the “Lifetime Service Award” from the Oklahoma Independent Petroleum Association.

Make no mistake, the report came out of Senator Inhofe's office, not the Senate committee itself. Typical!