Why don't the '400 skeptical scientists' use scientific research to support their claims?

Question

Much has been made of the list of 400 skeptical scientists on James Inhofe's blog.

"Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007"

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

Notice the report says "disputed", but it doesn't mention how they disputed it. Well, it wasn't with scientific data. Examples from the first few names:

"Denis G. Rancourt...believes the global warming campaigns do a disservice to the environmental movement."

"George Kukla...expressed climate skepticism in 2007"

"B.P. Radhakrishna...expressed climate skepticism in 2007"

This is just a list of scientists in various fields (many with little relation to climate science) who expressed some sort of skepticism with regards to some aspect of anthropogenic global warming.

There is no data in this report. It is no more than the skeptical equivalent of "consensus".

Where's the data? I thought skeptics hated "consensus".

Plus 400 scientists in all of the fields cited is less than 1% of the total number of scientists.

The skeptical "consensus" is less than 1%!

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071220135728AASbyuB&r=w

Ron - you claim "He is merely showing that a consensus does not exists and that the majority position is growing. Why is it growing? Because the science shows AGW will not be catastrophic."

Can you support any of these claims?

How do 400 skeptical scientists out of hundreds of thousands dispute a consensus?

Where is your evidence that the number of skeptics are growing?

A couple of papers claim the consequences won't be catastrophic. Many more claim otherwise (assuming we don't avoid the catastrophic emissions scenario).

In short, you're cherrypicking.

Answer 1

Boatman.

That Professor you talk of has never done any climate based research. Unless i have misread his journal articles or what his recent research grants have been.

Who cares about some stupid politician. They will do anything or say anything if they have been payed to do so, or have been lobbied to do so. This is the same idiot that wants evolution not to be taught in school. He wants to teach intelligent design. What The.

He is a fool.

Why don't the skeptics find some data to show that the world is not warming faster than ever before? Because they cannot find any that stands up to any analysis. When was the last time your heard a Polly say anything that wasn't driven purely by his supporters. (IE people that don't even trust science anyway)

Answer 2

I have found it very interesting to study this blog and read the comments written by the scientists. In some cases one can link through to other websites where the views are exoanded.

At the top of the blog it says:

Disclaimer: The following scientists named in this report have expressed a range of views from skepticism to outright rejection of predictions of catastrophic man-made global warming. As in all science, there is no lock step single view.]

If you look at the work done by the scientists in the list, most appear to accept that global warming is taking place. Many of these are skeptical about the Greehouse Gas explanation but even here there is at least one (B.P. Radhakrishna, President of the Geological Society of India) who accepts it but just says it is too late to do anything about it.

Dr John Maunder wrote on his website updated on November 27, 2007. "Climatic variations and climatic changes from WHATEVER cause (i.e. human induced or natural) clearly create risks, but also provide real opportunities.

Dr T Everett writes "Warming is not a big deal and is not a bad thing"

Those who accept that Global Warming is taking place but that it is not caused by greenhouse gases seem in the main to have two arguments: -
1 The carbon dioxide levels in the past were as high as they are now and this was caused by natural processes.
2. The processes are natural e.g.Nikolai Osokin writes "The (recent) period of warming was tangible, but now it may be drawing to a close. Most natural processes on the earth are cyclical, having a shorter or longer rhythm. Yet no matter how these sinusoids look, a temperature rise is inevitably followed by a decline, and vice versa."
Sometimes scientists on the list suggest that it is linked to the 11 year sun cycle

The importance of this is that if global warming is taking place and we can't do anything about it then we will need to mitigate the consequences which are severe in many very poor countries. This has a cost.

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

Why does it matter?

We know pollution is out of control, and consequences from this have Been seen from inedible fish to asthma rates increasing! Global warming, (if it exists, as the skeptics say), is merely a SYMPTOM! It may be that it is not as bad as the scientific community is saying, after all, they have been wrong before, but what about other measured pollution problems? Isn't that enough to stop polluting!

This is like having the flu, and debating the tonal quality of the cough! For God's sake, it's the FLU, what does it matter about how the patient coughs????

Thanks Dana, for your concern (and the posts show it to be true concern, by the way, debate that)! I think our world will be saved by all of you, and myself, if we choose to. Shut up and do something at home! Use 1 gallon less gas per year! You don't think it will help? True, drop in the bucket, but it is SOMETHING!

Self-righteous hypocrisy is prevalent here, what have you done?????...Nothing, I'll bet. Not you Dana, I know what you are doing.

Answer 5

The point of the report is that there is no scientific consensus on AGW. It is exactly in line with my experience. I am a professional Meteorologist with 25 years experience in the field, working in both the operational and research fields over the years for government, military and academic organizations. I have an MS in Meteorology. I know dozens of meteorologists and other atmostpheric scientists. In my experience, THE MAJORITY of these scientists have serious doubts about the AGW theory. That is a simple fact. A number of them are afraid to speak out because of retribution. This is what they have told me.

Answer 6

Dana, you should not expect scientific information out of a political office. The scientific information is in the peer-reviewed articles. Some of these we have discussed here, others we have not. I gave you a list on your other question.

Your comment about a consensus is non-sensical. Inhofe is not claiming a consensus. He is merely showing that a consensus does not exists and that the majority position is growing. Why is it growing? Because the science shows AGW will not be catastrophic.

Answer 7

I'm not surprised you made two questions in a row about this. It certainly challenges your "precious" global warming beliefs.

You claim that many of these scientists are from fields that have very little to do with climate science. I'd point out that they have just as much to do with it, or more, than your educational background.

Because a report says it is disputed, but doesn't mention the dispute, doesn't prove that there is in fact no dispute. Do you realize how long that article would be?

And lastly, no one is claming a consensus against man-made global warming. What this article proves is there is no consensus FOR man-made global warming.

gg

Answer 8

One answerer mentioned Paldor Nathan. One of the authors who wrote in "Earth and Environmental Science" the article: "Is There a Paleolimnological Explanation for ‘Walking on Water’ in the Sea of Galilee?"

Answer 9

maybe there is a BIG person behind this 400 scientists. i have never seen any scientist who does not support his claims with a scientific data. you are right. quite suspicious. the list could have been some agenda so that more people will believe that it isn't really happening. many are not so familiar with the different professions of scientists so that agenda, if there are any, can work to stir the beliefs of others.

Answer 10

If we call those guys scientists,then a burger flipper at Burger Thing is a four star chef!