19,000 scientists doubt warming? I doubt that
After a Maryland senate hearing on a global warming pollution control bill this week, a business advocacy group sent out a press release with a claim that cast doubt on global warming.
The organization, called Maryland Business for Responsive Government, said that "more than 19,000 American scientists" have signed an online petition saying that "there is no convincing scientific evidence" that human release of carbon dioxide will cause "disruption of the Earth's climate." The group directed reporters to www.oism.org.
That's a lot of scientists. It certainly gives the impression that most -- or at least many -- experts don't think global warming is a serious problem. But what the press release doesn't say is that this petition was circulated a decade ago, before many recent, highly authoritative reports showing that the scientific consensus is now overwhelmingly that industry is in fact causing global warming, and it's a big problem.
Nor does the press release reveal that this petition came from a fringe group called the Oregon Institute for Science and Medicine, which has been criticized by mainstream scientists.
“They are totally discounted by anyone serious," said Donald Boesch, president of the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science. "And there are no signers who have any standing as experts on the global climate.”
What is the Oregon Group? Source Watch, an online information service provided by the nonprofit Center for Media and Democracy, describes the Oregon Group as "a small research institute that studies biochemistry, diagnostic medicine, nutrition, preventive medicine and the molecular biology of aging. It is headed by... an eccentric scientist who has a long history of controversial entanglements with figures on the fringe of accepted research. OISM also markets a home-schooling kit for 'parents concerned about socialism in the public schools' and publishes books on how to survive nuclear war."
None of the eight faculty members listed on the Oregon Institute's website are climate scientists. Six are chemists, one is an electrical engineer and another is a professor of medicine.
After the publication of the “petition” in 1998, the prestigious Council of the National Academies of Sciences issued a statement saying that it was “concerned” that the petition was causing “confusion” because it was sent to scientists with a report printed to look like it came from the National Academies of Sciences.
“This petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the academy,” the National Academies wrote. “Greenhouse warming poses a potential threat sufficient to merit prompt responses.”
A reader emailed me to say that anyone -- even imposters -- could sign the Oregon petition claiming to be a scientist. This included "a friend of mine who signed as 'Dr. Geri Halliwell' -- better known as Ginger Spice of the Spice Girls," wrote Charlie M.
A website run by climate scientists calls the Oregon group the “Oregon Institute of Science and Malarkey.” This scientific group, called RealClimate, says the petition has been “highly criticized” because it’s full of “errors.”
The real consensus of scientists is not reflected by the Oregon Institute. It is reflected by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, an international scientific organization with more than 2,500 scientists from 130 countries that recently won the Nobel Prize.
A year ago, the Intergovernmental Panel concluded it was more than 90 percent sure - having "very high confidence" - that global warming is being caused by human industry.
In November, the IPCC issued another report that went even farther, saying: "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global
average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.... There is very high confidence that the net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming."
Dan Kirk-Davidoff, assistant professor of atmospheric and oceanic science at the University of Maryland College Park, said there is no question that the real scientific consensus is expressed by the IPCC report, and not the Oregon Institute.
“The IPCC has said in no uncertain terms that increasing carbon dioxide from humans is causing global warming,” Kirk-Davidoff said. “For political reasons, people will complain about the IPCC but it’s just crap….the people on the panel are the best and brightest.”
A survey of more than 900 peer-reviewed articles on climate change published between 1993 and 2003 found that not a single one challenged the fact that human industry is playing a role in global warming, according to research by Naomi Oreskes, a professor of history and science studies at the University of California, San Diego.
In his book, The Weather Makers, author Tim Flannery described a well-funded propaganda effort by industry lobbying groups to try to convince journalists and the public that scientists are still debating whether global warming is real. That debate is over, but many in the public doesn't know it yet because of doubt manufactured by industries with billions at stake in avoiding regulation, Flannery writes.
"The industries who oppose action on climate change are little different from the asbestos and tobacco companies, who by constantly challenging and clouding the outcomes of research into the link between their products and cancer seek to buy themselves a few more decades of fat profits," Flannery writes.
Frank Luntz, an influential Republican communications strategist who helped craft Newt Gingrich's "Contract with America," wrote a memo in 2002 about how political leaders should inject the idea of scientific doubt into discussions of global warming.
Under the heading "Winning the Global Warming Debate," Luntz wrote, "Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming in the scientific community. Should the public ever come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly."
Since then, more scientific evidence has poured in -- and now even President George Bush and Newt Gingrich acknowledge that global warming is a real problem.
So for anyone to claim these days that global warming is not a reality -- as some AM radio talk show hosts and business groups do -- is clearly outside the scientific and political mainstream.
But that doesn't mean there isn't a legitimate debate about what -- if anything -- Maryland should do about climate change. The Maryland Global Warming Solutions Act being considered by the state legislature could have a major impact on business. It calls for a 90 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from all industries across the state by 2050.
The nonpartisan Maryland Department of Legislative Services issued a report saying that "costs could increase significantly" for businesses because of the act. But because the Maryland Department of the Environment hasn't yet proposed -- or even thought up -- what steps it will require businesses to take to cut their carbon dioxide emissions, nobody knows exactly what the cost increases for business will be. "Any such increase cannot be reliably estimated at this time and could be partially or entirely offset by energy savings," the Department of Legislative Services wrote.
Comments
The Author failed to tell the reader that RealClimate.org is funded by George Soros. And the statement that the IPCC consists of 2500 scientist is entirely wrong. Do a little research before writing this junk. Take some time to talk to real scientists, read real research and you will find that the "consensus" is not want the media presents.
Posted by: BobB | February 21, 2008 11:51 PM
One does not have to have “standing as experts on the global climate” to understand the relationship between CO2 solubility in the oceans. One does not have to have “standing as experts on the global climate” to be able to reduce the Vostok ice core data and see that CO2 concentrations peak after temperature peaks. One does not have to have “standing as experts on the global climate” to consider that maybe the current climate change just might be the result of non-human activity. However, Mr. Boesch is correct when he says that anyone with a different point of view than the “real consensus of scientists” will be “totally discounted.”
Posted by: Geoff Beal | February 22, 2008 9:43 AM
Great article! Thank you for adding to the discussion. However, you have taken a one sided view on this discussion that is not overly healthy. I run a site on global warming (www.globalwarming-factorfiction.com) and while your comments are fairly accurate, they imply that all dissenters are wrong.
A few points:
- Ms. Oreskes "study" was hardly scientific, has been discredited multiple times, was not peer reviewed, and was shown not to have the same trend from 2003-2007.
- the IPCC is not a scientific body but a political one. It has an agenda set up by the political forces that send delegates to its meetings. Its statements are not reviewed and agreed upon by all of its individual members but rather a select few. Many scientists have resigned from the IPCC due to differences of opinion on their reports.
- the conclusions of the IPCC are based on computer models based on fluids equations deriving inferences from data that in some cases is poorly gathered and has been adjusted to account for assumed irregularities. For this reason, many mathmeticians have questioned the conclusions. Not because they are wrong but because they are so flawed that they cannot prove the truth.
- the IPCC studies have been severely criticized for the lack of statistical analysis that has occurred and the dearth of statisticians on the various analysis committees.
While none of this says that global warming is not happening. It only says that the methodology at arriving at that conclusion is woefully inadequate. There is empirical evidence that global warming is occurring but while the correlation to human activity is strong the causation analysis is incredibly weak.
One sided arguments are bad. It is better to try to understand both sides of an argument to make an intelligent decision. My site (and others) tries to protray this and I encourage you to do the same. It is only by honest understanding of the various issues that we can take appropriate action.
Posted by: Sean O | February 22, 2008 11:45 AM
About those 19,000 scientists. Anyone could sign that petition, claiming to be a "scientist." A friend of mine signed as "Dr. Geri Halliwell" -- better known as Ginger Spice of the Spice Girls.
Posted by: Charlie M | February 22, 2008 2:36 PM
Please ignore the Global Warming denialists who inevitably show up in the comment thread of any article on GW or climate change. Their seeming ubiquity is mostly a product of the dwindling supply of outlets for their reckless brand of ignorance.
Posted by: Christopher | February 22, 2008 3:28 PM
Anyone who buys into the man-made global warming garbage needs to have their heads checked. I'm willing to bet that 99 percent of the sheep who have fallen for this nonsense have no idea what they are talking about, but are simply regurgitating whatever Al and Co. tells them. Talk about ignorant -- they are trusting a non-scientist and politician, along with a group of bureaucrats (the IPCC) to tell them the "facts." Trust me, "global warming" will go the way of the "global cooling" hype of the 1970s. NOWHERE!!
Posted by: Ann Smith | February 22, 2008 5:10 PM
"Anyone who buys into the man-made global warming garbage needs to have their heads checked"
You mean members of prominent science bodies such as the NAS, AAAS, NOAA, NASA the American Meteorological Society,plus all their overseas counterparts who say man made global is probably real? Now what could you possibly know about this topic which informed members of these organizations wouldn`t?
Posted by: Mike | February 22, 2008 5:48 PM
TO MIKE:
It is troubling to me that all these scientific bodies come out with such pronuncements. I am at a loss to explain it.
Consider: most of the warming of the past 100 years occurred before 1940 but most of the increase in human CO2 emmisions happened after 1940. How can someone who's a scientist be claiming the CAUSES FOLLOW EFFECTS? It's a real mystery, sure enough.
Consider: The hottest year in the past 100 years was 1998 (or 1934!!). Doesn't that mean that there's been no global warming in the past 10 years, by definition?
Consider: the Arctic was warmer in the 1940's than it is today.
Consider that climate is affected by factors from a multiplicity of disciplines (who really can be an expert here?). But significantly there are many factors affecting climate for which there is no current science available (e.g., why do clouds form the way they do?, when are [cooling] volcanos going to erupt?).
Consider that the "Science" of global warming is in chapter 8 of the IPCC report, which contains no science, but rather computer model scenarios. These models can't predict the present from the past or the past from the far past. Why believe them? ... speaking as a scientist? These models share 2 characteristics of all computer scenarios: a) the are not independently evaluated; and b) they are inpenetrable except to their creators. I would add that computer modelling in the financial community recently should give us all pause about the wisdom of relying on them.
I could go on. It saddens and mystifies me that scientists could put out what are in effect political claims and shroud themselves in the mantel of their being scientists.
But then, again, I am a denier and should be dismissed out of hand.
Consider:
Posted by: david russell | February 22, 2008 8:31 PM
Does anybody want to buy some carbon credits from Al Gore? Everyone should know that the IPCC has politicized science for political and financial gain. Just google 2 words: UN and Corruption. Try a few more words if you really want to find the truth: Maurice Strong and Cloak of Green.
Posted by: Mike | February 22, 2008 9:54 PM
Some one needs to start a big betting pool on this Global Warming thing, I have more confidence in the fact that Global Warming is nothing to be worried about than I do about anything going on in the stock market.
Posted by: Johnnyb | February 23, 2008 3:55 AM
Author failed to tell the reader that the "nonprofit Center for Media and Democracy" is a left wing advocacy group that sees the "vast right wing conspiracy" under every bed and behind every news story that does not comport with its Marxian view of the world.
Posted by: Johnny Lucid | February 23, 2008 1:39 PM
A friend of mine signed as "Dr. Geri Halliwell" -- better known as Ginger Spice of the Spice Girls
About this- it might have been true once (I wouldn't put it past these people) but "Dr. Geri Halliwell" isn't listed anymore- list goes straight from Bruce A Hallila to John H Hallman, PhD. Are you sure it was there?
Posted by: Anonymous | February 23, 2008 7:01 PM
There is no consensus on "man-made" global warming:
NO 'Consensus' on "Man-Made" Global Warming
Posted by: Poptech | February 23, 2008 11:21 PM
Christopher, thank you for adding your meaningful comments to a very important discussion.
Posted by: Geoff Beal | February 25, 2008 9:18 AM
If we have not reduced greenhouse gases, then why are global temperatures cooling?
The next paragraph is from the article which is linked in the post.
No more than anecdotal evidence, to be sure. But now, that evidence has been supplanted by hard scientific fact. All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously.
http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Worldwide+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm
Posted by: John | February 26, 2008 4:24 PM
For sure, Geri Halliwell's name was once on the list -- must have been removed -- too embarrassing.
Posted by: Charlie M | February 26, 2008 6:13 PM
John,
Temperatures have dropped from 2007 which was one of the hottest ever. From the NASA GISS, one of the four measures used in your DailyTech reference...
That La Niña cycle is now in full maturation. Combined with a strong AMO, the decreased temperatures are to be expected. However, they by no means are any indication that anthropogenic global warming has somehow stopped and shouldn't be interpreted as such.Posted by: Michael S | February 28, 2008 5:00 PM
I still see that nobody mentions the major effect of our life giving star. Without taking the data you get from solar climatology into consideration ALL of the data resulting from any computer models is mute and null. The sun may be going into a reduced activety cycle which would result in coller temperatures globally.
Posted by: Jan Verger | February 29, 2008 12:23 PM
The New York Times today has an ad for a conference, going on right now, about climate change. It notes that "more than 400 scientists, economists, and experts" willl be meeting (are meeting) to " callenge the claim that global warming is a "crisis". Pictures in the ad are quite a few professors of climatologyo, many of whom are of very great reputation.
The claim that all climate "doubters" are nonscientists or merel propagandists is simply false, and Mr. Pelton ought to know that.
What they doubt is not that global warming takes place at all (though it sure looks as though it's stopped for the past several years, somehow), but that we have on our hands a "crisis" that justifies imposing huge costs on us all to deal with it. And that is what matters to us, the public.
Posted by: Jan Narveson | March 3, 2008 4:41 PM
Mr. Pelton , if he did any research for his piece, is probably well aware of that conference going on in New York where scientists are challenging that global warming is a crisis. One of the participants is none other than the vice chairman of the IPPC,Dr. Yuri A. Izrael.But you wouldn't hear that from Mr. Pelton because he is intent on stifling debate on this topic on which he claims there is no debate.(He doth protest too much.) He would instead have people focus on Maryland business groups and anecdotes such as the " Dr. Geri Halliwell" thing to draw attention away from the fact that there are scientists , many among the IPPC ,who don't agree with the conclusions reached by the panel or the way in which their own data was used by the panel.
Posted by: Mark Brown | March 3, 2008 9:25 PM
Of course, the IPPC is a "panel" of political hacks with very few actual scientists on it at all. Several of the few actual scientists on it have tried in vain to get their names removed from the report citing the fact that they resigned before the report's release in protest over the IPPC's policy of concealing scientific evidence in favor of the pre-existing political agenda set out for it to follow in order to extend the power of the UN.
Posted by: Anonymous | May 4, 2008 7:25 PM