Climatic Heresy: 2


Sea-surface temperatures

(Charles Platt is a guest blogger)

The graph above shows surface temperatures in the Sargasso Sea, a 2 million square mile region of the Atlantic Ocean, with time resolution of 50 to 100 years, ending in 1975, as determined by isotope ratios of marine organism remains in sediment at the bottom of the sea. I copy-pasted this from the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine. Note that ocean areas are in some ways a better guide to planetary temperature than land areas, since urban sprawl creates localized hot spots, and scientists don’t agree on how much allowance should be made for this.

Skepticism about human-caused climate change has been expressed by more than 30,000 people in the sciences, all of whom have signed a document which you can find at www.petitionproject.org. It states in part that “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” More than 9,000 of the signatories state that they have PhDs. The petitions have been trivialized and ridiculed, but if you actually visit the site, you will find that it takes pains to answer the various allegations.

Here’s a quote from Robert Carter, an Australian palaeontologist, stratigrapher, marine geologist, and environmental scientist:

“Is there an established Theory of Climate? Answer: no. Do we understand fully how climate works? No. Is carbon dioxide demonstrated to be a dangerous atmospheric pollutant? No. Can deterministic computer models predict future climate? Another no. Is there a consensus amongst qualified scientists that dangerous, human-caused climate change is upon us? Absolutely not. Did late 20th century temperature rise at a dangerous rate, or to a dangerous level? No, in either case. Is global temperature currently rising? Surprisingly, no.”

The full paper, published May 2007, is here and makes interesting reading.

Journalists should be skeptical by nature, yet they have embraced climate change uncritically, perhaps because it is a story that sells newspapers. Consequently most people are not even aware that credentialled opposition to global-warming theories exists.

A Senate report, “The Minority Report by the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee” (released December 11th, 2008 and available online here), should have been a very important news story, since it cited 650 credentialled scientists who dispute aspects of anthropogenic global warming. Most major news sources didn’t even mention the report. In their worldview, apparently, credentialled skepticism no longer exists.

45

  1. Surely it’s papers published in peer-reviewed scientific journals that matter. Isn’t that the normal way of doing things?

  2. “Surely it’s papers published in peer-reviewed scientific journals that matter.”

    Yes, they matter, and some skeptical papers do exist, but publication of skeptical material is now hazardous to one’s scientific reputation and funding. I believe there is a significant chilling effect on speech.

  3. I always wondered if climate change was just the thousandth attempt to interest the public in the planets ecology but it was the first that actually sparked interest (i’m british we love talking about weather).. and as such became the most important one.

    the fact we talk about hybrid cars and solar power as a way to cut carbon rather than a way to avoid using up the finite reserves of oil that we have has always struck me as odd.

    running out of oil is bad, very bad and it will happen and could happen relatively soon. 40-100 years say.

  4. I will not even address this but to point out that the article from the website refd (Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine) was written by Arthur B. Robinson who, according to wikipedia,

    /snip

    Robinson is a signatory to A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism, a petition produced by the Discovery Institute that expresses skepticism about the ability of natural selection to account for the complexity of life, and encouraging careful examination of the evidence for “Darwinian theory”.

    /unsnip

    So yeah, global warming is a fraud. And so “Darwinian Theory”.

    And the other big name on that site, Frederick Seitz, was a Physicist (not exactly climate related) who argued on behalf of big tobacco that there wasn’t a solid link between smoking and cancer.

    Yeah…no solid link at all.

    Trolling is all good and fun and all. But check your sources.

  5. People don’t live in the Sargasso Sea. The temperature of the Sargasso Sea is impacted largely by the ocean currents, which do change over time and MAY be influenced by the greenhouse effect. I say MAY because I am a scientist. I don’t happen to have a model planet on hand to run with alternate parameters to prove my point. Neither do you, so let’s be a little conservative?

    Charles: but publication of skeptical material is now hazardous to one’s scientific reputation and funding.

    Skepticism has always been hazardous to one’s reputation. Funding however, that is another matter. There were no shortage of Phillip-Morris scientists who claimed smoking was harmless for 40 years. Funding can really tell a story.

    I believe there is a significant chilling effect on speech.

    I believe, with respect, that is hot air.

  6. Yes, they matter, and some skeptical papers do exist, but publication of skeptical material is now hazardous to one’s scientific reputation and funding. I believe there is a significant chilling effect on speech.

    Sorry, I don’t buy that. If the evidence was good enough it would be published in a peer-reviewed journal like Nature.

  7. Let’s face it, arguing with some climate skeptics is about as useful as arguing with a 9/11 Truther or someone who believes in Big Foot.

    Most of them will believe any “evidence” that they find online and don’t have the slightest clue about the science behind what they’re talking about.

    The fact is that there are *some* qualified climate scientists that are skeptical about global warming, not many, but some.

    Yet Charles is here posting evidence that comes from a “scientist” who is skeptical about evolution.

    Is that your scientific standard Charles, creation science?

  8. Oh, this is great, check out the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, it’s a right-wing Christian survivalist research center that does work on things like global warming, the end of the world, and how nuclear weapons really aren’t that dangerous.

    The head of the institute, Arthur Robinson, pals around and cowrites with the infamous Gary North.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_North_(Christian_Reconstructionist)

    Honestly, is this really where Wired Magazine wants to go, posting scientific “research” from nutjob Christian survivalist sources? I realize it’s just a blog, but really?

  9. Funny that publications like this are released while the Northern Hemisphere is in winter. Shrewd very shrewd.

    Currently in Australia’s southern states (particularly South Australia and Victoria) are experiencing an unprecedented heat wave and drought.

    Try telling me that global warming isn’t happening.

  10. My Dad has a PHD, in fact he now reviews grants for the NSF..

    His PHD has nothing to do with climatology or oceanography, etc. A lot like a good percentage of the people with PHDs who signed that petition.

    Difference between him and them?

    He doesn’t think his PHD qualifies him as an expert on just about any field of scientific study.

  11. It’s disappointing that BoingBoing is allowing Platt to spam out the same old denialist talking points. However, at this point most of this stuff is almost self-debunking.

    Let’s take the famous petition of 30,000 “scientists”.

    Platt says: “The petitions have been trivialized and ridiculed, but if you actually visit the site, you will find that it takes pains to answer the various allegations.”

    The petition hasn’t been “trivialized”, it has been DEBUNKED. The denialists and the oil lobby tried to represent it as 30,000 dissenting “scientists”. Here’s where the self-debunking happens: as Platt pre-emptively points out “More than 9,000 of the signatories state that they have PhDs”, in other words:

    (a) 21,000 of the signatories DO NOT have PhDs, so they are not scientists.

    (b) The petition relies on signatories to “state” their credentials, so who these people are is actually unverified.

    Of course, Platt is well aware that the petition is not what it is designed to appear to be when mentioned on a talk show as evidence of “credentialled dissent” – so therefore he describes the petition in weasel words as signed by “30,000 people in the sciences”.

    The real criterion for getting your name on the petition was having – or rather *claiming – a bachelor’s degree in *any area of science*. Of course, undergraduate or even PhD level expertise in physics or biology does not make one a qualified climate scientist, but the point of the exercise is just to muddy the waters. Citing it again, with a pretence that it has been “trivialized” is just more propaganda.

    To be clear, I would be interested in a good faith examination of the evidence on climate change, but I think you can see from Platt’s weasel words on this issue that he is not arguing in good faith. He is interested only in spewing talking points which might cause the casual reader to believe that there is still some doubt that doubling the level of CO2 in the atmosphere affects the climate.

  12. Like Nword says: most of the signatories to the petition project work in fields utterly unrelated to climate science and wouldn’t know the first thing about it, really.

    The other thing about the petition project is that only about a third of its signatories actually even have PhDs. I don’t really think you can call someone a scientist until that point. People with only BA/BSc degrees in science tend to end up in a different career entirely. People with only an MSc/MA tend to end up as lab technicians.

  13. Thank you Charles, for continuing to post this in the face of obvious hysteria and venom.

    Some people don’t realise that science is not conducted by consensus, and that dissenting views are necessary. The science is far from “decided”.

    http://co2sceptics.com/news.php?id=2247

    Funny how this one went under the radar.

    For the record, I consider “climate change” to be distracting us from other environmental concerns.

    Atmospheric pollution is obviously a bad thing, and we need to be throwing as much money as physically possible at renewable energy, but not because CO2 levels are causing global temperature to rise.

    Feel free to call me an evil person now.

  14. > I copy-pasted this from the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine.

    Well in that case, more carbon please!

  15. “Journalists should be skeptical by nature, yet they have embraced climate change uncritically, perhaps because it is a story that sells newspapers”

    Embraced??!!!! Climate change has been a concern for decades and yet only in the past 2-3 years does one see any sort of intelligent coverage of the issue.

    Why do anti-climate change believers sound so much like Ann Coulter?

  16. 9,000 PhDs, wow! Of course, this doesn’t state what KIND of PhDs they are. I’m not sure I want my climate change information based on the opinions of Dr Phil and Dr Laura.

    So how many climate scientists think anthropogenic global warming is bunk?

    I’ll bet not very many.

  17. What a load of crap.

    Post the global CO2 emissions with that chart and we’ll see a different picture.

    The reason for resistance to reducing CO2 emissions and the willingness of these people to bury their head in the sand is that these people know that the U.S. consumes a ridiculously high amount of energy per capita. Reducing that consumption is seen (incorrectly, I believe) as having the effect of reducing our power or standing or “U.S. über-alles”, whatever you want to call it.

    Being an industrialized nation doesn’t mean it’s OK to keep pumping out CO2 like it can’t hurt anything. If (when) China takes that attitude, we are all, and I mean ALL, fucked.

  18. The reason for resistance to reducing CO2 emissions and the willingness of these people to bury their head in the sand is that these people know that the U.S. consumes a ridiculously high amount of energy per capita.

    That’s got nothing to do with my reasonS. How about you, Charles? Blackpanda?

    I can only reiterate that the people posting here are individuals with their own individual reasoning skills, and it might help to try and talk with us instead of over us.

  19. Skepticism about human-caused climate change has been expressed by more than 30,000 people in the sciences, … More than 9,000 of the signatories state that they have PhDs.

    Did… did you actually read that sentence before you posted it?

    Wow, nearly a third of the “scientists” actually had PhDs! If only the requirements to publish a peer-reviewed article in a major journal were that rigorous!

  20. About that Senate report. It’s a pet project of Sen. Jim Inhofe. It’s only a “Senate report” in the sense that it was released by a Senator (and a pretty wacko one at that — he’s suggested, for instance, that the Weather Channel is behind the global warming hoax, in an effort to attract viewers). And those “650 credentialled scientists”? Well, take a look at the report and you’ll find such noted climate change experts as:

    Meteorologist Mike Fairbourne of Minnesota’s WCCO-TV
    Chief Meteorologist Dave Dahl of Minnesota’s ABC Channel 5
    Jon Loufman, a meteorologist for Cleveland’s Channel 19 Action News
    Veteran Meteorologist Al Kaprielian of WZMY TV-50 in New Hampshire
    Environmental scientist Dr. Kenneth P. Green of the American Enterprise Institute
    Economist Dr. Arnold Kling, formerly of the Federal Reserve Board and Freddie
    Mac
    Dr. Keith Lockitch, who holds a PhD in Physics and is a researcher in science and
    environmental issues for the Ayn Rand Institute

    Since most people wouldn’t consider TV weatherpeople, economists (particularly those from conservative think tanks), anyone associated with the Federal Reserve Board and Freddie Mac or the Ayn Rand Institute to be “credentialled scientists” this may help Mr. Platt understand why “most major news sources didn’t even mention the report.”

  21. #8, I find it curious that when you get cold, wet weather I hear, “Weather is not climate!” but as soon as you get hot, dry weather, I hear “Don’t tell me there’s no global warming!”

    Is weather climate, or isn’t it? You can’t have it both ways.

    As for me, I’ll stick with my actions-speak-loudest bullshit detector. When you’re willing to trade a few square miles of desert for building nuclear power plants and storing waste in order to save the entire world from global warming, I’ll believe that you’re serious. If the threat is as great as you say, it is an easy choice. The construction cranes should already be swinging into action. I would be willing to make that trade just so pregnant women could eat fish again. With or without global warming, polluting all the world’s oceans with mercury is a global environmental disaster.

    I believe that threat is already present and critical enough to justify imperfect steps to counter it. When you believe the same is true of global warming – really believe it – let me know.

  22. This is ridiculous. I truly enjoy this blog, and read it daily. Why are there a half dozen posts today about climate change skepticism??? With all due respect it’s bizzare and I find it insulting to my intelligence. Is Charles Platt taking over your blog? Are you losing a loyal reader? Probably yes to both.

  23. A far more efficient green house gas than CO2 is methane. The more swaps we have the more methane is produced by decomposing vegetation. We better not try to restore the Everglades.

  24. Is there any particular reason my last two posts trying to defend my viewpoint have not been displayed?

  25. im sure when the world is in famine and places like florida are underwater (thats why everglades restoration is pointless jeff, not your wacky theory) the brave, victimized global climate change denialists will all say theyre sorry and that will make the rest of us all feel better.

    right.

    all this arguing is moot at this point. things are already in motion, we’ve fucked around for 20+ years and now theres nothing we can do. thanks denialists for all youve done and for your trainloads of bullshit. my 3 year old thanks you all as well.

  26. Please remove this gentleman. This is absurd dissenting opinion is one thing, but being a vehicle for public relations campaigns is another. Have we somehow arrived at boingboing bizarro world?

    Sourcewatch article on Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine: review the part concerning this so called petition.

    http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine

    Some gems:

    The Oregon Petition, sponsored by the OISM, was circulated in April 1998 in a bulk mailing to tens of thousands of U.S. scientists. In addition to the petition, the mailing included what appeared to be a reprint of a scientific paper. Authored by OISM’s Arthur B. Robinson, Sallie L. Baliunas, Willie Soon, and Zachary W. Robinson, the paper was titled “Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide” and was printed in the same typeface and format as the official Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Also included was a reprint of a December 1997, Wall Street Journal editorial, “Science Has Spoken: Global Warming Is a Myth, by Arthur and Zachary Robinson. A cover note signed “Frederick Seitz/Past President, National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A./President Emeritus, Rockefeller University”, may have given some persons the impression that Robinson’s paper was an official publication of the academy’s peer-reviewed journal. The blatant editorializing in the pseudopaper, however, was uncharacteristic of scientific papers.

    Robinson’s paper claimed to show that pumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is actually a good thing. “As atmospheric CO2 increases,” it stated, “plant growth rates increase. Also, leaves lose less water as CO2 increases, so that plants are able to grow under drier conditions. Animal life, which depends upon plant life for food, increases proportionally.” As a result, Robinson concluded, industrial activities can be counted on to encourage greater species biodiversity and a greener planet:

    According to the National Science Foundation, there are more than half a million science or engineering PhDs in the United States, and ten million individuals with first degrees in science or engineering.

    None of the coauthors of “Environmental Effects of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide” had any more standing than Robinson himself as a climate change researcher. They included Robinson’s 22-year-old son, Zachary, along with astrophysicists Sallie L. Baliunas and Willie Soon. Both Baliunas and Soon worked with Frederick Seitz at the George C. Marshall Institute, a Washington, D.C., think tank where Seitz served as executive director. Funded by a number of right-wing foundations, including Scaife and Bradley, the George C. Marshall Institute does not conduct any original research. It is a conservative think tank that was initially founded during the years of the Reagan administration to advocate funding for Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative–the “Star Wars” weapons program. Today, the Marshall Institute is still a big fan of high-tech weapons. In 1999, its website gave prominent placement to an essay by Col. Simon P. Worden titled “Why We Need the Air-Borne Laser,” along with an essay titled “Missile Defense for Populations–What Does It Take? Why Are We Not Doing It?” Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, however, the Marshall Institute has adapted to the times by devoting much of its firepower to the war against environmentalism, and in particular against the “scaremongers” who raise warnings about global warming.

    —-

    The credibility of a majority of the people signing that document has be questioned over and over. I can’t believe he would bring such obvious PR stunt into this discussion as evidence of skepticism.

  27. Can I just correct a few mistakes in this quote from Robert Carter?

    “Is there an established Theory of Climate? Answer: no. Do we understand fully how climate works? No.”
    Well, this is half right. A Theory of Climate is really just a Theory of Atmospheric Physics. Which there most definitely is. In fact, it’s quite well established. It’s mostly thermodynamics, to be honest. However, there’s some things we’re still not quite sure on, such as how much of a role clouds play, the extent of certain feedback cycles, and such like.

    “Is carbon dioxide demonstrated to be a dangerous atmospheric pollutant? No. Can deterministic computer models predict future climate? Another no.”
    If by dangerous atmospheric pollutant, he means a greenhouse gas, then yes, it’s been very well demonstrated. I’m not really sure what he means by deterministic computer models. Newton’s laws are deterministic. Thermodynamics is deterministic. That’s not to say they’re not chaotic, though. Computer models cannot predict with absolute certainty the future state of the climate, but they can predict the future state within a margin of error. And we know they can, because of a little trick called “hindcasting”. This is where you take a bunch of data from, say, 1940, stick it into your model, and see if it can evolve the climate correctly. Needless to say, no model which can’t do this, isn’t taken seriously.

    “Is there a consensus amongst qualified scientists that dangerous, human-caused climate change is upon us? Absolutely not. Did late 20th century temperature rise at a dangerous rate, or to a dangerous level? No, in either case. Is global temperature currently rising? Surprisingly, no.”
    This is just plain wrong.

    #20, in regards to methane, watch this TED talk: http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/mark_bittman_on_what_s_wrong_with_what_we_eat.html

  28. I have a few concerns about the post. In the above graph, this data is from just one section of the ocean. If there was no net warming or cooling of the atmosphere or the oceans, would one still see fluctuations of this order? This needs to be discussed. I also worry local conditions or other influences such as ocean currents could have a larger effect than changes in global climate. More points in the ocean are necessary or it needs to be shown that temperatures in this region of the ocean scale with global climate. This also has not been addressed.

    In addition, the paper cited would not meet the standards for publication. The tone is fairly political and not written in a particularly neutral perspective which a good paper should. Second, the paper was not published in a relevant journal. The Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons is not the appropriate format for such an article. The reviewers for such a journal would very likely be unqualified to determine if the science in the paper meets publication standards. Furthermore, I cannot even find the above mentioned journal in the Science Direct database ( http://www.sciencedirect.com/ ) or anywhere else for that matter.

    Next, I’m concerned that some of the references are not from respected journals. Looking at the database Science Direct, I could not find the journal listed in reference 86, Climate Research. Upon further research, I found that this journal has had controversy with its review process (story from a science watchdog group http://www.sgr.org.uk/climate/StormyTimes_NL28.htm ).

    In addition, some of the references are sloppy. For instance, in reference 31, the paper cites the work of J.R. Christy from 1995 in a publication known as Climate Change. Looking at a profile of J. R. Christy ( http://www.atmos.uah.edu/atmos/christy_pubs.html ), this citation is incorrect. It should have been listed as:
    * Christy, J.R. , 1995 Temperature above the surface layer. Climatic Change , 30, 455-474.

    It’s a minor error; the last point certainly doesn’t disprove everything the authors claim in the paper, but it does illustrate that the paper is sloppy and unprofessional. The above issues I found in a hour of research. Further research would likely turn up other issues. Certain standards need to be met for a scientific publication. This paper does not meet them. I lack confidence in claims the paper makes due the author’s methods of arguing within the paper in addition to the manner in which it was written.

  29. “but publication of skeptical material is now hazardous to one’s scientific reputation and funding. I believe there is a significant chilling effect on speech.” Like patriotism, the last refuge of the scoundrel. They are out to get us those conspiring scientists.

  30. #31 posted by nrioq:
    The Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons is not the appropriate format for such an article. The reviewers for such a journal would very likely be unqualified to determine if the science in the paper meets publication standards. Furthermore, I cannot even find the above mentioned journal in the Science Direct database ( http://www.sciencedirect.com/ ) or anywhere else for that matter.

    From Wikipedia:
    The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) is a controversial politically conservative non-profit organization founded in 1943.[1] The group had approximately 4,000 members in 2005.[2] Notable members include Ron Paul and John Cooksey.[3] The executive director is Jane Orient, professor of clinical medicine at the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine. AAPS publishes the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons.

    It’s funny how the climate change deniers (much like Holocaust deniers and creationists) have there own little world with their own “journals” and “research institutes.” If I lived in the world they lived in I’d believe the crap they’re peddling too. Sadly, I live here in the real world, not coo coo bananas land.

  31. The petition also uses deliberately strong language about what it is saying there isn’t evidence for. “cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate” Catastrophic could easily be interpreted as Day-After-Tomorrow nonsense which is not what anyone with a brain is claiming is an issue. Thus, a well-meaning individual could easily sign this petition even if they thought that anthrogenic global warming existed and was a severe problem.

    This is of course, in addition to all the other problems with the petition already discussed above.

  32. Okay, let’s go with peer-reviewed papers. From 2003 to 2007, 528 papers were published on climate change. Of them, only 38 (7%) explicitly endorsed anthropogenic global warming. Another 38% suggested support for man-made global warming.

    In other words, OVER HALF of the peer-reviewed papers were either skeptical or outright refuted anthropogenic global warming. But guess which ones get the media?

    http://www.dailytech.com/Survey+Less+Than+Half+of+all+Published+Scientists+Endorse+Global+Warming+Theory/article8641.htm

    Also, NASA’s former chief environmental scientist now has this to say:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/27/james-hansens-former-nasa-supervisor-declares-himself-a-skeptic-%20says-hansen-embarrassed-nasa-was-never-muzzled/

    How much more do we need to accept that this should be a *debate*, not a First Truth?

  33. In reply to: #36 POSTED BY EXNASAGUY

    The author of the paper you cite is Consultant in Endocrine and General Surgery, Department of Endocrine Surgery, hardly an expert in climate change. Also see
    http://scienceblogs.com/strangerfruit/2007/08/oreskes_responds_to_schulte.php

    As for “NASA’s former chief environmental scientist” see:
    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/01/so_who_is_john_s_theon.php

    More of the same misrepresentations by the denialists. There is a scientific consensus. Get over it.

  34. Exnasa,

    You seem to be making the erroneous assumption that any climatology paper that doesn’t support anthrogenic global warming must be skeptical of it. Large amounts of climatology papers simply have nothing to do with anthrogenic warming or are only moderately related.

  35. In response to EXNASAGUY, the article from DailyTech states that 48% of papers are neutral in regards to anthropogenic climate change. Neutral does not have the same meaning as skeptical. A person could publish a neutral article even if the paper does support anthropogenic climate change. As it is, the article by DailyTech does not state what is meant by “neutral”. Does it mean the author makes no conclusion in regards to the causes of climate change? Or does it mean the data do not support or refute climate change?

    Second, the actual paper sounds hokey. One may find the abstract for it here:
    http://www.ingentaconnect.com/search/article?title=Oreskes&title_type=tka&year_from=1998&year_to=2009&database=1&pageSize=20&index=1
    This person does not use an objective, neutral voice, yet, this person is judging whether certain papers support or refute climate change. No criteria are given in the abstract. I have no plans to buy the full article for $18.00. No thanks.

    Ironically, the paper discuss a search of the ISI database, yet the the journal the paper will be published in is NOT in the ISI database. This journal is Energy and Environment. The standards of this journal have been challenged at times ( http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Climate/Climate_Science/CliSciFrameset.html?http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Climate/Climate_Science/Contrarians.html ).

    Additionally, the total number of articles supporting or refuting something is irrelevant. That is not how scientific fact is established.

    Your last argument in regards to a former member of NASA is arguing from authority. Just because the man is from NASA does not mean his argument is credible.

  36. You could just as well have said that you’re a Scientologist or a Young Earth Creationist. Jeeebus. Yeah, until your little guest blogging conspiracy session is over, I think I’ve had all the Boing Boing I can stomach.

    -E.V.

  37. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Warming_Petition_Project

    the “petition” is full of “John Does”, “Mickey Mouse”s, duplicate names, and non scientists.

    from the Seattle Times:

    Several environmental groups questioned dozens of the names: “Perry S. Mason” (the fictitious lawyer?), “Michael J. Fox” (the actor?), “Robert C. Byrd” (the senator?), “John C. Grisham” (the lawyer-author?). And then there’s the Spice Girl, a k a. Geraldine Halliwell: The petition listed “Dr. Geri Halliwell” and “Dr. Halliwell.”

    http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19980501&slug=2748308

    One might wonder if Diebold helped with this “petition”.

  38. @ExNASAGuy:

    other words, OVER HALF of the peer-reviewed papers were either skeptical or outright refuted anthropogenic global warming. But guess which ones get the media?

    You do realize that the source you linked to doesn’t say anything remotely like that?

    In fact, it says the exact opposite: While 45% either explicitly or implicitly accept anthropogenic global warming, only 6% reject it.

    That’s pretty much the opposite of what you stated, wouldn’t you say?

    Why don’t the other 48% take a stand? Because they are talking about something else. Have you read any climate change articles? Most of them are not actually about the anthropogenic side of CC — journal articles are on very specific topics, like measurements of ice caps, or calculations of temperatures 10,000 years ago. If every journal article tried to cover everything involved in a field, journals would be very thick.

  39. Wow, I’m surprised (and disappointed) this rather ignorant and unsuported post made it to Boing Boing but also glad to see everyone else had done such a good job in pointing out the flaws.
    Over 9,000 Phds and some of the others have even studied basic science?! Good Lord.

  40. Is this how low boingboing has to sink?

    Have nutcases taken over our beloved boingboing?

    Someone silence this nut Charles Platt please …

    Just the comments here crush this guys assertions, the fact that the website is linked to a creationist, the fact that many sigs are john doe, not to mention the fact that world scientists all but agree that human pollution has an effect not just on us but the world we live in.

    Please someone get this vile, conservative propaganda off this site!!!! You can do so much better …

  41. @Charles Platt from post #51 –

    Well heres just one easy example …

    On your link from “Climatic Heresy 2”, comment number 7 had me wondering exactly what Robert Carters qualifications are, so I googled him ..

    Here are the highlights and the links to the information …

    He is a geologist specializing in palaeoclimatology, stratigraphy, marine geology, and environmental science. Carter is a former Director of Australia’s Secretariat for the Ocean Drilling Program and a Co-Chief Scientist for drilling leg 181

    Impressive! I does make me do a double take when an environmental scientist aligns himself with the oil industry, but lets just say im overly cautious, nothing here im ready to hang my hat on, lets look a bit more.

    Carter is active in the media, volunteering letters and opinion pieces on science topics to a variety of newspapers, magazines and web magazines. Carter is a member of the conservative think tank the Institute of Public Affairs

    Even more interesting, the conservative think tank “institute of public affairs”, have to read up on them as well.

    Heres a quick snippet from sourcewatch about the IPA.

    The IPA key policy positions include advocacy for privatisation, deregulation, reduction in the power of unions and denial of most significant environmental problems, including climate change.

    What else do they have to say about the IPA?

    More recently, the IPA has been the driving force behind the establishment of a number of new non-profit front groups, including the Australian Environment Foundation – which campaigns for weaker environmental laws – Independent Contractors of Australia – which campaigns for an end to workplace safety laws and a general deregulation of the labour market, and the ironically named Owner Drivers Australia, which campaigns against safety and work standard for truck drivers.

    and theres more …

    For all their talk of ‘transparency’ though, the IPA has beem embroiled in controversy over failure to disclose funders of its work. In June 2004 it was revealed that Australia’s largest irrgation company, Murray Irrigation Limited, contributed $40,000 to the IPA. The IPA’s environment unit director Jennifer Marohasy played a critical role in persuading a government committee to overturn recomendations to increase the volume of water released into the Murray River
    However, Marohasy did not disclose the donation to the committee. When asked by the Australian Financial Review about the MIL donation, Marohasy would not confirm or deny whether she knew about the donation while writing her report or giving evidence to the committee. She said she did not take “an interest in who funds IPA”

    So Robert Carter, a supposed environmentalist is part of a group that really doesnt sound concerned about the environment, it actually sounds like he ends up supporting weakened environment protections led by corporate interests solely, be they his connections with the oil industry or not.

    Lets read some more!

    Research and Background
    According to a search of 22,000 academic journals, Carter has published over 50 original research in peer-reviewed journal mainly in the area of stratigraphy, in other words the study of rock layers and layering.
    Carter and the “Institute for Public Affairs”
    Carter is on the research committee of an organization called the “Institute for Pulic Affairs” (IPA). The IPA is an Australian-based organization that, according to Sourcewatch, has received funding from the fossil fuel industry. In reference to his involvement with the IPA, Carter stated in a March 15, 2007 Sydney Morning Herald article, that: “I don’t think it is the point whether you are paid by the coal or petroleum industry.”
    Carter “not a credible source” on climate change
    In response to claims made by Carter that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change uncovered no evidence that global warming was caused by human activity, a former CSIRO climate scientist stated that Carter was not a credible source on climate change and that “if he [Carter] has any evidence that [global warming over the past 100 years] is a natural variability he should publish through the peer review process.”
    Carter and Tech Central Station
    Carter has written articles for Tech Central Station. TCS is an organization that has received money from ExxonMobil. Until very recently, TCS was run by Washington lobby/PR firm DCI Group, whcih in turn was at the centre of controversy over a YouTube Al Gore spoof video they produced and posted under the guise of 29-year old amateur filmmaker. ExxonMobil is reported to be a client of the DCI Group.

    Theres more information to be read, this is what I was able to find in about 5 minutes worth of searching …

    You can go after the sources if you like but im sure youll find it all true.

    Robert Carter is oil backed shill whos expertise is mostly in rock layers, hes part of a group whos agenda is to deregulate business, weaken government, destroy unions and hes backed by corporate interests that dont want to be subject to environmental standards.

    With all due respect Charles Platt, your posts get TROUNCED repeat TROUNCED with just a little googling.

    This was in regards to one small posting that u made, I think I made my point, its a shame you didnt do this work in the first place.

    Links:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_M._Carter

    http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Institute_of_Public_Affairs

    http://www.desmogblog.com/rm-bob-carter

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_of_Public_Affairs

    P.S. I hate having to post with any sort of code here, I cant use regular BB code and the HTML doesnt seem to allow me to put quotes in properly or even seperate text without losing the bold function or opening a WYSIWYG editor, blah.

Comments are closed.