jbg Posted February 10, 2011 Report Share Posted February 10, 2011 (edited) Global warming skeptics send letter to Congress urging members not give into climate ‘alarmists’ Below is the text of a letter, sent by many apparently qualified "scientists" taking issue with climate alarmism (I manually inserted links to referenced materials): February 8, 2011 To the Members of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate: In reply to “The Importance of Science in Addressing Climate Change” On 28 January 2011, eighteen scientists sent a letter (link) to members of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate urging them to “take a fresh look at climate change.” Their intent, apparently, was to disparage the views of scientists who disagree with their contention that continued business-as-usual increases in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions produced from the burning of coal, gas, and oil will lead to a host of cataclysmic climate-related problems. We, the undersigned, totally disagree with them and would like to take this opportunity to briefly state our side of the story. The eighteen climate alarmists (as we refer to them, not derogatorily, but simply because they view themselves as “sounding the alarm” about so many things climatic) state that the people of the world “need to prepare for massive flooding from the extreme storms of the sort being experienced with increasing frequency,” as well as the “direct health impacts from heat waves” and “climate-sensitive infectious diseases,” among a number of other devastating phenomena. And they say that “no research results have produced any evidence that challenges the overall scientific understanding of what is happening to our planet’s climate,” which is understood to mean their view of what is happening to Earth’s climate. To these statements, however, we take great exception. It is the eighteen climate alarmists who appear to be unaware of “what is happening to our planet’s climate,” as well as the vast amount of research that has produced that knowledge. For example, a lengthy review of their claims and others that climate alarmists frequently make can be found on the Web site of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change (see http://www.co2science.org/education/reports/prudentpath/prudentpath.php). That report offers a point-by-point rebuttal of all of the claims of the “group of eighteen,” citing in every case peer-reviewed scientific research on the actual effects of climate change during the past several decades. If the “group of eighteen” pleads ignorance of this information due to its very recent posting, then we call their attention to an even larger and more comprehensive report published in 2009, Climate Change Reconsidered: The 2009 Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC). That document has been posted for more than a year in its entirety at www.nipccreport.org. These are just two recent compilations of scientific research among many we could cite. Do the 678 scientific studies referenced in the CO2 Science document, or the thousands of studies cited in the NIPCC report, provide real-world evidence (as opposed to theoretical climate model predictions) for global warming-induced increases in the worldwide number and severity of floods? No. In the global number and severity of droughts? No. In the number and severity of hurricanes and other storms? No. Do they provide any real-world evidence of Earth’s seas inundating coastal lowlands around the globe? No. Increased human mortality? No. Plant and animal extinctions? No. Declining vegetative productivity? No. More frequent and deadly coral bleaching? No. Marine life dissolving away in acidified oceans? No. Quite to the contrary, in fact, these reports provide extensive empirical evidence that these things are not happening. And in many of these areas, the referenced papers report finding just the opposite response to global warming, i.e., biosphere-friendly effects of rising temperatures and rising CO2 levels. In light of the profusion of actual observations of the workings of the real world showing little or no negative effects of the modest warming of the second half of the twentieth century, and indeed growing evidence of positive effects, we find it incomprehensible that the eighteen climate alarmists could suggest something so far removed from the truth as their claim that no research results have produced any evidence that challenges their view of what is happening to Earth’s climate and weather. But don’t take our word for it. Read the two reports yourselves. And then make up your own minds about the matter. Don’t be intimidated by false claims of “scientific consensus” or “overwhelming proof.” These are not scientific arguments and they are simply not true. Like the eighteen climate alarmists, we urge you to take a fresh look at climate change. We believe you will find that it is not the horrendous environmental threat they and others have made it out to be, and that they have consistently exaggerated the negative effects of global warming on the U.S. economy, national security, and public health, when such effects may well be small to negligible. Signed by: Syun-Ichi Akasofu, University of Alaska1 Scott Armstrong, University of Pennsylvania James Barrante, Southern Connecticut State University1 John Boring, University of Virginia1 Roger Cohen, American Physical Society Fellow David Douglass, University of Rochester Don Easterbrook, Western Washington University1 Robert Essenhigh, The Ohio State University1 Neil Frank, Former Director National Hurricane Center Martin Fricke, Senior Fellow, American Physical Society Lee Gerhard, University of Kansas1 Ulrich Gerlach, The Ohio State University Victor Goldschmidt, Purdue University1 Guillermo Gonzalez, Grove City College Laurence Gould, University of Hartford Bill Gray, Colorado State University1 Will Happer, Princeton University2 Howard Hayden, University of Connecticut1 Craig Idso, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change Sherwood Idso, USDA, U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory1 Richard Keen, University of Colorado1 Doral Kemper, USDA, Agricultural Research Service1 Hugh Kendrick, Office of Nuclear Reactor Programs, DOE1 Edward Krug, University of Illinois1 Richard Lindzen, Massachusetts Institute of Technology2 Anthony Lupo, University of Missouri Patrick Michaels, Cato Institute Donald Nielsen, University of California, Davis1 Al Pekarek, St. Cloud State University John Rhoads, Midwestern State University1 Nicola Scafetta, Duke University Gary Sharp, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study S. Fred Singer, University of Virginia1 Roy Spencer, University of Alabama George Taylor, Past President, American Association of State Climatologists Frank Tipler, Tulane University James Wanliss, Presbyterian College Leonard Weinstein, National Institute of Aerospace Senior Research Fellow Samuel Werner, University of Missouri1 Bruce West, American Physical Society Fellow Thomas Wolfram, University of Missouri1 1 - Emeritus or Retired 2 - Member of the National Academy of Sciences Endorsed by: Rodney Armstrong, Geophysicist Richard Becherer, University of Connecticut1 E. Calvin Beisner, The Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation Edwin Berry, Certified Consulting Meteorologist Joseph Bevelacqua, Bevelacqua Resources Carmen Catanese, American Physical Society Member Roy Clark, Ventura Photonics John Coleman, Meteorologist KUSI TV Darrell Connelly, Geophysicist Joseph D'Aleo, Certified Consulting Meteorologist Terry Donze, Geophysicist1 Mike Dubrasich, Western Institute for Study of the Environment John Dunn, American Council on Science and Health of NYC Dick Flygare, Engineer Michael Fox, Nuclear industry/scientist Gordon Fulks, Gordon Fulks and Associates Steve Goreham, Climate Science Coalition of America Ken Haapala, Science & Environmental Policy Project Martin Hertzberg, Bureau of Mines1 Art Horn, Meteorologist Keith Idso, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change John Kimberly, Geologist Jay Lehr, The Heartland Institute Robert Lerine, Industrial and Defense Research and Engineering1 Peter Link, Geologist James Macdonald, Chief Meteorologist for the Travelers Weather Service1 Roger Matson, Society of Independent Professional Earth Scientists Tony Pann, Meteorologist WBAL TV Ned Rasor, Consulting Physicist James Rogers, Geologist1 Norman Rogers, National Association of Scholars Rene Rogers, Litton Electron Devices1 Bruce Schwoegler, MySky Communications, Inc. Thomas Sheahen, Western Technology Incorporated James Spann, Chief Meteorologist, ABC 33/40 - Birmingham Andrew Spurlock, Starfire Engineering and Technologies, Inc. Leighton Steward, PlantsNeedCO2.org Soames Summerhays, Summerhays Films, Inc. Charles Touhill, Consulting Environmental Engineer David Wojick, Climatechangedebate.org Bob Zybach, Ecologist 1 - Emeritus or Retired Edited February 10, 2011 by jbg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted February 10, 2011 Report Share Posted February 10, 2011 No worries, I am sure Waldo will rip you apart with the usual. They are all deniers, not credible scientists, ect ect ect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted February 10, 2011 Report Share Posted February 10, 2011 No worries, I am sure Waldo will rip you apart with the usual. They are all deniers, not credible scientists, ect ect ect. Or, it could be that Waldo or somebody else wil have some legitimate and credible points to make, and that this letter isn't the objective end of all debate on the issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Posted February 10, 2011 Report Share Posted February 10, 2011 Or, it could be that Waldo or somebody else wil have some legitimate and credible points to make, and that this letter isn't the objective end of all debate on the issue. Waldo may very well have some "legitimate and credible points to make". The problem is, he's likely to express them in such a mean-spirited and "crankbag" manner that no one will want to listen to them! "Is this 'Abuse'?" "No, sorry! It's 'Getting Hit on the Head' lessons in here!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted February 10, 2011 Report Share Posted February 10, 2011 No worries, I am sure Waldo will rip you apart with the usual. They are all deniers, not credible scientists, ect ect ect. Exactly. Just watch the McCarthyism in action. I'm sure he'll connect every one of them to "Big Oil" somehow. Even if he has to use the Kevin Bacon game rules to do it. At least it'll be entertaining. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted February 10, 2011 Report Share Posted February 10, 2011 haha.... ad hominem attacks against Waldo before he even posts!! You guys are scared... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted February 11, 2011 Report Share Posted February 11, 2011 Whatever this letter is, it's getting scant coverage in the mainstream press. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukin Posted February 11, 2011 Report Share Posted February 11, 2011 Whatever this letter is, it's getting scant coverage in the mainstream press. I wonder why? The green loons have the media in their back pocket. This letter is a major slap in the face to the doompreachers. All those who signed this letter are very well-educated. Scientists must preach doom or lose their funding. Sadly, that's the way it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted February 11, 2011 Report Share Posted February 11, 2011 Whatever this letter is, it's getting scant coverage in the mainstream press. That's because... ...it hasn't even been written yet! WHAT?!??!?!? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted February 11, 2011 Report Share Posted February 11, 2011 Whatever this letter is, it's getting scant coverage in the mainstream press. have you noticed that the argument is no longer- there is no evidence the earth is warming or that it's the result of CO2 or that man is the cause it's now shifted to...We believe you will find that it is not the horrendous environmental threat they and others have made it out to be, and that they have consistently exaggerated the negative effects of global warming on the U.S. economy, national security, and public health, when such effects may well be small to negligible. they've lost every point of their denial and have now moved on to disputing the strength of the change...when the arctic Ice Cap completely disappears in a summer not far off the loons will be shut up once and for all... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted February 11, 2011 Report Share Posted February 11, 2011 have you noticed that the argument is no longer- there is no evidence the earth is warming or that it's the result of CO2 or that man is the cause it's now shifted to... Kind of like how global warming became climate change. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted February 11, 2011 Report Share Posted February 11, 2011 Kind of like how global warming became climate change. no climate change became the recognized term because global warming was an inaccurate/misleading term...and it was officially CC in 1988 long before 99% of the population had ever heard of it... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted February 11, 2011 Report Share Posted February 11, 2011 I wonder why? The green loons have the media in their back pocket. This letter is a major slap in the face to the doompreachers. All those who signed this letter are very well-educated. Scientists must preach doom or lose their funding. Sadly, that's the way it is. Right... the global media conspiracy... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted February 11, 2011 Report Share Posted February 11, 2011 no climate change became the recognized term because global warming was an inaccurate/misleading term...and it was officially CC in 1988 long before 99% of the population had ever heard of it... Why was global warming a misleading term? Why was it even used if climate change was the big deal? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted February 11, 2011 Report Share Posted February 11, 2011 Right... the global media conspiracy... No, not global. Just mainstream, left-leaning media. They also ignored climategate so it's not suprising. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted February 11, 2011 Report Share Posted February 11, 2011 No, not global. Just mainstream, left-leaning media. They also ignored climategate so it's not suprising. The mainstream media is not "left-leaning." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted February 11, 2011 Report Share Posted February 11, 2011 The mainstream media is not "left-leaning." Of course it is. You just can't see it because you're one of the fringe far-left types. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted February 11, 2011 Report Share Posted February 11, 2011 No, not global. Just mainstream, left-leaning media. They also ignored climategate so it's not suprising. Climategate was a non-controversy that was hyped up by crackpot bloggers and breathless fake journalists and conspiracy nuts like Alex Jones. I think that there is some legitimate opposition to the ideas around Global Warming, but they need to find a serious vehicle to put their thoughts forward, not 9/11 Troother type conspiracy nut shows. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted February 11, 2011 Report Share Posted February 11, 2011 Of course it is. You just can't see it because you're one of the fringe far-left types. The media is "corporate" and has all the hallmarks of a corporation, which include being left of the milita-minded, the Libertarian purists, and those who would burn gays on a pile of heavy metal albums. Fox corporation has offers same-sex benefits to its employees and has done for awhile, and News Corp also has a carbon neutral policy. The rigid left/right paradigm doesn't really apply to corporations, you see, because corporations are run by college-educated (read 'liberal') types who make a lot of money and don't like to pay a lot of taxes (read 'conservative') News is a commodity, and the type of news you consume is a brand. It's not a religion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted February 11, 2011 Report Share Posted February 11, 2011 Climategate was a non-controversy that was hyped up by crackpot bloggers and breathless fake journalists and conspiracy nuts like Alex Jones. Waldo is that you? Anyways, complete nonsense. I see you're firmly entrenched in the alarmist camp. I'm glad you stopped pretending otherwise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted February 11, 2011 Report Share Posted February 11, 2011 News is a commodity, and the type of news you consume is a brand. It's not a religion. It's also an ideology. And since the overwhelming number of journalists are left-leaning, their bias usally comes through their reporting. I'm not saying it's wrong. It's natural to have opinions on certain issues. And one of them is so-called climate change. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted February 11, 2011 Report Share Posted February 11, 2011 Waldo may very well have some "legitimate and credible points to make". The problem is, he's likely to express them in such a mean-spirited and "crankbag" manner that no one will want to listen to them!"Is this 'Abuse'?" "No, sorry! It's 'Getting Hit on the Head' lessons in here!" your continual whiney pissant self inspires me... but really, you should grow a pair - hey? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted February 11, 2011 Report Share Posted February 11, 2011 have you noticed that the argument is no longer- there is no evidence the earth is warming or that it's the result of CO2 or that man is the cause it's now shifted to...they've lost every point of their denial and have now moved on to disputing the strength of the change...when the arctic Ice Cap completely disappears in a summer not far off the loons will be shut up once and for all... I mean... really, c'mon wyly... that countering denier letter sent to the U.S. Congress was certainly justified given the unnerving "call to arms" invoked by the earlier letter from scientists who simply asked the U.S. Congress to, "put aside politics, and take a 'fresh look' at climate data". Imagine the trepidation felt by the deniers when they read that initial letter, particularly the following selected extract... oh my... imagine scientists calling for Congressional hearings to understand climate science - actually offering to assist in developing a rational and practical national policy! Just exactly what are the deniers afraid of when they read the following? How Can We Move Forward? Congress should, we believe, hold hearings to understand climate science and what it says about the likely costs and benefits of action and inaction. It should not hold hearings to attempt to intimidate scientists or to substitute ideological judgments for scientific ones. We urge our elected leaders to work together to focus the nation on what the science is telling us, particularly with respect to impacts now occurring around the country. Already, there is far more carbon in the air than at any time in human history, with more being generated every day. Climate change is underway and the severity of the risks we face is compounded by delay. We look to you, our representatives, to address the challenge of climate change, and lead the national response. We and our colleagues are prepared to assist you as you work to develop a rational and practical national policy to address this important issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted February 11, 2011 Report Share Posted February 11, 2011 Why was global warming a misleading term? Why was it even used if climate change was the big deal? because it's an oversimplification...CC covers more variables, more rain or less rain, hotter or cooler, all scenarios are possible in different regions... and global warming was never at any time an "official" label that's just an assumption of the denier world...the phrase was coined by Wallace Broecker not al gore, margret thatcher or a leftist media conspiracy... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted February 11, 2011 Report Share Posted February 11, 2011 (edited) I mean... really, c'mon wyly... that countering denier letter sent to the U.S. Congress was certainly justified given the unnerving "call to arms" invoked by the earlier letter from scientists who simply asked the U.S. Congress to, "put aside politics, and take a 'fresh look' at climate data". Imagine the trepidation felt by the deniers when they read that initial letter, particularly the following selected extract... oh my... imagine scientists calling for Congressional hearings to understand climate science - actually offering to assist in developing a rational and practical national policy! Just exactly what are the deniers afraid of when they read the following? I detect the evil leftist mind of margret thatcher at work in that letter Edited February 11, 2011 by wyly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.