Tumblr Icon RSS Icon

The hottest October on record?

By Joe Romm on November 11, 2008 at 4:23 pm

"The hottest October on record?"

Share:

google plus icon

Nothing is more important to the deniers and delayers than finding a mistake. Oops, let me quickly correct that mistake before they do and start again.

Nothing is less important to the deniers and delayers than finding or even acknowledging the whopping mistakes by fellow deniers and delayers or frankly by anybody who publishes anything that might seem to support their anti-scientific views. See, as but a tiny sample,

Also, nothing is more important to the deniers and delayers than finding even the tiniest and most irrelevant mistakes in NASA datasets (see, for instance, “Must read from Hansen: Stop the madness about the tiny revision in NASA’s temperature data!“).

Well, they’re back! Two of the most popular denier websites are all excited by a temporary misreporting of some temperature stations by NASA (see wattsupwiththat.com and climateaudit.org — note, I can’t actually bring myself to hyperlink to them and thereby simplify their task of spreading disinformation). Anyway, you can read the entire story from NASA’s Gavin Schmidt at RealClimate.org in a post appropriately titled, “Mountains and Molehills“:

… there was a glitch in the surface temperature record reporting for October. For many Russian stations (and some others), September temperatures were apparently copied over into October, giving an erroneous positive anomaly. The error appears to have been made somewhere between the reporting by the National Weather Services and NOAA’s collation of the GHCN database. GISS, which produces one of the more visible analyses of this raw data, processed the input data as normal and ended up with an October anomaly that was too high. That analysis has now been pulled (in under 24 hours) while they await a correction of input data from NOAA.

There were 90 stations for which October numbers equalled September numbers in the corrupted GHCN file for 2008 (out of 908). This compares with an average of about 16 stations each year in the last decade (some earlier years have bigger counts, but none as big as this month, and are much less as a percentage of stations). These other cases seem to be mostly legitimate tropical stations where there isn’t much of a seasonal cycle. That makes it a little tricky to automatically scan for this problem, but putting in a check for the total number or percentage is probably sensible going forward.

Zzzzzzz. Zzzzzzz. Zzzzzzz.

We should know in a day or two what the corrected temperature anomaly is. Obviously, whether it turns out to be one of the warmest Octobers on record or just an average October has exceedingly little bearing on the overall long-term climate forecast, which is most certainly “Hot — and then Very Hot” — and, assuming we keep listening to the deniers and delayers, “extremely friggin’ hot.”

But I still like to draw attention to the monthly temperature trends, especially because it is, of course, actually getting warmer, and I know just how much it annoys the deniers and delayers. Seriously, if we can’t stop the denier and delayers from throwing dust in the eyes of the media and convincing GOP voters and politicians to oppose the action needed to save our children from the gravest threat to their health and well-being, if we can’t do that, at least we can try to make the deniers and delayers misdirect some of their venom. And venom they do spew, especially at the most inconsequential of things:

… there is a strong yearning among some to want to wake up tomorrow and find that the globe hasn’t been warming, that the sea ice hasn’t melted, that the glaciers have not receded and that indeed, CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. Thus when mistakes occur (and with science being a human endeavour, they always will) the exuberance of the response can be breathtaking – and quite telling.A few examples from the comments at Watt’s blog [hyperlink deleted to spare your blood pressure and sanity] will suffice to give you a flavour of the conspiratorial thinking: “I believe they had two sets of data: One would be released if Republicans won, and another if Democrats won.”, “could this be a sneaky way to set up the BO presidency with an urgent need to regulate CO2?”, “There are a great many of us who will under no circumstance allow the oppression of government rule to pervade over our freedom—PERIOD!!!!!!” (exclamation marks reduced enormously), “these people are blinded by their own bias”, “this sort of scientific fraud”, “Climate science on the warmer side has degenerated to competitive lying”, etc… (To be fair, there were people who made sensible comments as well).

The amount of simply made up stuff is also impressive – the GISS press release declaring the October the ‘warmest ever’? Imaginary (GISS only puts out press releases on the temperature analysis at the end of the year). The headlines trumpeting this result? Non-existent. One clearly sees the relief that finally the grand conspiracy has been rumbled, that the mainstream media will get it’s comeuppance, and that surely now, the powers that be will listen to those voices that had been crying in the wilderness.

Alas! none of this will come to pass. In this case, someone’s programming error will be fixed and nothing will change except for the reporting of a single month’s anomaly. No heads will roll, no congressional investigations will be launched, no politicians (with one possible exception) will take note. This will undoubtedly be disappointing to many, but they should comfort themselves with the thought that the chances of this error happening again has now been diminished. Which is good, right?

If you know any of the NASA GISS scientists, and I am fortunate to know both Schmidt and Hansen, then you know that, like the overwhelming majority of scientists, nothing is more important to them than data integrity, reproducibility of results, and the search for the truth.

When the history of this time is written, I suspect nothing will be so incomprehensible and infuriating to future generations as how so many clever people could devote so much of their effort to both attacking our top scientists for trying to warn the public about what is to come and delaying action that might have staved off the worst.

Related Posts:

Tags:

‹ PREVIOUS
A Strategy for Green Recovery

NEXT ›
One way to honor the sacrifice of veterans

20 Responses to The hottest October on record?

  1. JCH says:

    I believe there are already news stories that state this error is about October, 2007. From what GS posted at RC it appears to be about October, 2008.

    Just to be certain, which is it?

    http://www.erh.noaa.gov/ctp/features/2007/10_20/index.php

    [JR: October 2008. It'll be fixed in a day or two.]

  2. David B. Benson says:

    JCH — Last month.

  3. JCH says:

    That’s what I thought, but just being careful. Thanks.

  4. jorleh says:

    There is a grim point in deniers: genocide. They aim to sweep away 90% of the humankind. The richest one billion goes on. And all is well again.

  5. Doug Lofland says:

    Thank god SOMEONE is questioning the conventional wisdom because you obviously aren’t.

    [JR: Thank science SOMEONE is trying to save your descendents from 6°C warming because you obviously aren't.]

  6. TallDave says:

    The conclusion is obvious: Russia is trapped in some sort of time warp, in which they repeat the month of September over and over again.

    Global warming has torn the space-time continuum.

    God help us all.

  7. John A. Harris says:

    Do not believe Detroit when they claim that all sorts of jobs will be lost. They know better than that, and are badly misleading the public with these lies.
    Few if any jobs will be lost (except very top management and possibly some Board Members) if the auto companies should go into Chapter 11.
    No bankruptcy judge would close down a major auto company. He would probably be able to find competent managers to replace the current top leadership. This could only help the average employee to hold on to their jobs far more than giving the companies money for top management to squander.

  8. Definitely_Not_Joe says:

    Russian data has been corrected. As a result, now large areas of Australia and Northern Canada are shown to be very hot, while they were grey (no data) on Monday. For Australia there can be an explanation, as the new NOAA data set includes TWO more stations in Australia that weren’t there on Monday (but things are really bad if we have to rely on just 2 stations to represent such a huge area of temperatures). But in Canada, no new stations’ data has been added. It is a mistery why it is suddenly shown in red. I wonder if Gavin will try to explain it…

  9. Doug Lofland says:

    JR,

    In the words of the late great Michael Crichton about people like you who don’t question the conventional wisdom, “you’re not even wrong”. You’re so far out of the ball park that wrong doesn’t apply to you.

    It’s pathetic to see people who consider themselves to be open-minded never THINKING of questioning the conventional wisdom.

    [JR: The conventional wisdom for conservatives is what Crichton advanced -- that climate change is an unimportant problems and that we don't need to restrict greenhouse gas emissions. When have you ever question conventional conservative wisdom?]

    Read all opinions on all sides of this issue, knock it off with the ad hominem attacks and death threats against those like Michael Crichton and Bjorn Lomborg who dare to question the conventional wisdom and then have a real debate with those who disagree.

    [JR: This claim of imaginary death threats is an outrageous lie. It is simply unacceptable slander.]

    That would be a novel concept as there has never really been any kind of debate on this subject since I”ve been following it since 1988.

    It’s just been blind acceptance of the conventional wisdom and of James Hansen’s pronouncements since the subject fist came up in the media back then.

    Do ANY of the above and maybe you might truly become an open-minded and good citizen of the Republic…….like the newly elected President who famously loves to bring in people with whom he disagrees.

    Follow Obama’s example as well, maybe, and you might actually learn something!

    [JR: And yet Obama agrees with me that climate change is perhaps the gravest threat to humanity and we need an 80% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by midcentury. Go figure! I assume you don't bother going to see doctors since they just peddle the conventional scientific wisdom and the pronouncements of the Surgeon General. I assume you don't bother listening to the weather forecast and say just peddle the conventional meteorological wisdom and the pronouncements of some local meteorologist. Stick to your voodoo and divining rods. The rest of us will stick with real science.]

  10. Doug Lofland says:

    JR,

    It’s not conventional conservative wisdom vs. conventional wisdom…….it’s just wise to question everything. I don’t, Crichton didn’t, LOmborg doesn’t accept conventional anything……we simply ask questions, and for that we are pilloried.

    And yes, death threats have been issued against LOmborg, Crichton and others…….I’ve read the blogs.

    Obama agrees with you……but at least he is willing to have others question his beliefs……and I’m afraid he’s going to have to, because his pet projects like this aren’t going to be able to be implemented because of the economic mess we’re in…….

    Real science – I’m with Crichton on this……the numbers just don’t support a doomsday scenario that has been peddled in the media.

    [JR: what I think the central point is that Crichton and you and others miss is that the "doomsday scenario" is in fact something pretty much most climate scientists believe will occur -- if humanity is stupid enough to keep ignoring the clear scientific evidence for yet another quarter century. Until recently, most climate scientists have been non-alarmists because 1) scientists in general are not alarmists and 2) they always assume that the world would act on their increasingly strong urgings. Now it is clear that you deniers and Delayers have convinced a large enough segment of humanity to do nothing. But doing nothing makes the doomsday scenario a near certainty.

    Even IEA, which has historically been a very bland and staid group, has become increasingly dire in its warnings as humanity hurdles towards its self-destruction. Wake up and smell the coffee. The only way to avoid the doomsday scenario is to take action.]

  11. Doug Lofland says:

    I’m afraid the only thing we miss is an objective opinion on this from the media and from alarmists like you.

    Look, the other side of this debate act responsibly by asking others to think about this before acting so irrationally. You should too and ask yourself to consider the other side of this debate…..calmly, rationally……you don’t have to agree, but it is quite apparent you have never seriously considered the other side as anything but enemies of humanity.

    [JR: You aren't a regular reader of this blog so you have no idea what you are talking about. Who is this "other side" you are talking about? The small number of people who knowingly and actively actively spread disinformation aimed at delaying humanity's response to the greatest preventable threat to our health and well-being are enemies of humanity. Duh! The tens of millions of people who have been suckered by the disinformers aren't enemies of humanity, but they are unknowingly contributing to our self-destruction. You can figure out what to call them.]

    So what’s that all about…..how does one advance one’s thinking by saying I’m right and they’re wrong. That’s not a PC thing to do right now with a new President-elect who keeps an open mind on eveything, including what he disagrees with……I don’t agree with the new President-elect on this subject, but I respect him for his open and enquiring mind. I hope and believe that he would say the say the same about those he disagrees with on this subject.

    [JR: This is so funny coming from a conservative, who is normally the first to criticize progressives for being "inclusive." How does one advanced ones thinking by saying that people who are spreading long-debunked disinformation are "right" or "deserve to be heard."]

    It is constantly said that “most” climate scientists agree that the sky is falling, and then I find a VERY large number of climate scientists who don’t agree, and many within the IPCC itself who don’t agree…….but those are always dismissed as holocaust deniers, enemies of the people, heretics……people not to be taken seriously.

    [JR: Nobody has ever found a VERY large number of climate scientists who agree that unrestricted greenhouse gas emissions is anything other than an unmitigated catastrophe. Please identify this large number, or stop spreading disinformation.]

    That isn’t open-minded……that’s 21st Century Lysenkoism.

    The other side isn’t saying do nothing – as Crichton and Lomborg say throughout their writings, we should all be good, not extreme, stewards of the environment…..it’s just simply the right thing to do; but the numbers do make a strong case for a very healthy skepticism about many of the proposed solutions, and the new President-elect will run square into those shortly.

    [JR: The "other side" that you cite IS against restricting greenhouse gas emissions. They are thus dndorsing business as usual warming which takes us to 5°C or more of this century, unmitigated catastrophe. I'd love to see "the numbers" you claim exist. They look to be imaginary numbers.]

    We all owe him our support, our questions from all sides of what should go forward as a very vigorous debate, and our open minds on this very controversial subject.

    [JR: The subject isn't actually that controversial among climate scientists and serious policy analysts. But if you listen to the anti-scientific crowd, they have ginned up a lot of bogus controversies that people like you have fallen for.]

  12. Doug Lofland says:

    OK, I’m waving the white flag……

    I’m not the conservative you mention……I actually voted for Obama……which kind of demonstrates that I DO have an open mind…….unlike those of you who seem to live in the closed world of this web site.

    Obviously no one who inhabits this web site brooks any opposition, entertains any discussion – very sad.

    Go ahead and keep cheering each other on and preaching to the choir….it’s great for you to know you’re right and remain convinced that everyone who questions any of this is wrong.

    I read recently in the UK Register that 60 percent of UK public opinion believes that climate change is neither man-made nor urgent……

    Not to worry about those poor slobs though……they’re just deniers and delayers who have been deluded by us dastardly conservatives on the other side……too bad you haven’t a clue what a real conservative is all about……you just imagine you do.

    Goodbye and good luck saving the planet

  13. TomG says:

    Anyone who thinks Crichton and Lomberg are climate experts is on rather thin ice.

  14. Barry says:

    The author of this article is obviously a blind nitwit with not an ounce of scientific understanding…..

    [JR: This is one way of insuring your posts are moderated. In case you hadn't noticed, the planet is warming up, the Arctic is melting, the glaciers are melting....]

  15. Henry Galt says:

    Let’s see.

    “They are thus dndorsing business as usual warming which takes us to 5°C or more of this century, unmitigated catastrophe..”

    Is that 0.5C per decade? Or will it all come at once in the last couple years of the century?

    If the first; the prior decade has produced… well, see for yourself (using all the popular products)

    http://woodfortrees.org/notes#wti

    – it will look far worse halfway through next year.

    The conclusion (the 30 year trend further down the page) is that there is between 1.3C and 1.7C per century warming even if GISTEMP is included.

    If the second; where is the science that allows this alarming projection to be made?

    [JR: Try reading this blog or the IPCC report. You'll find all the scientific literature explaining this. Heck even the uber-conservative IEA knows that BAU takes us to 5°C or more of this century. And yes, more CO2 means it warms faster in the future.]

  16. John McDonald says:

    The GISS temp data is very suspect, the deniers have driven a scientific stake in the heart of everything James Hansen. You do not need to be deny or believe in Global warming to know this – you just need to read the reviews of the substation projects. It is very embarrassing to see station after station run by James Hansen look unkept, used as a outdoor storage facility, placed in the middle of blacktopped parking lots, etc. It is horrible. James Hansen cannot be accused of giving a flying rip about the quality of his data. He would serve the AGW movement more by actually trying to take better measurements as opposed to flying around the world supporting enviros in criminal courts as he did recently in England. The man is an embarrassement to the US, to Global warming, etc. He was caught in a major way again by the deniers this week — for a taxpayer like me I wish he was doing his job properly.

    Looking the October data, it appears that the mixing of September is not the only problem. The data between Alaska and Russia does not seem plausable either. After all the bashing of the GISS temp data, you’d think James Hansen would be more careful.

    Finally, the manipulation of the data as caught by the deniers is another horrible act in the name of science. If it was not for the deniers I’m quite sure that that the changes made in the historical temp records would not have been caught. Have some appreciation for all people, deniers and advocates alike – healthy debate is how to arrive at the truth.

  17. Henry Galt says:

    “more CO2 means it warms faster in the future”

    A lot of people await with bated breath the science that shows that.

    Not a computer program. Not anecdotal. Not conjecture. No guesses or estimates of 90% this and that. No maybe’s, could’s or should’s.

    Some 21st century engineering grade paper that has empirical evidence and a methodology based in physics and chemistry as opposed to metaphysics and comedy.

    Science.

    Yes, I have read the IPCC fantasy series – all 4 of them. Depressing as it was and sad as it is.

    [JR: I think you'd be happier at one of the anti-science websites, like junkscience. Anyone who calls the IPCC a fantasy belongs with the voodoo flat-earth crowd. Again, I assume you don't go to doctors or fly on airplanes. They rely on that newfangled scientific method.]

  18. oracle2world says:

    A “temporary misreporting” is the best you can do? How about just calling it a gross error not caught by peer review, QA, or normal scientific skepticism about a a possible outlier data point?

    [JR: It was caught in about a day. This isn't peer-reviewed stuff. And unlike you, NASA doesn't consider one month to matter that much, and, in any case, the data was not much of an outlier, if at all.]

    If the outlier data point had showed anomalous cooling, I rather doubt it would have been released before EXHAUSTIVE analysis had been made to check and recheck its source.

    And this is a really big error. Folks debate climate changes at a precision of a tenth of a degree Celsius, and an entire dataset is duplicated that creates an outlier, a new record, headlines, and nobody notices? It does call into question what the heck that lab has been doing over the years. Check out the history of scientific fraud, they were into it big time until they got caught. It didn’t just happen suddenly to an otherwise mild-mannered scrupulous decent person who was careless one day.

    [JR: What headlines were generated? NASA does not issue monthly reports like NOAA. Wow, you can question the motives and decency of the person who made this tiny, temporary error and corrected it the moment it was noticed -- but refuse to question the motives and decency of people who consistently repeat disinformation years after it has been widely debunked? Physician, heal thyself!]

  19. oracle2world says:

    Here are two headlines:

    “NASA’s curious climate capers” – The Register 2008-11-19
    “The world has never seen such freezing heat” UK Telegraph 2008-11-16

    I understand that “GISS did not have resources to exercise proper quality control over the data it was supplied with.”

    Peer review is just quality assurance under another name, but I agree, GISS doesn’t seem to have any peer review or quality assurance. They don’t have the resources. And exactly how long have they not had the resources? You are not going to talk your way out of this one.

    And I don’t know what NASA is thinking, but if GISS were important to NASA then Hansen wouldn’t be scrounging for funding or FTE. My opinion is that NASA doesn’t care what Hansen does as long as he steers clear of shuttle operations.

    US climate policy was decided by the Byrd-Hagel Senate resolution in 1997 under Clinton, stayed the same under Bush, and won’t change anytime soon under Obama. Before the USA trashes its economy (China and India get a pass of course), a lot of folks will be looking at everything related to climate change under a microscope, an electron microscope.

    The point is, why should some nebulous end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it future predictions be trusted, that rely upon some extremely sophisticated computer modeling, when copying data from one source to another in the present day and time gets screwed up.

    And yes I can question the professionalism (and motives) of a scientist who doesn’t take responsibility for an error published by his research group. Passing the buck is quintessential government career worker … but not acceptable in the scientific community.

    [JR: It always amazes me how the denier crowd can find meaning in an utterly trivial unintentional mistake that was fixed in a day or two, but blithely repeat and embrace long-debunked disinformation and the work of people who knowingly peddle it.]

  20. Mark says:

    U. S. Senate Minority Report:

    More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims

    Scientists Continue to Debunk “Consensus” in 2008

    Update: January 28, 2009: James Hansen’s Former NASA Supervisor Declares Himself a Skeptic – Says Climate Fears “Embarrassed NASA”
    Update: December 22, 2008: 11 More Scientists Join Senate Report

    Google 650 climate scientists and you can go to the exact senate report

    INTRODUCTION:

    Over 650 dissenting scientists from around the globe challenged man-made global warming claims made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Vice President Al Gore. This new 231-page U.S. Senate Minority Report — updated from 2007’s groundbreaking report of over 400 scientists who voiced skepticism about the so-called global warming “consensus” — features the skeptical voices of over 650 prominent international scientists, including many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN IPCC. This updated report includes an additional 250 (and growing) scientists and climate researchers since the initial release in December 2007. The over 650 dissenting scientists are more than 12 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.

    The chorus of skeptical scientific voices grow louder in 2008 as a steady stream of peer-reviewed studies, analyses, real world data and inconvenient developments challenged the UN’s and former Vice President Al Gore’s claims that the “science is settled” and there is a “consensus.” On a range of issues, 2008 proved to be challenging for the promoters of man-made climate fears. Promoters of anthropogenic warming fears endured the following: Global temperatures failing to warm; Peer-reviewed studies predicting a continued lack of warming; a failed attempt to revive the discredited “Hockey Stick”; inconvenient developments and studies regarding rising CO2; the Spotless Sun; Clouds; Antarctica; the Arctic; Greenland’s ice; Mount Kilimanjaro; Global sea ice; Causes of Hurricanes; Extreme Storms; Extinctions; Floods; Droughts; Ocean Acidification; Polar Bears; Extreme weather deaths; Frogs; lack of atmospheric dust; Malaria; the failure of oceans to warm and rise as predicted.

    In addition, the following developments further secured 2008 as the year the “consensus” collapsed. Russian scientists “rejected the very idea that carbon dioxide may be responsible for global warming”. An American Physical Society editor conceded that a “considerable presence” of scientific skeptics exists. An International team of scientists countered the UN IPCC, declaring: “Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate”. India Issued a report challenging global warming fears. International Scientists demanded the UN IPCC “be called to account and cease its deceptive practices,” and a canvass of more than 51,000 Canadian scientists revealed 68% disagree that global warming science is “settled.”

    This new report issued by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee’s office of the GOP Ranking Member is the latest evidence of the growing groundswell of scientific opposition challenging significant aspects of the claims of the UN IPCC and Al Gore. Scientific meetings are now being dominated by a growing number of skeptical scientists. The prestigious International Geological Congress, dubbed the geologists’ equivalent of the Olympic Games, was held in Norway in August 2008 and prominently featured the voices of scientists skeptical of man-made global warming fears. [See: Skeptical scientists overwhelm conference: '2/3 of presenters and question-askers were hostile to, even dismissive of, the UN IPCC' & see full reports here & here ]

    Even the mainstream media has begun to take notice of the expanding number of scientists serving as “consensus busters.” A November 25, 2008, article in Politico noted that a “growing accumulation” of science is challenging warming fears, and added that the “science behind global warming may still be too shaky to warrant cap-and-trade legislation.” Canada’s National Post noted on October 20, 2008, that “the number of climate change skeptics is growing rapidly.” New York Times environmental reporter Andrew Revkin noted on March 6, 2008, “As we all know, climate science is not a numbers game (there are heaps of signed statements by folks with advanced degrees on all sides of this issue),” Revkin wrote. (LINK) In 2007, Washington Post Staff Writer Juliet Eilperin conceded the obvious, writing that climate skeptics “appear to be expanding rather than shrinking.”

    Skeptical scientists are gaining recognition despite what many say is a bias against them in parts of the scientific community and are facing significant funding disadvantages. Dr. William M. Briggs, a climate statistician who serves on the American Meteorological Society’s Probability and Statistics Committee, explained that his colleagues described “absolute horror stories of what happened to them when they tried getting papers published that explored non-‘consensus’ views.” In a March 4, 2008, report Briggs described the behavior as “really outrageous and unethical … on the parts of some editors. I was shocked.” [Note: An August 2007 report detailed how proponents of man-made global warming fears enjoy a monumental funding advantage over skeptical scientists. A July 2007 Senate report details how skeptical scientists have faced threats and intimidation -

    Highlights of the Updated 2008 Senate Minority Report featuring over 650 international scientists dissenting from man-made climate fears:

    “I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.

    “Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical...The main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system.” - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”

    Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

    “The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists.” - Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.

    “So far, real measurements give no ground for concern about a catastrophic future warming.” - Scientist Dr. Jarl R. Ahlbeck, a chemical engineer at Abo Akademi University in Finland, author of 200 scientific publications and former Greenpeace member.

    “Anyone who claims that the debate is over and the conclusions are firm has a fundamentally unscientific approach to one of the most momentous issues of our time.” - Solar physicist Dr. Pal Brekke, senior advisor to the Norwegian Space Centre in Oslo. Brekke has published more than 40 peer-reviewed scientific articles on the sun and solar interaction with the Earth.

    “The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.” - Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico

    “It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.
    “Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.” – . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.

    “After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri’s asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it’s hard to remain quiet.” – Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society’s Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.

    “The Kyoto theorists have put the cart before the horse. It is global warming that triggers higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not the other way round…A large number of critical documents submitted at the 1995 U.N. conference in Madrid vanished without a trace. As a result, the discussion was one-sided and heavily biased, and the U.N. declared global warming to be a scientific fact,” Andrei Kapitsa, a Russian geographer and Antarctic ice core researcher.

    “I am convinced that the current alarm over carbon dioxide is mistaken…Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science.” – Award Winning Physicist Dr. Will Happer, Professor at the Department of Physics at Princeton University and Former Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy, who has published over 200 scientific papers, and is a fellow of the American Physical Society, The American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the National Academy of Sciences.

    “Nature’s regulatory instrument is water vapor: more carbon dioxide leads to less moisture in the air, keeping the overall GHG content in accord with the necessary balance conditions.” – Prominent Hungarian Physicist and environmental researcher Dr. Miklós Zágoni reversed his view of man-made warming and is now a skeptic. Zágoni was once Hungary’s most outspoken supporter of the Kyoto Protocol.

    “For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?” – Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.

    “Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” – Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.

    “The quantity of CO2 we produce is insignificant in terms of the natural circulation between air, water and soil… I am doing a detailed assessment of the UN IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science.” – South Afican Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150 refereed publications.

    “Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.” – Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.

    “All those urging action to curb global warming need to take off the blinkers and give some thought to what we should do if we are facing global cooling instead.” – Geophysicist Dr. Phil Chapman, an astronautical engineer and former NASA astronaut, served as staff physicist at MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology)

    “Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.” – Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.

    “CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.” – Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.

    “The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds.” – Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata.

    “Whatever the weather, it’s not being caused by global warming. If anything, the climate may be starting into a cooling period.” Atmospheric scientist Dr. Art V. Douglas, former Chair of the Atmospheric Sciences Department at Creighton University in Omaha, Nebraska, and is the author of numerous papers for peer-reviewed publications.

    “But there is no falsifiable scientific basis whatever to assert this warming is caused by human-produced greenhouse gasses because current physical theory is too grossly inadequate to establish any cause at all.” – Chemist Dr. Patrick Frank, who has authored more than 50 peer-reviewed articles.

    “The ‘global warming scare’ is being used as a political tool to increase government control over American lives, incomes and decision making. It has no place in the Society’s activities.” – Award-Winning NASA Astronaut/Geologist and Moonwalker Jack Schmitt who flew on the Apollo 17 mission and formerly of the Norwegian Geological Survey and for the U.S. Geological Survey.

    “Earth has cooled since 1998 in defiance of the predictions by the UN-IPCC….The global temperature for 2007 was the coldest in a decade and the coldest of the millennium…which is why ‘global warming’ is now called ‘climate change.’” – Climatologist Dr. Richard Keen of the Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences at the University of Colorado.

    “I have yet to see credible proof of carbon dioxide driving climate change, yet alone man-made CO2 driving it. The atmospheric hot-spot is missing and the ice core data refute this. When will we collectively awake from this deceptive delusion?” – Dr. G LeBlanc Smith, a retired Principal Research Scientist with Australia’s CSIRO. (The full quotes of the scientists are later in this report)

    #

    This Senate report is not a “list” of scientists, but a report that includes full biographies of each scientist and their quotes, papers and links for further reading. The scientists featured in the report express their views in their own words, complete with their intended subtleties and caveats. This Senate report features the names, biographies, academic/institutional affiliation, and quotes of literally hundreds of additional international scientists who publicly dissented from man-made climate fears. This report lists the scientists by name, country of residence, and academic/institutional affiliation. It also features their own words, biographies, and weblinks to their peer reviewed studies, scientific analyses and original source materials as gathered from directly from the scientists or from public statements, news outlets, and websites in 2007 and 2008.

    The distinguished scientists featured in this new report are experts in diverse fields, including: climatology; geology; biology; glaciology; biogeography; meteorology; oceanography; economics; chemistry; mathematics; environmental sciences; astrophysics, engineering; physics and paleoclimatology. Some of those profiled have won Nobel Prizes for their outstanding contribution to their field of expertise and many shared a portion of the UN IPCC Nobel Peace Prize with Vice President Gore. Additionally, these scientists hail from prestigious institutions worldwide, including: Harvard University; NASA; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR); Massachusetts Institute of Technology; the UN IPCC; the Danish National Space Center; U.S. Department of Energy; Princeton University; the Environmental Protection Agency; University of Pennsylvania; Hebrew University of Jerusalem; the International Arctic Research Centre; the Pasteur Institute in Paris; the Belgian Weather Institute; Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute; the University of Helsinki; the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S., France, and Russia; the University of Pretoria; University of Notre Dame; Abo Akademi University in Finland; University of La Plata in Argentina; Stockholm University; Punjab University in India; University of Melbourne; Columbia University; the World Federation of Scientists; and the University of London.

    Background: Only 52 Scientists Participated in UN IPCC Summary

    The notion of “hundreds” or “thousands” of UN scientists agreeing to a scientific statement does not hold up to scrutiny. (See report debunking “consensus” LINK) Recent research by Australian climate data analyst John McLean revealed that the IPCC’s peer-review process for the Summary for Policymakers leaves much to be desired. (LINK) (LINK) (LINK) & (LINK) (Note: The 52 scientists who participated in the 2007 IPCC Summary for Policymakers had to adhere to the wishes of the UN political leaders and delegates in a process described as more closely resembling a political party’s convention platform battle, not a scientific process – LINK)

    One former UN IPCC scientist bluntly told EPW how the UN IPCC Summary for Policymakers “distorted” the scientists work. “I have found examples of a Summary saying precisely the opposite of what the scientists said,” explained South Afican Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150 refereed publications. [Also see: Internal Report Says U.N. Climate Agency Rife With Bad Practices - Fox News – December 4, 2008 ]

    Proponents of man-made global warming like to note how the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the American Meteorological Society (AMS) have issued statements endorsing the so-called “consensus” view that man is driving global warming. But both the NAS and AMS never allowed member scientists to directly vote on these climate statements. Essentially, only two dozen or so members on the governing boards of these institutions produced the “consensus” statements. This report gives a voice to the rank-and-file scientists who were shut out of the process. (LINK) [ Also See: MIT Climate Scientist Exposes ‘Corrupted Science’ in Devastating Critique – November 29, 2008 ]

    One of the more recent attempts to imply there was an overwhelming scientific “consensus” in favor of man-made global warming fears came in December 2007 during the UN climate conference in Bali. A letter signed by only 215 scientists urged the UN to mandate deep cuts in carbon dioxide emissions by 2050. But absent from the letter were the signatures of these alleged “thousands” of scientists. (See AP article: – LINK ) The more than 650 scientists expressing skepticism, comes after the UN IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri implied that there were only “about a dozen” skeptical scientists left in the world. (LINK) Former Vice President Gore has claimed that scientists skeptical of climate change are akin to “flat Earth society members” and similar in number to those who “believe the moon landing was actually staged in a movie lot in Arizona.”

    Of course if you don’t allow this to be put on your blog it proves you are closed minded and unable to debate just dismiss those who are not of your point of view.