Scientists Send An Open Letter to Congress Asking for a Review of Climate Alarmists’ Claims

Posted: February 10, 2011 in global warming fraud, global warming hoax
Tags: , ,

 This letter was sent in response to a letter sent by a group of 18 scientists to Congress a few days earlier.  Apparently, the global warmists are running scared and the scientific community that has been feeding out of the trough of government funded “research” into global warming sees the writing on the wall.  They are scared, and they should be!

 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 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 http://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

Advertisements
Comments
  1. Mary T says:

    Thanks for this.

  2. gyptis444 says:

    The IAC Report on IPCC leaves no doubt that their process is politically driven and biased See the following viz.

    IAC Report ( available at http://reviewipcc.interacademycouncil.net/report.html – Note this includes the IAC’s questionnaire which was completed by IPCC participants.)

    Following ‘Climategate’ and errors found in the IPCC’s 4th Assessment Report, Ban Ki-moon, Secretary General of the United Nations, and Rajendra Pachauri, Chairman of the IPCC, requested that the Inter-Academy Council (IAC) conduct an independent review of IPCC processes and procedures used to produce assessments. The IAC was also asked to review IPCC’s management and administrative structure, IPCC’s strategies for communication and to make recommendations for strengthening the IPCC in these areas.

    The IAC was given only 4 months to complete the review and, significantly, it did not pass comment or judgement on the validity of the findings recorded in the IPCC’s 4th Assessment Report. [Page 2. “This report examines the procedures and processes used to carry out IPCC assessments; it does not examine climate change science or the validity of its representation in the assessment reports. It also does not consider the work of IPCC’s Task Force on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, which is not part of the climate assessment process.”]

    As part of the review process IAC compiled a questionnaire which was distributed to participants in the IPCC. Responses to this are available at

    http://nofrakkingconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/12/21/232-opinions-concerning-the-ipcc/

    Although the IAC report is couched in diplomatic, non-confrontational language a careful reading of the report and its recommendations is very revealing. Specifically, the following deficiencies can be discerned in IPCC and its processes viz. (page numbers refer to the IAC report)

    political interference is an intrinsic part of IPCC’s modus operandi. The Executive summary includes (at page xii) the following viz. ”Representatives of 194 participating governments agree on the scope of the assessment, elect the scientific leaders of the assessment, nominate authors, review the results, and approve the summaries written for policymakers.” Thus it is governments which dictate the agenda (scope of the assessment), the scientists who perform the assessment, the authors who write up the assessment and the summaries for policy makers. At page 25 “…….many were concerned that reinterpretations of the assessment’s findings, suggested in the final Plenary, might be politically motivated.” Also at page 64 ”Scientists and government representatives who responded to the Committee’s questionnaire suggested changes to reduce opportunities for political interference with the scientific results and to improve the efficiency of the approval process.” [ Comment: Given that the vast majority of participating nations expect an outcome which provides substantial financial remuneration by the minority group of developed nations, it is hardly surprising that the whole IPCC enterprise is politically driven.]
    lack of transparency: Page 63. ”Interviews and responses to the Committee’s questionnaire revealed a lack of transparency in several stages of the IPCC assessment process, including scoping and the selection of authors and reviewers, as well as in the selection of scientific and technical information considered in the chapters.” Also, at page 43 ”….accountability and transparency…….are not yet reflected in the current governance and management structure of the IPCC.”
    selection bias both in the selection of scientists and in the selection of literature to be considered. Page xvi of the Executive Summary: ’”Most important are the absence of criteria for selecting key participants in the assessment process and the lack of documentation for selecting what scientific and technical information is assessed.” Full details of the literature search are needed in respect of each topic assessed. This is necessary to preclude ‘cherry picking’ of the relevant literature to include only those papers which support a favoured hypothesis while excluding those which do not support it. For each topic assessed; Which databases were searched? What time period was covered by the search? What search criteria were used? What boolean logic was employed in the search strategy? How many citations were retrieved at each stage of the search? What were the final criteria used to determine inclusion and exclusion of published papers for further analysis? What was the date the search was performed? Answers to these questions must be documented and available for public scrutiny in the interests of transparency and ensuring that all relevant literature and the full range of views have received due consideration. Other forms of bias include assessment bias, measurement bias, and publication bias (negative studies are difficult to publish in peer-reviewed journals but the hockey team has a novel version – having done their best to marginalise and silence those with opposing views by excluding their articles from publication, bullying editors etc.)
    biased treatment of genuinely contentious issues: One of the IAC Recommendations is “Lead Authors should explicitly document that a range of scientific viewpoints has been considered, and Coordinating Lead Authors and Review Editors should satisfy themselves that due consideration was given to properly documented alternative views.” Also, at page 18 ” Equally important is combating confirmation bias –the tendency of authors to place too much weight on their own views relative to other views (Jonas et al 2001) As pointed out to the Committee by a presenter and some questionnaire respondents, alternative views are not always cited if the Lead Authors do not agree with them.”
    conflict of interest Page 52 ”The IPCC does not have a conflict-of-interest or disclosure policy for its senior leadership ………or the Staff of the Technical Support Units.” Also, on Page 53……. “Questions about potential conflicts of interest, for example, have been raised about the IPCC Chair’s service as an adviser to, and board member of, for-profit energy companies (Pielke 2010b) and about the practice of scientists responsible for writing assessments reviewing their own work.” Also, Page 23. ”A complication could arise when Lead Authors are sitting side by side with their government representative, which might put the Lead Authors in the difficult situation of either supporting a government position at odds with the Working Group report or opposing their government’s position. This may be most awkward when authors are also government employees.”
    poorly reflecting uncertainties : This was addressed by the following recommendations viz. “Each Working Group should use the qualitative level-of-understanding scale in its Summary for Policymakers and Technical Summary, as suggested in IPCC’s uncertainty guidance for the Fourth Assessment Report. This scale may be supplemented by a quantitative probability scale, if appropriate.” ”Chapter Lead Authors should provide a traceable account of how they arrived at their ratings for level of scientific understanding and likelihood that an outcome will occur.” ”Quantitative probabilities (as in the likelihood scale) should be used to describe the probability of well-defined outcomes only when there is sufficient evidence. Authors should indicate the basis for assigning a probability to an outcome or event (e.g., based on measurement, expert judgment, and/or model runs).” ”The likelihood scale should be stated in terms of probabilities (numbers) in addition to words to improve understanding of uncertainty.” ”Where practical, formal expert elicitation procedures should be used to obtain subjective probabilities for key results.”
    vague statements not supported by evidence: Page xv of the Executive Summary ”The Working Group II Summary for Policymakers has been criticized for various errors and for emphasizing the negative impacts of climate change. These problems derive partly from a failure to adhere to IPCC’s uncertainty guidance for the fourth assessment and partly from shortcomings in the guidance itself. Authors were urged to consider the amount of evidence and level of agreement about all conclusions and to apply subjective probabilities of confidence to conclusions when there was high agreement and much evidence. However, authors reported high confidence in some statements for which there is little evidence. Furthermore, by making vague statements that were difficult to refute, authors were able to attach ‘high confidence’ to the statements. The Working Group II Summary for Policymakers contains many such statements that are not supported sufficiently in the literature, not put into perspective, or not expressed clearly.” Also, at page 39 “….it is unclear whose judgements are reflected in the ratings that appear in the Fourth Assessment Report or how the judgements were determined.” This seems to suggest that the judgements are arbitrary and not based on any objective criteria to justify them.
    ignoring critical reviewer comments Page 19 Recommendation: ”The IPCC should adopt a more targeted and effective process for responding to reviewer comments. In such a process, Review Editors would prepare a written summary of the most significant issues raised by reviewers shortly after review comments have been received. Authors would be required to provide detailed written responses to the most significant review issues identified by the Review Editors, abbreviated responses to all noneditorial comments, and no written responses to editorial comments.” Also, at page 20 “A near-universal observation — made in presentations, interviews and responses to the questionnaire — was the need to strengthen the authority of the Review Editors to ensure that authors consider the review comments carefully and document their responses.” Hence assessment bias. A clear example of this was the fallacious claim that the Himalayan Glacier would disappear by 2035. This was wrong on several counts viz. (a) it should never have been included in the ‘science basis’ because it was based on non-peer-reviewed material (b) this error should have been detected on initial review but obviously wasn’t (c) it was noted and reported by independent reviewers (d) the reviewers’ comments were ignored. (see also http://accessipcc.com/index.html)
    unreliable forecasts by Working Group III “With the exception of historical trends in greenhouse gas emissions, all of the analyses by Working Group III rely on models of various sectors of the economy and are future oriented. …………..The response to a carbon tax depends on the costs of substituting other factors for energy and low-carbon for high-carbon fuels. It also depends on how consumers respond to increases in costs. All of the factors that affect CO2 emissions and mitigation costs in top-down models are uncertain, and uncertainty about them increases with the length of the projection. In the long run, costs of substitution depend on advances in technology, which are highly uncertain and may themselves depend on assumptions about policies.”
    unpublished and non-peer-reviewed information not critically evaluated or flagged as such: The IPCC’s prescibed procedures for treatment of ‘gray’ publications ”are not always followed” (page 16) and “Clearer guidelines and stronger mechanisms for enforcing them are needed.” According to the IAC report ”A search through the Working Group reports of the fourth assessment found few instances of information flagged as unpublished or non-peer-reviewed.” The IAC report cited the figures for peer-reviewed references in the third assessment report as follows viz. WGI 84% , WGII 59%, WGIII 36% (Bjurstrom and Polk, 2010). The relevant IAC recommendation at page 17 is as follows viz. “The IPCC should strengthen and enforce its procedure for the use of unpublished and non-peer-reviewed literature, including providing more specific guidance on how to evaluate such information, adding guidelines on what types of literature are unacceptable, and ensuring that unpublished and non-peer-reviewed literature is appropriately flagged in the report.” It would appear that IPCC has used non-peer-reviewed material which has not been critically evaluated or identified as such in the report. (See http://accessipcc.com/index.html for proportions of peer-reviewed citations in the fourth assessment report)
    Comment: A document as important as the science basis of the IPCC’s Climate Change report, which is intended to inform the policies of governments around the World, should comprise a series of comprehensive and objective systematic reviews rather than opinion pieces supported by selective (?exclusive) reference to papers in agreement with IPCC’s preferred view of the world.

  3. steve-o says:

    Congress needs to know that Gore has no consensus.

  4. gyptis444 says:

    Given the problems with IPCC as described in the IAC report it is evident that the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report is simply political advocacy – policy-based evidence rather than evidence-based policy. In real science an hypothesis must be abandoned or modified in the face of solid evidence refuting it – even if that evidence is a single piece of data. Not only has the ‘hot spot fingerprint’ of CO2 not been found 10km up in the tropical troposphere but there is also a wealth of peer-reviewed publications (see http://www.nipccreport.org/reports/2009/2009report.html) which have been entirely ignored by IPCC.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s