The Senate's proudest global-warming skeptic, James Inhofe of Oklahoma, recently released a list of "MORE THAN 650 INTERNATIONAL SCIENTISTS" who "DISSENT OVER MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING CLAIMS." Exciting! Let's take a look.
First, a bit of background: In January, Inhofe posted his initial list of more than 400 "prominent scientists" who, he claimed, disputed that man-made greenhouse gases were responsible for rising global temperatures. Trouble is, when people started sifting through the names, they found that many experts on the list were actually weathermen, economists, and people with no real background in climate science. Worse still, when Andrew Dessler started contacting some of the actual climate scientists listed, many of them expressed first shock, then horror, and then e-mailed Inhofe's staff and demanded to be taken off, since they didn't disagree with the scientific consensus on climate change at all.
Well, fine, every list has its warts (and, in fairness, Inhofe's list still looks more reasonable than Rolling Stone's best-of-2008 album list), and we'll grant Inhofe a do-over. So here's the latest release. Many of the names are the same as before. But now, among other things, Inhofe's website cites a study allegedly proving that half of recent warming is due to the sun. Well, Joe Romm e-mailed the paper's author, Anja Eichler, who replied that she was "misinterpreted" on this point, and that her study actually shows something perfectly compatible with the IPCC consensus: Variations in solar activity have been correlated with temperature change in the past, but over the last 150 years, that hasn't been the case. "In this time," Eichler notes, "the increase in the CO2 concentrations is significantly correlated with our temperature." That's… pretty much what all the other recent scientific studies say. Not an auspicious start.
Update: Sen. Inhofe's communications director, Marc Morano, e-mails to say that Eichler wasn't included in the list of 650—they were merely reprinting on their website a post by another physicist, Lubos Motl, who cited Eichler's study as an example of "skeptical climatological literature" that showed the "participants of the Poznan conference are lunatics." Noted and corrected.
Second update: Here's a Belgian scientist who is on the list of 650 but doesn't appear to be a skeptic, either.
And a third: I see Inhofe's "Gang of 650" also includes Erich Roeckner, a renowned climate modeler at Germany's Max Planck Institute, who's quoted as saying there are still kinks in current climate models. But that's not controversial; all climatologists recognize that their models can't account for every last physical process. Inhofe's report then cites Roeckner telling Nature in 2006, "It is possible that all of them are wrong"—implying that he's casting doubt on the link between human activity and climate change. But he's not! Roeckner was referring to the IPCC's emissions scenarios, which involve assumptions about the rate of growth of greenhouse-gas emissions. (Scroll down here for the full quote.) We already know that emissions are growing faster than the IPCC's worst-case scenario, and that's bad news, not good.
Anwyay, Roeckner's as far as you get from a "dissenter": See this 2004 paper, which yet again establishes the link between greenhouse-gas emissions and temperature increases. Or see this link, where Roeckner is qutoed in multiple news stories sounding downright alarmist about the consequences of man-made warming. "Humans have had a large one-of-a-kind influence on the climate... Weather situations in which extreme floods occur will increase," he informed Deutsche Welle in 2004. "Our research pointed to rapid global warming and the shifting of climate zones," he told ABC News in 2005. Quite the heretic, that one.
--Bradford Plumer
Print
COMMENTS (11)
It's not just that some Congressional Republicans (like Inhofe) are conservative. It's that they're really just idiots. Total lightweights. How is this guy in the US Senate?
It's not just that some Congressional Republicans (like Inhofe) are conservative. It's that they're really just idiots. Total lightweights. How is this guy in the US Senate?
Well, roz, look where he's from...no, that's too easy. Idiocy is not confined to Oklahoma.
And it's not just that they're idiots. It's that they're proud of their idiocy.
Well, roz, look where he's from...no, that's too easy. Idiocy is not confined to Oklahoma.
And it's not just that they're idiots. It's that they're proud of their idiocy.
The IPCC is full of activists, economists, and wonks... In fact, only fifty six scientists signed off on the Consensus.
Yet say one question about the composition of the IPCC and you get Fire and Brimstone...
The IPCC is full of activists, economists, and wonks... In fact, only fifty six scientists signed off on the Consensus.
Yet say one question about the composition of the IPCC and you get Fire and Brimstone...
I'll hold the brimstone, but the IPCC certainly wasn't backed by "only" 56 scientists. There were more than 2,000 people working on it, and the national academies of science of every major industrialized country endorsed their conclusions:
royalsociety.org/displaypagedoc.asp
royalsociety.org/document.asp
See also Naomi Oreskes's summary in Science magazine:
www.sciencemag.org/.../1686
I'll hold the brimstone, but the IPCC certainly wasn't backed by "only" 56 scientists. There were more than 2,000 people working on it, and the national academies of science of every major industrialized country endorsed their conclusions:
royalsociety.org/displaypagedoc.asp
royalsociety.org/document.asp
See also Naomi Oreskes's summary in Science magazine:
www.sciencemag.org/.../1686
650? In all the colleges, universities, and institutes in the the whole wide world he only found 650.
That brings new meaning to being in the minority party.
650? In all the colleges, universities, and institutes in the the whole wide world he only found 650.
That brings new meaning to being in the minority party.
I am not a climate change dissenter by any means. But, I do know from personal experience examing models used to predict atmospheric changes -- even ones as relatively straightforward as interstate transport of criteria pollutants -- that such models are highly questionable (and I'm being generous here).
Does that mean we should do nothing about climate change? No. But, don't pretend that the modeling results add significantly to the knowledge we have about causes and results.
I am not a climate change dissenter by any means. But, I do know from personal experience examing models used to predict atmospheric changes -- even ones as relatively straightforward as interstate transport of criteria pollutants -- that such models are highly questionable (and I'm being generous here).
Does that mean we should do nothing about climate change? No. But, don't pretend that the modeling results add significantly to the knowledge we have about causes and results.
I'm a bit peturbed by the correlation between solar flares and temperature.
Arguing that the correlation between carbon and temperature is stronger does not refute the solar flare theory by itself.
How does the solar flare theory fit with carbon?
I'm a bit peturbed by the correlation between solar flares and temperature.
Arguing that the correlation between carbon and temperature is stronger does not refute the solar flare theory by itself.
How does the solar flare theory fit with carbon?
Iggy--Sorry if I was unclear, but Eichler's paper shows that there *hasn't* been any significant correlation in the last 150 years between solar flares and temperature. There has been a significant correlation between CO2 and temperature. (That by itself doesn't prove CO2 causes warming, obviously--but it does give strong reason to rule out the solar flare theory as an explanation for recent warming. Past warming, i.e., thousands of years ago, maybe, possibly. Not recent warming, though.)
Iggy--Sorry if I was unclear, but Eichler's paper shows that there *hasn't* been any significant correlation in the last 150 years between solar flares and temperature. There has been a significant correlation between CO2 and temperature. (That by itself doesn't prove CO2 causes warming, obviously--but it does give strong reason to rule out the solar flare theory as an explanation for recent warming. Past warming, i.e., thousands of years ago, maybe, possibly. Not recent warming, though.)
I'm assuming there has been significant solar flare activity whiten those 150 years. In which case, there is no correlation between flares and temperature. That's reassuring then. Sounds like a desperate political attempt for a magic bullet. Although, that does also mean that the science is correct and we're f*ked in the medium term. So maybe that's not so reassuring. Think I'll lend my weight to Inohofe's list then - me Nanny feels the rain in her bones just before it falls, which makes me a parish renowned cllimatoloigist.
I'm assuming there has been significant solar flare activity whiten those 150 years. In which case, there is no correlation between flares and temperature. That's reassuring then. Sounds like a desperate political attempt for a magic bullet. Although, that does also mean that the science is correct and we're f*ked in the medium term. So maybe that's not so reassuring. Think I'll lend my weight to Inohofe's list then - me Nanny feels the rain in her bones just before it falls, which makes me a parish renowned cllimatoloigist.
Inohofe reflects his constituents. They, like him, are for the most part anti-intellectual, lack curiosity, live in a religious la-la land (OK is the land of Oral Roberts Univ. need one say more?), and consider themselves morally superior to anyone who lives east or west of their state. It is also an oil-producing state, and Mr. Inohofe is protecting the industry that keeps his political coffers full He epitomizes the Republican Party's standard operating procedure that came to full flower in the hot house of fools currently running Washington: if you don't like facts either ignore them or create faux facts that support your position. Or scour the Earth for anyo ... view full comment
Inohofe reflects his constituents. They, like him, are for the most part anti-intellectual, lack curiosity, live in a religious la-la land (OK is the land of Oral Roberts Univ. need one say more?), and consider themselves morally superior to anyone who lives east or west of their state. It is also an oil-producing state, and Mr. Inohofe is protecting the industry that keeps his political coffers full He epitomizes the Republican Party's standard operating procedure that came to full flower in the hot house of fools currently running Washington: if you don't like facts either ignore them or create faux facts that support your position. Or scour the Earth for anyone with a position similar to one's own: custodian, dog catcher, weatherman, or crank; it matters not what they know or fail to understand. They make for a nice long list.
In her Wall Street Journal op-ed column today, Kimberly Strassel spurts out a mish-mash of global warming
In her Wall Street Journal op-ed column today, Kimberly Strassel spurts out a mish-mash of global warming