A new U.S. Senate report documents hundreds of prominent scientists – experts in dozens of fields of study worldwide – who say global warming and cooling is a cycle of nature and cannot legitimately be connected to man’s activities.
“Of course I believe in global warming, and in global cooling – all part of the natural climate changes that the Earth has experienced for billions of years, caused primarily by the cyclical variations in solar output,” said research physicist John W. Brosnahan, who develops remote-sensing instruments for atmospheric science for clients including the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA.
However, he said, “I have not seen any sort of definitive, scientific link to man-made carbon dioxide as the root cause of the current global warming, only incomplete computer models that suggest that this might be the case.
“Even though these computer climate models do not properly handle a number of important factors, including the role of precipitation as a temperature regulator, they are being (mis-)used to force a political agenda upon the U.S.,” he continued. “While there are any number of reasons to reduce carbon dioxide generation, to base any major fiscal policy on the role of carbon dioxide in climate change would be inappropriate and imprudent at best and potentially disastrous economic folly at the worst.”
The report compiled observations from more than 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen nations who have voiced objections to claims of a “consensus” on “man-made global warming.”
Many of the scientists are current or former participants in the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, whose present officials, along with former Vice President Al Gore, have asserted a definite connection.
The new report, which comes from the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee’s office of the GOP ranking member, cites the hundreds of opinions issued just this year asserting global warming and man’s activities are unrelated.
“Even some in the establishment media now appear to be taking notice of the growing number of skeptical scientists,” the introduction to the Senate report said. “In October, the Washington Post Staff Writer Juliet Eilperin conceded the obvious, writing that climate skeptics ‘appear to be expanding rather than shrinking.’
“Many scientists from around the world have dubbed 2007 as the year man-made global warming fears ‘bite the dust,'” the introduction said.
And there probably would be many more scientists making such statements, were it not for the fear of retaliation from those aboard the global-warming-is-caused-by-SUVs bandwagon, the report said.
“Many of my colleagues with whom I spoke share these views and report on their inability to publish their skepticism in the scientific or public media,” noted Nathan Paldor, professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at Hebrew University in Jerusalem.
The author of almost 70 peer-reviewed studies said, “First, temperature changes, as well as rates of temperature changes (both increase and decrease) of magnitudes similar to that reported by IPCC to have occurred since the Industrial revolution (about 0.8C in 150 years or even 0.4C in the last 35 years) have occurred in Earth’s climatic history. There’s nothing special about the recent rise!”
At an earlier hearing, Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., confronted Stephen Johnson, administrator of the EPA, about a threatening e-mail from a group that includes the EPA. The e-mail from the American Council on Renewable Energy was addressed to Marlo Lewis of the Competitive Enterprise Institute and said, “It is my intention to destroy your career as a liar. If you produce one more editorial against climate change, I will launch a campaign against your professional integrity. I will call you a liar and charlatan to the Harvard community of which you and I are members. I will call you out as a man who has been bought by Corporate America. Go ahead, guy. Take me on.”
It was signed Michael T. Eckhart, president of ACORE.
The scientists cited in the new study hail from Germany, Brazil, the Netherlands, New Zealand, France, Russia and the United States. They defied the idea promoted by various political and environmental agendas that man’s activities are endangering the future of the Earth through contributions to a rise in temperatures.
Paleoclimatologist Tim Patterson, professor in the department of Earth sciences at Carleton University in Ottawa, recently converted from a believer in man-made climate change to a skeptic. Patterson noted that the notion of a “consensus” of scientists aligned with the U.N. IPCC or former Vice President Al Gore is false.
“I was at the Geological Society of America meeting in Philadelphia in the fall, and I would say that people with my opinion were probably in the majority,” he said.
The report was generated after U.N. IPCC chief Rajendra Pachauri implied there were only “about half a dozen” skeptical scientists left in the world.
Gore has likened skeptics of the global-warming philosophy to “flat Earth society members.”
But the Senate report noted the scientists who are expressing a dissatisfaction with such generalizations include experts in climatology, geology, oceanography, biology, glaciology, biogeography, meteorology, economics, chemistry, mathematics, environmental sciences, 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 Price with Vice President Gore,” the report said.
Besides the Nobel Gore shared over the issue of global warming, he also won an Oscar for his work on “An Inconvenient Truth,” which proclaims the validity of man-made global warming and advocates urgent action.
Al Gore stars in ‘An Inconvenient Truth’
However, Muriel Newman, director of the New Zealand Centre for Political Research, has told Academy President Sid Ganis and Executive Director Bruce Davis that the honor should be withdrawn.
That’s because British High Court judge Michael Burton has concluded Gore’s documentary should be shown in British schools only with guidance notes to prevent political indoctrination. The decision followed a lawsuit by a father, Stewart Dimmock, who claimed the film contained “serious scientific inaccuracies, political propaganda and sentimental mush.”
The Nobel panel honored Gore and the IPCC for their efforts to spread awareness of “man-made climate change.”
But the British court pointed to 11 inaccuracies in the production:
“The truth, as inconvenient as it is to Al Gore, is that his so-called documentary contained critical distortions that are quite contrary to the principles of good documentary journalism,” Newman said. “Good documentaries should be factually correct. Clearly this documentary is not.”
The court ruled the Guidance Notes to Teachers must make clear that:
- The film is a political work and promotes only one side of the argument.
- If teachers present the film without making this plain they may be in breach of section 406 of the Education Act 1996 and guilty of political indoctrination.
- Eleven inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to the attention of school children.
The inaccuracies, according to the court, include:
- The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government’s expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.
- The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The court found that the film was misleading: Over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.
- The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that it was “not possible” to attribute one-off events to global warming.
- The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that this was not the case.
- The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr. Gore had misread the study: In fact four polar bears drowned, and this was because of a particularly violent storm.
- And others.
The new study includes opinions from scientists at Harvard, NASA, NOAA, NCAR, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the Danish National Space Center, U.S. Department of Energy, Princeton, the EPA, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, the Pasteur Institute in Paris, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute, the University of Helsinki, Notre Dame, Stockholm University and others.
The study is intended to dispel the validity of such statements as Associated Press reporter Seth Borenstein’s description of a scientist as “one of the few remaining scientists skeptical of the global warming harm caused by industries that burn fossil fuels.”
“Even if the concentration of ‘greenhouse gases’ double, man would not perceive the temperature impact,” said Russian scientist Oleg Sorochtin, of the Institute of Oceanology at the Russian Academy of Sciences.
He’s authored more than 300 studies, nine books and a 2006 paper titled, “The Evolution and the Prediction of Global Climate Changes on Earth.”
“I find the Doomsday picture Al Gore is painting – a six-meter sea level rise, 15 times the IPCC number – entirely without merit,” said Hendrik Tennekes, a pioneer at the Netherlands’ Royal National Meteorological Institute. “I protest vigorously the idea that the climate reacts like a home heating system to a changed setting of the thermostat: just turn the dial, and the desired temperature will soon be reached.”
“The media is promoting an unprecedented hyping related to global warming,” added Eugenia Hackbart, the chief meteorologist at the MetSul Meteorologia Weather Center in Sao Leopoldo, Brazil. “The media and many scientists are ignoring very important facts that point to a natural variation in the climate system as the cause of the recent global warming.”
Gore, as recently as Nov. 5, has said:
“But when you’re reporting on a story like the one you’re covering today, where you have people all around the world, you don’t take – you don’t search out for someone who still believes the Earth is flat and give them equal time. And the reason the IPCC was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, the thousands of scientists who make up that group, have for almost 20 years now created a very strong scientific consensus that is as strong a consensus as you’ll ever see in science, that the climate crisis is real, human beings are responsible for it.”
A WND reader said perhaps a remedy would be to reissue Gore’s Nobel and Academy wards under the designation “best in class for science fiction,” or appoint a prosecutor to investigate the extent of fraud committed “at the expense of the global community.
WND earlier reported more than 500 scientists were cited by an analysis of peer-reviewed literature by the Hudson Institute as having published documentation questioning an least one facet of the global-warming agenda.
The assessment supports another study on which WND reported recently that revealed carbon dioxide levels were largely irrelevant to global warming. Those results prompted Reid Bryson, founding chairman of the Department of Meteorology at the University of Wisconsin, to quip, “You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide.”
The analysis by Hudson Institute Senior Fellow Dennis Avery said 300 of those scientists have found evidence that a natural moderate 1,500-year climate cycle has produced more than a dozen global warmings similar to the current circumstances since the last Ice Age and that such warmings are linked to variations in the sun’s irradiance.
“We appear to be overplaying this global warming issue as global warming is nothing new,” wrote B.P. Radhakrishna in the new Senate study. He’s president of the Geological Society of India. “It has happened in the past, not once but several times, giving rise to glacial-interglacial cycles.”
“The global-warming mania continues with more and more hype and less and less thinking. With religious zeal, people look for issues or events to blame on global warming,” said Kelvin Kemm, former of South Africa’s Atomic Energy Corp.
If you would like to sound off on this issue, participate in today’s WND Poll.