Once a day
Get Articles by e-mail:

Get Today's Climate by e-mail:

Donate to SolveClimate News

Climate Science Links

U.S. Government


Academic, Non-Governmental

Eminent U.S. Climate Researchers Stand United on Science, Policy Action

Selection of Lord Monckton to testify before Congress 'sad' and 'embarrassing,' lawmaker says

By Stacy Feldman

May 7, 2010

A quartet of prominent American researchers staunchly defended the reality of human-caused climate change and stood united on the need for immediate steps to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, in testimony before Congress yesterday.

Under questioning from lawmakers on the , scientists from top U.S. research institutions—three of whom have contributed to reports of the UN (IPCC)—balked at the insinuation that assaults on climate science have damaged the credibility of the warming consensus.

"Warming is unequivocal. The evidence for a human footprint is very, very strong, and the prospect of continued warming in the future is very strong," said Chris Field, director of the department of global ecology at the of Washington and a co-chair on the new IPCC report due in 2014.

"There are important unknowns, but many of the unknowns are in the direction of risks that are potentially higher."

Field noted that the consensus reports of the IPCC are considered conservative and do not include potential hazards posed by sudden sea level rise and carbon release from ecosystems.

The other scientists made similar observations.

"People tend not to appreciate how conservative the IPCC process is," said Dr. James McCarthy, professor of oceanography and Harvard University and a co-chair of the IPCC report published in 2001.

McCarthy said earlier IPCC scenarios "quite starkly" underestimate sea level rise, adding that the phenomenon has sped up in the last few years. Estimates for sea level rise, he said, are now between two-and-a-half and three-and-a-half feet this century. 

James Hurrell, a senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research and an IPCC contributor, called the global sea-level jump "probably the single best metric of the cumulative global warming."

The hearing came on the same day that 255 scientists from the U.S. National Academies released a strong condemning the "McCarthy-like threats" on scientists and urged action against climate change.

"Society has two choices: we can ignore the science and hide our heads in the sand and hope we are lucky, or we can act in the public interest to reduce the threat of global climate change quickly and substantively," the scientists wrote in the declaration that was published in the journal Science on Friday.

Most National Academies and professional societies have issued statements about climate science, McCarthy said in his written . And last October, the heads of 18 U.S. organizations reaffirmed the consensus on human-caused climate change in a then-unprecedented to senators.

But some members of the Republican minority saw it differently.

"There's clearly a dispute about the evidence," said Rep. John Shadegg (R-Ariz.).


Monckton Urges Do-Nothing Approach

Beware Investors In Bio Fuels

Hi Great informational Blog!

I have been working in Bio Fuels in Africa since 2008 I am posting to warn people about "Dr" Peter McHendry who has taken over R3,000,000 from investors into his Global BioDiesel, Omnium investment Trust, Akula Trading 227 PTY compaines.

He is also responsible for a Voulenteer Scam "Great Earth Safari" and Christian Ski - He ran away from America after his property there was forclosed

full details including contact numbers for the Police in South Africa can be found here;

We cannot let the BioFuel Industry get tarnished by people like "Dr" Peter Mc Hendry

So yet another

So yet another "environmentalist" site where alternate comments are censored. I guess nobody can deny that eco-fascists are indeed fascists then.

Congress needs to act, enough of the "debate"

I think we have had enough of the British invasion here in the United States. First, a foreign oil company, British Petroleum destroys the Gulf of Mexico and the fishing industry near Louisiana. Now the fake Lord Monckton declares that we are all so stupid we can't read charts as he spread his ridiculous lies and idiocy about climate change, a subject he clearly does not understand one bit. He is typical of the fake "experts" conservatives drag around to public hearings.

We are sick of this nonsense. Congress - you have a duty to act. Act, and stop with the "debate". We know exactly what is going on. We understand the science. We don't need this ridiculous controversy. It's not that complicated. Congress is either willing to act, or they are not. If they are not willing to act, we will replace them with people who are.

Good for Democracy

By my calculation, it seems that over 80% of the members of the USA National Academy of Science have chosen not to sign this letter.

I think it is good for Democracy when a minority opinion such as that held by this relatively small cadre of biologists, anthropologists, zoologists, etc. is published.

More Manipulation

Of course the GOP could have produced "one single scientist". The GOP could have produced any of the 3,200 scientists who have signed a petition condemning the 'science', the bullying, the intimidation, the fraud, deceit, and manipulation used by 'warmers to push their one-world political agenda. And the author of this piece knows that. But they didn't. They used Lord Christopher Monckton instead because he knows his stuff and is far more capable of standing up to these climate thugs than most scientists are. LCM is formidable, but this article, typical of 'warmist stuff, minimizes Monckton. 'Warmers have used tactics we thought we'd seen the last of in Germany, or the USSR in order to ram through at all costs their nasty agenda using of all things, innocuous carbon dioxide as the excuse. Well, for one, I've had it with these anarchists. I view their criminal actions as an act of war against the US and the West and for one I am advocating their prosecution as foreign enemies. In that regard things are going well. A British High Court has already found Gore's 'documentary' to be fraudulent in "over 11 major areas". And now the bastard is being investigated for financial fraud in the UK due to the fact that none of the global warming assertions he used to secure over $200 million in investment funds from the UK's United Church Fund are factual. Gore. Suzuki. Hansen. There's a very long list of people who are going to be held to account for global warming fraud.

Spencer, Morano skeptics

(yes, I'm using another screen name, the one I am registered with at this site, as I was having problems posting)

Roy Spencer? That's your source? You mean stuff like this?

how-to-cook-a-graph-in-three-easy-lessons --Roy Spencer

or this?

"Roy Spencer, best known for his satellite work arguing against warming of the atmosphere (which turns out to have been an artifact of a combination of algebraic and sign errors), criticizes Gore for pointing out that recent warmth appears to be anomalous in at least the past 1000 years. Spencer does this by both mis-characterizing the recent National Academies Report on the subject which indeed pointed out that there are numerous lines of evidence for precisely this conclusion, and by completely ignoring the recently-released IPCC Fourth Assessment report, which draws the stronger conclusion that the warmth of recent decades is likely anomalous in at least the past 1300 years."

or this?

Roy Spencer and Marc Morano scramble the science facts

"The Great Global Warming Blunder: Roy Spencer asserts (and Morano parrots), 'I predict that the proposed cure for global warming reducing greenhouse gas emissions will someday seem as outdated as using leeches to cure human illnesses'"
April 20, 2010

Roy Spencer and John Christy are both well known scientists among the climate change denier crowd . These two single handedly gave deniers amunition for a skeptic argument, about whether satellite data confirmed the global warming that the surface data showed. Deniers used this argument for a decade, encouraged by Spencer and Christy. It is well known that Spencer and Christy made serious and numerous errors in their data analysis. They were wrong. But this skeptic argument is still repeated all the time by deniers. Read more here:

Morano isn't a scientist. He was behind the equally phony "swift boating" of Senator John Kerry, the censoring of climate scientists at GISS, Senator Inhofe's phony and padded list of skeptical scientists, and the political attack on climatologist James Hansen, to name a few of his misdeeds.

Inhofe and Morano misinterpreted a paper published in Geophysical Research Letters.
They claimed that it showed proof that the sun was responsible for the warming that's been observed in the last 100 years. The paper they quote says exactly the opposite from what they claim. This has been verified by the author of the paper.

If you're interested in what real honest to goodness scientific skeptics have to say, read this from the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry. The author is Mark Boslough, a physicist at Sandia National Laboratories

from the above link
"Denialists have attempted to call the science into question by writing articles that include fabricated data. They’ve improperly graphed data using tricks to hide evidence that contradicts their beliefs. They chronically misrepresent the careful published work of scientists, distorting all logic and meaning in an organized misinformation campaign. To an uncritical media and gullible non-scientists, this ongoing conflict has had the intended effect: it gives the appearance of a scientific controversy and seems to contradict climate researchers who have stated that the scientific debate over the reality of human-caused climate change is over (statements that have been distorted by denialists to imply the ridiculous claim that in all respects the science is settled)."

Actually you should read the whole article which isn't long, but touches on several important points regarding the peer reviews process etc

Evev denier propagandists know the score

"The Global Climate Coalition, an industry-funded group that spent years vehemently contesting any evidence linking anthropogenic activity to climate change, found itself in the uncomfortable position of rejecting its own experts’ recommendations when they reached the inevitable conclusion that the contribution of manmade greenhouse gas emissions to climate change could not be refuted."

"That’s right: even the scientists that these companies had consistently trotted out to discredit the findings of the IPCC could no longer deny the truth when faced with the hard facts. They acknowledged as much in an internal report released in 1995 in which they stated unequivocably that: The scientific basis for the Greenhouse Effect and the potential impact of human emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2 on climate is well established and cannot be denied."

"When confronted with this frank assessment, the leadership of the Global Climate Coalition did the only reasonable thing: drop the offending passages and expunge the report’s existence from the public record."

and this

Frank Lutz
"The scientific debate is closing [against us] but not yet closed. There is still a window of opportunity to challenge the science"

"Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming with the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate, and defer to scientists and other experts in the field.
This is the rationale behind the infamous “Oregon petition” and the denial movements showcasing of “experts” such as Ian Pilmer, Fred Singer and Roy Spencer. Their continuing appearance in the media and in the blogosphere helps create the impression that there is a scientific debate, when none exits."

I forgot to mention that Steve Milloy (the FOX News climate expert)
also has a foundation, that supported efforts by the tobacco industry to deny the science showing the dangers of tobacco, and now that foundation does the same for global warming denial and the fossil fuel industry.

More bad skeptic sources

"Why didn't they call some of the better known climate scientist sceptics? Lord M is certainly articulate - and the others would have added gravitas to his eloquence"

Unfortunately, real scientists are not as good at bullsh..ting as the phony Lord Monckton. Being eloquent, which is the only reason anyone listens to him, is not the same as being scientifically correct. And he is decidedly not correct. And by the way, his claim to nobility is fake too, according to the British House of Lords.

The idea that it is all a hoax or scam is completely absurd. At what point do people suppose that practically the entire global scientific community sat down and decided they would pull off a hoax, or that they would bring about socialism or communism or use it as a way to make money, get you to buy green products and on and on..? It makes no sense. Why would they even all be liberals, never mind socialist? The researchers for the IPCC mostly do it for free, in their spare time. They aren't paid at all. They even pay their own way to scientific conventions etc., unlike the skeptic gatherings, which are advertised as scientific conferences but are actually nothing more than PR events. All expenses paid, money offered for speeches or papers that dispute AGW. Real scientists don't do PR events. They are not even used to talking to media or the public. They are not skilled debaters and they seldom promote themselves, their work or their opinions on public policy. They tend to not do well in debates with skeptics because they stick with the science and usually sound dry and boring.
The opposition uses showmanship, charm, lies that sound scientificky, but are really pseudo science. Debates are about winning over an audience, not about truth.

I came across this info at sourcewatch.
Funny, denialist organization ICECAP lists
John Coleman, Founder of The Weather Channel, TV Meteorologist
as a member.

Coleman is not a meteorologist. He's a TV weather personality with no training in meteorology. And if he was a TV meteorologist, it wouldn't matter, because they don't study or research climate change.
Their opinions are next to worthless.

Steve Milloy, the resident climate expert on Fox news , isn't even a scientist. He's a public relations person who runs the aptly named skeptic website called junkscience and is a paid lobbyist for fossil fuel companies. Hannity ever tell you that? Like I keep saying, its all PR.
It certainly isn't science.

Milloy is certainly a fraud

Milloy is certainly a fraud and a former member of the apologist organization - The Tobacco Institute. He uses the same PR tricks today. But he has a degree in biostatistics.

More denier gobblygook nonsene

United we stand
"What a joke. If that were really happening we would have been cooked longed ago. The reality is that the sun warms the oceans, the oceans warm the atmosphere, warmer oceans give off more CO2."

But the sun has been unusually quiet for 40 years and in fact we have been in a solar minimum sunce 1983. Solar activity has been flat to declining since the early 70s.

The ocean is absorbing excess CO2 that we emit. This is a fact that cannot be disputed. And it is well known that this absorbtion of CO2 in the ocean creates carbonic acid which is acidifying the oceans. Basic high school physics verifies that.

We know how much CO2 man emits, to the gigaton. And we know that this is different than the CO2 emitted by volcanoes because it has a different isotope signiture.

How do you come to the brilliant conclusion that "we would have been cooked longed ago"? Do you have some scientific evidene to back that up? Of course not. Its complete nonsense.

"Chris Field and colleagues at Carnegie, Stanford, are responsible for the deceptions and misinformation about acid oceans."

Bull Sh..t The National Academy of Science has confirmed this, as have numerous other studies.

" Of course all national bodies are in agreement, because when you look at their memberships they are comprised of many of the same people. They open up new institutions with the same scientists and the same data so that yet another "prestigious body" can be added to the list"

And what new scientific organizations would that be?

Would it be one of these? These professional scientific organiztions ALL agree wtih the IPCC. Which ones were recently invented, as you claim?

National Academy of Sciences (U.S.)
Woods Hole Resesarch Center
US Geological Survey (USGS)
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
American Association of State Climatologists
Federal Climate Change Science Program, 2006 (the study authorized and then censored by Bush)
American Chemical Society - (world's largest scientific organization with over 155,000 members)
Geological Society of America
American Geophysical Union (AGU)
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
American Association of State Climatologists
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
American Astronomical Society
American Institute of Physics
American Meteorological Society (AMS)
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
Stratigraphy Commission - Geological Society of London - (The world's oldest and the United Kingdom's largest geoscience organization)
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Royal Society, United Kingdom
Russian Academy of Sciences
Royal Society of Canada
Science Council of Japan
Australian Academy of Sciences
Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
Brazilian Academy of Sciences
Caribbean Academy of Sciences
French Academy of Sciences
German Academy of Natural Scientists
Indian National Science Academy
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Royal Irish Academy
Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy)
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
Union of Concerned Scientists
The Institution of Engineers Australia
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)
National Research Council
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospherice Sciences
World Meteorological Organization
State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)
International Council on Science

Deniers would have you believe that somehow all these organizations and the thousands of scientists from 120 countries, who have been doing the research for 20 years, and over 30 years for some, are all scamming you in some dark conspiracy. Wow, and they call the scientists alarmists!

Here's the list of scientific organiztions that don't agree.

American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG)
Canadian Association of Petroleum Geologists (CAPG)

That is the whole list

Stallling until it's too late.

We are all "aware" that this questioning of the basic science of climate change is a ploy to delay any meaningful action via public policy. This progrom is on par with the baseness of other such tactics witnessed in recent historical accounts.
This is reflected by various media outlets to label such views as "leftest" or "socialist".
Funny how the Wall Street financial welfare bailout was termed "saving the economy from a meltdown!
Yes, we have a real meltdown on planet earth and those responsible (modern industrial nations) are not facing the massive challenge ahead.
Perhaps we are so conditioned we know no other way to live?
I remember reading that settlers in the Nova Scotia faced starvation if they did not adopt new ways of feeding themselves that were foreign to them shown by the native peoples. Well some starved than rather change.
Perhaps we'll do the same here.

Roy Spencer: feedbacks seem to erase most of warming

Yes, folks global warming is an absolute scam and people aren't buying it anymore.

Why didn't they call some of

Why didn't they call some of the better known climate scientist sceptics? Lord M is certainly articulate - and the others would have added gravitas to his eloquence.

As Lord Monckton pointed out

As Lord Monckton pointed out in his testimony, the scientists would just be having brickbats thrown at them, while he was thicker skinned and able to take the insults that were indeed being thrown around.

United we stand

"it is the build-up of invisible of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere that is preventing heat from escaping back into space," Markey said."

What a joke. If that were really happening we would have been cooked longed ago. The reality is that the sun warms the oceans, the oceans warm the atmosphere, warmer oceans give off more CO2. Excess heat is lost to space because CO2 can only retain a fixed maximum and it has absorbed most of what it is capable of. The feedback effect has been shown to be in the opposite direction to the models and they cannot model clouds. That's "the science"?

Chris Field and colleagues at Carnegie, Stanford, are responsible for the deceptions and misinformation about acid oceans. He is also in charge of the IPCC working group which has already incorporated that deception as fact into the next IPCC report.

The claims of consensus are illusory, because of the way in which the tight knit community of warmists control the situation. Of course all national bodies are in agreement, because when you look at their memberships they are comprised of many of the same people. They open up new institutions with the same scientists and the same data so that yet another "prestigious body" can be added to the list. The climate community is a closed shop and they are not about to allow any challenges to their job creation schemes.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <p> <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <img> <h1> <h2> <h3> <ul> <li> <ol> <b> <i> <p> <br>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Youtube and google video links are automatically converted into embedded videos.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Images can be added to this post.

More information about formatting options