Angel,

Name one (1) world leader or climatologist that agrees with you.

In Montreal last week EVERY nation on earth declared that climate change is happening, that it is a problem and that it is caused by rising C02 emissions as a result of modern human activity. They universally hold this view because the world’s climatologists have confidence in their observations, models and projections enough to be sure that there is a real problem.

Can you back up your statement? What is it based on? Who told you this?

Martin Callinan:
I object to the bullying tone you used to respond to Angle’s posting.
Some Climatologists and other scientists who disagree with your ideas:

- Atmospheric physicist S. Fred Singer, former director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service.
- Meteorologist Richard Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who said in 2001: “large computer climate models are unable to even simulate major features of past climate such as the 100 thousand year cycles of ice ages that have dominated climate for the past 700 thousand years, and the very warm climates of the Miocene, Eocene, and Cretaceous. Neither do they do well at accounting for shorter period and less dramatic phenomena like El Niños, quasi-biennial oscillations, or intra-seasonal oscillations -- all of which are well documented in the data.
Major past climate changes were either uncorrelated with changes in CO2 or were characterized by temperature changes which preceded changes in CO2 by 100's to thousands of years”
- Prof Dennis Bray, of the GKSS National Research Centre in Geesthacht, Germany
- Dr Chris Landsea, an expert on hurricanes with the United States National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, who resigned from the IPCC, claiming that it was "motivated by pre-conceived agendas" and was "scientifically unsound".
- Climatologist Patrick Michaels of the University of Virginia in Charlottesville who said: "Most scientists spend their lives working to shore up the reigning world view - the dominant paradigm - and those who disagree are always much fewer in number. The drive to conformity is accentuated by peer review, which ensures that only papers in support of the paradigm appear in the literature, and by public funding that gives money to research into the prevailing "paradigm of doom". Rebels who challenge prevailing orthodoxies are often proved right”.

I could go on…What I object to is the constant attempt by “global warming is caused by anthropogenic forcing” advocates, to say that there is a consensus among climatologists, implying that there is no dissent. This is evidently false. There is a lot of dissent.
I recommend that readers refer to this web site:
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2004/12/10/open-letter-to-senator-mccain/

Froggie,

I didn’t mean to sound bullying; I don’t think I did. I am just asking, name one world leader or climatologist whom agrees with you.

You’ve named a few scientists, none of whom say that there is no proof that climate change is being caused by rising CO2 levels. Give me the reference to a paper they have published in a peer reviewed climate journal in recent years that provides evidence of this claim.

I had a good chat with Richard Lindzen at Yale in November. His view is that future predictions are not as accurate as other think. Fair enough, that’s his view, I appreciate it. The vast majority of climatogologists have confidence in these models however. He does not for a moment say, as ANGLE says, that there is no proof that climate change is being caused by rising CO2 levels. Neither does the rest on your list. Again, give us the reference.

What I object to is the constant attempt by people such as yourself who say that obscure descent from any quarter somehow violates and nullifies the consensus that exists among climatologists. It does not. There is descent; there will always be people who offer the most unorthodox things. This is a good thing. There is also the potential for geniuses and revolution here, that’s the way science occasionally works but there is yet to be a case where verifiable physical evidence has been overthrown and proven incorrect. Though the Flatearthers still live in hope, I understand.

Climate change will require some effort to deal with, do you think all the world's leaders are stupid and are being tricked? Or can you name one world leader who says human forced climate change isn't happening?

Martin, thank you for your polite response. Just a small criticism: the word “descent” means downward motion, not to disagree.
I must concede that I have not been able to find articles of the nature that you request me to refer to. I could be mischievous and say that the reason for this is that the journals you speak of don’t permit “DISSENTING” articles to be published, as the following article indicates:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/05/01/wglob01.xml
My point was not to disagree about increased CO2 levels, but merely to say that there are scientists who do not fully agree with the current “consensus” on global warming. I thought I’d made that pretty clear.
As for the world’s leaders being stupid, well, they may or may not be stupid, although at least some of them have done some pretty stupid things in the past. They may merely be reacting, as laymen, to the “green mantra” about climate change. The problem as I see it, is that the Green establishment has cried wolf about too many issues in the past, and now the public doesn’t know what to believe. Thirty years ago it was a scare about “global cooling”. Now it’s about “global warming”.
No wonder the public reacts sceptically, especially if they are not allowed to see dissenting opinion.
It often strikes me how many of the people advocating this green mantra are also “socialists”. I can’t help but think that there must be some connection there.
BTW, how did you get to Montreal? You should not have used an aircraft, to be consistent with your beliefs.

Yep, sorry descent / dissent, spelling error there.

It is a question of degrees, pun intended.

I am saying that there is consensus in the scientific literature on whether anthropogenic climate change is happening and whether it is a real problem. Yes and yes.

There is not consensus on exactly what will happen where in 50 years time. All the world’s academic academies say there will be significant and problematic climate change, some scientists say it will be catastrophic, and some scientists say we can’t really say with much confidence what the extent will be, eg. Lindzen.

And of course there are many commentators who are unable to publish anything scientific on the subject who speak in the public arena to argue for their personal understandings. I am one of these.

Climate change science is complicated and the impact of climate change upon societies is even more complicated. Consensus exists only as far as “it is really happening and it really is a problem”. The knock-on idea is that we should do something about it.

Not sure what you’re saying about dissenting ideas. Thirty years ago when someone was talking about global cooling it didn’t attract the sort of respect now afforded to the body of evidence for climate change. – 10,000 person conferences, world leaders agreeing etc.

I disagree that dissenting opinion about climate change is unseen. Since the UNFCCC (1992) there has been an enormous amount of dissent. This dissent, the honest ebb and flow progress of the scientific community AND the less than honest political lobbying by certain industries (much along the lines of “smoking does not cause cancer”) is why it has taken 14 of the most technologically advanced years in history since the whole world agreed there was a problem worth examining to now, the world agreeing to take collective action.

And yep, I did fly to Montreal and I did offset my emissions.
See: http://www.climatecare.org/airtravelcalc/airtravelcalc.cfm
It cost me 5 pounds.

I require data not opinions.Where is the data."OREGON INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND MEDICINE ' 17000 members is only one of many who refute
your claims.

macp