The climate change hoax

The climate change hoax
By ANDREW J. GUNTHER AND JAMES J. MCCARTHY
The Sacramento Bee

We are scientists who agree with critics such as Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., that there is a climate change "hoax" being perpetrated on the American people.

We just don't agree on what the hoax is and who is being fooled.

Sen. Inhofe and his associates want us to believe that the science of climate change is the contrived "hoax." Their claims cannot withstand even the most cursory scrutiny. Does this "hoax" date back to 1896, when Nobel Laureate Svante Arrhenius presented his findings that human activities releasing carbon dioxide to the atmosphere could change Earth's climate? Did it start when scientists Charles Keeling and Roger Revelle demonstrated in the 1950s that a large part of the carbon dioxide released from the burning of coal, oil and gas was remaining in the atmosphere because the oceans couldn't absorb it fast enough? Did an evil cabal of "warmists" trick a science advisory panel into warning President Lyndon Johnson in 1965 of the dangers of adding greenhouses gases to the atmosphere?

In 2009, the National Academies of Science of the world's major industrialized nations (including China, India and Brazil) issued an unprecedented joint statement on the reality of climate change and the need for immediate action. Do those who claim climate change is a hoax expect us to believe this was a put on by an international bunch of con men with doctoral degrees? The U.S. Evangelical Environmental Network tells us that global warming is one of the major challenges of our time, and Pope Benedict XVI has called for coordinated global action to address dangers of climate change - have they too joined the conspiracy?

Of course not.

The real hoax is the claim that a scientific debate exists about the reality of climate change. It is promoted by organizations that benefit from our current energy choices and groups that are opposed to any regulation whatsoever, even the most sensible safeguards that help protect our children's health.

The hoaxers claim climate scientists are "in it for the money," a ludicrous proposition as pointed out by Jon Koomey. Dr. Koomey used his expertise in mathematical modeling to study the economic impacts of climate change for two decades at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. If Koomey and his colleagues were in it for the money they would have taken their analytic expertise to Wall Street long ago, where their salaries would have been five to 10 times what they can make working for the government.

The hyped rhetoric around this issue is an attempt to convince Americans that accepting the scientific evidence will require taking actions inimical to our shared values of liberty, freedom, community and entrepreneurship.

But one need look no further than the studies of America's military and intelligence officials who understand how disruptive human-caused climate change could be to our nation's interests both at home and abroad (in 2009 the CIA established a Center on Climate Change and National Security). Putting our head in the sand about climate change is a sure way to undermine American liberty, economic prosperity and national security. Of all the alterative paths before us to address this problem, doing nothing to reduce the threat of serious climate change is a dangerous and expensive option.

There's a climate change hoax all right, but it is Sen. Inhofe and his science-denying associates who are trying to do the fooling. We are all going to pay a price if we don't call-out their campaign of misinformation and get down to the real work before us. The question now is what will be the cost of inaction to our health and our pocketbooks? The longer the hoaxers can prevent serious action, the higher the price we will all pay.

---

ABOUT THE WRITERS

Andrew J. Gunther and James J. McCarthy are scientists who sit on the Board of Directors of the Union of Concerned Scientists, 2 Brattle Square, Cambridge, Mass. 02138-3780; website: www.ucsusa.org.

This essay is available to McClatchy-Tribune News Service subscribers. McClatchy-Tribune did not subsidize the writing of this column; the opinions are those of the writers and do not necessarily represent the views of McClatchy-Tribune or its editors.

2012, Union of Concerned Scientists

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2012/03/21/4354911/the-climate-change-hoax.html#storylink=cpy

A hoax? Perhaps not. Drastic exaggerations to promote an agenda based on the control of worldwide energy consumption? Definitely.

Pun wrote:A hoax? Perhaps not. Drastic exaggerations to promote an agenda based on the control of worldwide energy consumption? Definitely.

Not really. Look into the science (peer reviewed, not joeschmo.blogspot.com).

You mean the science that backs up manmade climate change, cuz theres plenty of contradictory science on the issue thats kept hush hush. As soon as scientists and the gov agencies they work for begin to push an agenda, then they are no longer true scientists. I mean how many times have i heard stories from scientists saying that descenting views have been left out of papers? So i would call it a conspiracy rather than a hoax.

I believe in Climate Change. Theres plenty of evidence to satisfy me that we have had climate change before. I just dont know if it is man made.

Pun wrote:You mean the science that backs up manmade climate change, cuz theres plenty of contradictory science on the issue thats kept hush hush.

If its been kept hush hush, how do you know about it? As always, source please.

As soon as scientists and the gov agencies they work for begin to push an agenda, then they are no longer true scientists. I mean how many times have i heard stories from scientists saying that descenting views have been left out of papers? So i would call it a conspiracy rather than a hoax.

What scientists have told you this? Where is your evidence? I've yet to see a single credible scientific study published/presented debunking anthropogenic climate change. The idea of a conspiracy between hundreds of thousands of scientists from every continent to suppress valid science is absurd.

If you ever have the chance to drop by San Francisco in early December I invite you to visit the American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting. There are literally tens-of-thousands of earth scientists (ie Geologists, Geophysicists, Climate Scientists, etc) that present their research. There is not even peer-review hurdle to give a poster presentation. You can hit the floor and talk to any number of scientists in that field.

Dude this goes way back so u can find your own sources but ive heard this from nasa scientists who claim alternative views have been removed, and dont forget the leaks from that college in england a few years back illustrating how the agenda rather than the science is being pushed. There are plenty of meteorologists who believe were simply in a warming cycle. There is an entire scientific community being kept quiet.

A recent survey of more than 1,000 geoscientists (commonly known as earth scientists) and engineers reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies found that only 36 percent agree with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assertion that humans are causing a serious global warming problem.

A preliminary draft of a report by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was leaked to the public this month, and climate skeptics say it contains fresh evidence of 20 years of overstated global warming.
The report -- which is not scheduled for publication until 2014 -- was leaked by someone involved in the IPCC’s review process, and is available for download online. Bloggers combing through the report discovered a chart comparing the four temperature models the group has published since 1990. Each has overstated the rise in temperature that Earth actually experienced.
“Temperatures have not risen nearly as much as almost all of the climate models predicted,” Roy Spencer, a climatologist at the University of Alabama at Huntsville, told FoxNews.com.
“Their predictions have largely failed, four times in a row... what that means is that it's time for them to re-evaluate,” Spencer said.


A preliminary draft of a report by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was leaked to the public this month, and climate skeptics say it contains fresh evidence of 20 years of overstated global warming.
The report -- which is not scheduled for publication until 2014 -- was leaked by someone involved in the IPCC’s review process, and is available for download online. Bloggers combing through the report discovered a chart comparing the four temperature models the group has published since 1990. Each has overstated the rise in temperature that Earth actually experienced.
“Temperatures have not risen nearly as much as almost all of the climate models predicted,” Roy Spencer, a climatologist at the University of Alabama at Huntsville, told FoxNews.com.
“Their predictions have largely failed, four times in a row... what that means is that it's time for them to re-evaluate,” Spencer said.


A preliminary draft of a report by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was leaked to the public this month, and climate skeptics say it contains fresh evidence of 20 years of overstated global warming.
The report -- which is not scheduled for publication until 2014 -- was leaked by someone involved in the IPCC’s review process, and is available for download online. Bloggers combing through the report discovered a chart comparing the four temperature models the group has published since 1990. Each has overstated the rise in temperature that Earth actually experienced.
“Temperatures have not risen nearly as much as almost all of the climate models predicted,” Roy Spencer, a climatologist at the University of Alabama at Huntsville, told FoxNews.com.
“Their predictions have largely failed, four times in a row... what that means is that it's time for them to re-evaluate,” Spencer said.


Www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/20/as-the-consensus-among-scientists-crumbles-global-warming-alarmists-attack-their-integrity/


A preliminary draft of a report by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was leaked to the public this month, and climate skeptics say it contains fresh evidence of 20 years of overstated global warming.
The report -- which is not scheduled for publication until 2014 -- was leaked by someone involved in the IPCC’s review process, and is available for download online. Bloggers combing through the report discovered a chart comparing the four temperature models the group has published since 1990. Each has overstated the rise in temperature that Earth actually experienced.
“Temperatures have not risen nearly as much as almost all of the climate models predicted,” Roy Spencer, a climatologist at the University of Alabama at Huntsville, told FoxNews.com.
“Their predictions have largely failed, four times in a row... what that means is that it's time for them to re-evaluate,” Spencer said.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/01/28/un-climate-report-models-overestimated-global-warming/#ixzz2LuUlN0kM

By contrast, a majority of scientists in the survey believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.

By contrast, a majority of scientists in the survey believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.

A preliminary draft of a report by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was leaked to the public this month, and climate skeptics say it contains fresh evidence of 20 years of overstated global warming.
The report -- which is not scheduled for publication until 2014 -- was leaked by someone involved in the IPCC’s review process, and is available for download online. Bloggers combing through the report discovered a chart comparing the four temperature models the group has published since 1990. Each has overstated the rise in temperature that Earth actually experienced.
“Temperatures have not risen nearly as much as almost all of the climate models predicted,” Roy Spencer, a climatologist at the University of Alabama at Huntsville, told FoxNews.com.
“Their predictions have largely failed, four times in a row... what that means is that it's time for them to re-evaluate,” Spencer said.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/01/28/un-climate-report-models-overestimated-global-warming/#ixzz2LuUlN0kM

Also google "climategate" to learn more about the university scandal.

I eamn they even had to give up on calling it global warming, in favor for the even more indistinct title of "climate change." To say that there is concensus on climate change is just a lie

A recent survey of more than 1,000 geoscientists (commonly known as earth scientists) and engineers reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies found that only 36 percent agree with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assertion that humans are causing a serious global warming problem.

By contrast, a majority of scientists in the survey believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.

Www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/20/as-the-consensus-among-scientists-crumbles-global-warming-alarmists-attack-their-integrity/

A preliminary draft of a report by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was leaked to the public this month, and climate skeptics say it contains fresh evidence of 20 years of overstated global warming.
The report -- which is not scheduled for publication until 2014 -- was leaked by someone involved in the IPCC’s review process, and is available for download online. Bloggers combing through the report discovered a chart comparing the four temperature models the group has published since 1990. Each has overstated the rise in temperature that Earth actually experienced.

“Temperatures have not risen nearly as much as almost all of the climate models predicted,” Roy Spencer, a climatologist at the University of Alabama at Huntsville, told FoxNews.com.
“Their predictions have largely failed, four times in a row... what that means is that it's time for them to re-evaluate,” Spencer.

Also google "climategate" to learn more about the university scandal.

Can u delete the one post where o trople and quadruple posted things?

Pun wrote:A recent survey of more than 1,000 geoscientists (commonly known as earth scientists) and engineers reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies found that only 36 percent agree with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assertion that humans are causing a serious global warming problem.

Um, you know you copy/pasted the same thing like 5 times there.... :-P

well, this is my take on the whole hoax/conspiracy thing:



- Is global warming real? yes.
- Is caused by nature or mankind? probably a bit of both
- Is it caused solely by mankind? Probably not, but we're definitely not helping matters
- Is it a problem? Rising sea levels, shrinking icecaps, desertification, reduction in available croplands and drinking water, so yup.
- Is it a problem that we still have to try to do something about? Yes

Basically, whether all the shit we're pumping into the atmosphere and water is causing global warming or not, it's still pollution. The planet may be a huge ecosystem but it's still a closed one, so whatever we put into it ain't going nowhere. So, global warming or not, we're still shitting where we're eating.

Are we still discussing this???

Wow is about all I can say.

Also like to add that I really don't care if the globe warms up. All I care about is that it doesn't cool down.

Miles, the fossil record shows proof that a warm planet is a good and life filled planet. I wouldn't put too much stock in the ability of homo sapien being able to withstand it though. Yeah, we may be smart, but we are physically fragile. The intellect also carries the curse along with it. With change will come conflict. Will we survive that conflict or will we witness an ELE.

Of course, I can sit here and claim the moral high ground since I am about to be 100% self contained.....energy consumption wise. Of course the secret is that I didn't do it for any damn sappy feeling toward the weather and the planet. I had greenbacks in the back of my head when I started.

But miles, theyre calling natural elements pollution. Co2 is a natural green house gas, but so is water! You dont hear the econuts complaining about water vapor though do u? Why? Because that doesnt doesnt get you to the point of limiting and controlling energy consumption like "doing something" about co2 does, does it? So what youre calling for, a rational and reasonable conversation about this, has already been demagogued so much by the left that it will never be a le to happen.

Miles1 wrote:

Pun wrote:A recent survey of more than 1,000 geoscientists (commonly known as earth scientists) and engineers reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies found that only 36 percent agree with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assertion that humans are causing a serious global warming problem.

Um, you know you copy/pasted the same thing like 5 times there.... :-P

well, this is my take on the whole hoax/conspiracy thing:



- Is global warming real? yes.
- Is caused by nature or mankind? probably a bit of both
- Is it caused solely by mankind? Probably not, but we're definitely not helping matters
- Is it a problem? Rising sea levels, shrinking icecaps, desertification, reduction in available croplands and drinking water, so yup.
- Is it a problem that we still have to try to do something about? Yes

Basically, whether all the shit we're pumping into the atmosphere and water is causing global warming or not, it's still pollution. The planet may be a huge ecosystem but it's still a closed one, so whatever we put into it ain't going nowhere. So, global warming or not, we're still shitting where we're eating.

I don't like that cartoon, reminds me too much of Pascals Wager (fallacy).

Pun wrote:A recent survey of more than 1,000 geoscientists (commonly known as earth scientists) and engineers reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies found that only 36 percent agree with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assertion that humans are causing a serious global warming problem.

By contrast, a majority of scientists in the survey believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.

Www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/20/as-the-consensus-among-scientists-crumbles-global-warming-alarmists-attack-their-integrity/

A preliminary draft of a report by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was leaked to the public this month, and climate skeptics say it contains fresh evidence of 20 years of overstated global warming.
The report -- which is not scheduled for publication until 2014 -- was leaked by someone involved in the IPCC’s review process, and is available for download online. Bloggers combing through the report discovered a chart comparing the four temperature models the group has published since 1990. Each has overstated the rise in temperature that Earth actually experienced.

“Temperatures have not risen nearly as much as almost all of the climate models predicted,” Roy Spencer, a climatologist at the University of Alabama at Huntsville, told FoxNews.com.
“Their predictions have largely failed, four times in a row... what that means is that it's time for them to re-evaluate,” Spencer.

Also google "climategate" to learn more about the university scandal.

Lefsrud and Meyer, 2013 wrote:To answer this question, we consider how climate change is constructed by professional engineers and geoscientists in the province of Alberta, Canada. We begin by describing our research context and the strategic importance of Canadian oil worldwide, to the economy of Canada, and the province of Alberta. We outline the influential role of engineers and geoscientists within this industry, which allows them to affect national and international policy. Then, we describe our research design and methods.

The Forbes op-ed, penned by James Taylor of the Heartland Institute, does a very poor job of representing the nature of the publication in question. Lefsrud and Meyer (2013) were discussing the perception of climate change as it relates to the defense and petroleum industry in Alberta, and as such limited their sample mostly to engineers and geoscientists working within the petro and petro-management fields. Their data set is very limited and is intentionally representative of a biased minority.

Taylor took this and extrapolated it to suggest that the findings, that people who work in oil are far less likely to agree with the science behind anthropogenic climate change, are applicable to the entire population of geoscientists (a field of which I am a member) and engineers. Taylor's op-ed is incredibly deceptive, but what more do you expect out of an employee of an organization that is payed to wage PR war against science.

If anyone is interested, the Lefsrud and Meyer (2013) article is available here.

Pun wrote:But miles, theyre calling natural elements pollution. Co2 is a natural green house gas, but so is water! You dont hear the econuts complaining about water vapor though do u? Why? Because that doesnt doesnt get you to the point of limiting and controlling energy consumption like "doing something" about co2 does, does it? So what youre calling for, a rational and reasonable conversation about this, has already been demagogued so much by the left that it will never be a le to happen.

While CO2 is a natural compound, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has been increased by human activity. Prior to the use of coal and petro products for energy, lots of carbon that is now in the atmosphere was trapped in complex solid or liquid structures. We took those structures and broke them down through combustion, much of the H in these structures will bond with the oxygen to form H2O (g) and will bond with oxygen to produce CO (g) or CO2 (g) depending on the amount of O2 available. These gasses then travel up into the atmosphere. As these gasses trap more heat, the water bodies around the planet begin to warm and loose their ability to keep what CO2 they have dissolved and are thus allow that CO2 to escape.

Most of the water vapor in the atmosphere is there due to natural process. Also the bi-polar nature of H2O (l or g) causes it to behave differently than CO2 (g). H2O will also condense at relatively high temperatures (100ºC) and fall back to the Earth.

Also found this in reference to the Forbes Op-Ed:

Dear Mr. Taylor

Thank you for the attention you are giving to our research and continuing the discussion about how professional engineers and geoscientists view climate change. We would like to emphasize a few points in order to avoid any confusion about the results.

First and foremost, our study is not a representative survey. Although our data set is large and diverse enough for our research questions, it cannot be used for generalizations such as “respondents believe …” or “scientists don’t believe …” Our research reconstructs the frames the members of a professional association hold about the issue and the argumentative patterns and legitimation strategies these professionals use when articulating their assumptions. Our research does not investigate the distribution of these frames and, thus, does not allow for any conclusions in this direction. We do point this out several times in the paper, and it is important to highlight it again.

In addition, even within the confines of our non-representative data set, the interpretation that a majority of the respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of global warming is simply not correct. To the contrary: the majority believes that humans do have their hands in climate change, even if many of them believe that humans are not the only cause. What is striking is how little support that the Kyoto Protocol had among our respondents. However, it is also not the case that all frames except “Support Kyoto” are against regulation –the “Regulation Activists” mobilize for a more encompassing and more strongly enforced regulation. Correct interpretations would be, for instance, that – among our respondents – more geoscientists are critical towards regulation (and especially the Kyoto Protocol) than non-geoscientists, or that more people in higher hierarchical positions in the industry oppose regulation than people in lower hierarchical positions.

All frequencies in our paper should only be used to get an idea of the potential influence of these frames – e.g. on policy responses. Surely the insight that those who oppose regulation tend to have more influence on policy-making than the supporters of the Kyoto Protocol should not come as a surprise after Canada dropped out of the protocol a year ago.

But once again: This is not a representative survey and should not be used as such!

We trust that this clarifies our findings. Thank you again for your attention.

Best regards
Lianne Lefsrud and Renate Meyer

Still, not one person has ever answered my question:

If climate change is such a big deal, and greenhouse gases like CO2 produce it, then why aren't we building Air Liquide plants all over the place???

http://www.us.airliquide.com/

They can suck in air and break it down into anything you want. How else do y'all think we get bottles of oxygen, nitrogen, etc.

So bryant, if u cant dispute the numbers u attack the credibility of the source?

Pun wrote:So bryant, if u cant dispute the numbers u attack the credibility of the source?

Look, by the logic employes I could poll PETA members on their views on eating meat, then extrapolate that to say most Americans do not approve of eating meat. Thats basically what the Forbes article did. The numbers might be real, but what they represent (according to the authors of the report!) is not what you or the gentleman from Heartland are arguing they say!

Marconius wrote:Still, not one person has ever answered my question:

If climate change is such a big deal, and greenhouse gases like CO2 produce it, then why aren't we building Air Liquide plants all over the place???

http://www.us.airliquide.com/

They can suck in air and break it down into anything you want. How else do y'all think we get bottles of oxygen, nitrogen, etc.

I hadn't even heard of them before, cool! Would love to see a feasibility study on using that method to extract greenhouse gasses (don't know how we could economically harvest the nasties we've unleashed in the upper atmosphere, but perhaps using this kinda tech to limit future emissions).

Actually thTs incorrect. You made the assertion that there was a concensus among scientists there is a concensus on climate change. What i posted shows to the contrary.

Pun wrote:Actually thTs incorrect. You made the assertion that there was a concensus among scientists there is a concensus on climate change. What i posted shows to the contrary.

There is a consensus amongst an overwhelming majority of scientists. So far as I can tell, those who still oppose it do so because of political bias, not because they have contradictory science. Does that make you happier? Heck, even amongst that small group that was more likely to have a bias against AGW, the majority still agreed with the science! The group you are referencing is so small they are hardly worth recognizing.

Ok then, nothing to see here i guess.