So who's advising the Pope? Some of the best scientists on the planet, including Edward Witten, Stephen Hawking, Francis Collins, Mario Molina, Maxine Singer, and many more:
Who's advised Popes in the past? Many of the best scientists humanity has ever produced, including 44 Nobel Laureates, such as Rutherford, Planck, Bohr, Dirac, Schrodinger, both Yang and Lee, Salam, and many more:
Inhofe's saying “The pope ought to stay with his job, and let us stay with ours," displays a stunning lack of awareness of what religion is truly about. Inhofe might want to carry something besides the weekly Bulletin out of his pew this Sunday.
9 comments:
I don't recognise many of the names on either list, though I have heard that Stephen Hawking has proclaimed himself to be an atheist. How many of those are climatologists ? It's a shame that so many sceptics are now called deniers. This presumably includes the authors of the papers listed at
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html and at http://www.co2science.org/ and elsewhere, and certainly makes it difficult to have a meaningful discussion.
The Pope, if he is going to make an 'infallible' proclamation about climate change (when the climate has always changed, and will always change) will need to choose his words very carefully, especially as the solar and oceanic cycles are near or just past their maximum values. If the global temperatures pause or decline over the next few decades, this could have serious repercussions for the Catholic Church, if the Pope decides to endorse the CAGW theory.
Richard Mallet.
Why don't you just list out your climate change denier talking points in point form, it would be quicker and more honest.
The massive increase in adult huggies consumption, itself, is going to contribute an additional 0.2-0.4 ℃ temperature increase!
John Puma
Someone needs to send Inholfe a dozen frozen snowballs for his use in the event any climate change legislation is debated in the Senate
Richard wrote:
"The Pope, if he is going to make an 'infallible' proclamation about climate change (when the climate has always changed, and will always change"
1) The climate doesn't always change. The Holocene has been remarkable for its climate stability, with a global temperature change of about 0.5 C in 10,000 years. It's a big part of what's allowed civilization to flourish.
2) One of the big reasons why climate changes is changes in atmospheric CO2 -- just what we're doing now.
One has got to love Mallett's reference to that "1350+ papers!" list. Filled with old papers from sometimes more than 30 years ago, papers in E&E (a "social science" journal), lots of the usual suspects, and several opinion papers that are at best "editor-checked" rather than reviewed. I noticed it even used a paper that pointed to active volcanoes under antarctica as a suitable paper to support skepticism about AGW/CAGW...
Co2science is filled with papers that show a MWP in the period 800-1000 CE, or in 1200-1400 CE or in 1000-1200 CE and therefore hence thus "MWP=global!". If that last conclusion does not make sense, that is correctly noted. But screaming "see! They find a MWP that is warmer than today!" is enough. That "today" not uncommonly is actually 1950, who cares? Let's not look at the details too much, shall we?
Marco needs to read the "Rebuttals to Criticism" section of the list,
Criticism: Papers on the list are old.
Rebuttal: The age of any scientific paper is irrelevant. Using this argument would mean dismissing Svante Arrhenius's 1896 paper "On the influence of carbonic acid in the air upon the temperature of the ground" and the basis for greenhouse theory. Regardless, there are over 1000 papers published since 2000 and over 1250 papers published since 1990 on the list.
Criticism: Papers on the list are not physical science papers.
Rebuttal: This is a strawman argument as it is not claimed that all the papers are physical science papers, only that they are all peer-reviewed. Just like the WGII and WGIII sections of the IPCC reports, peer-reviewed papers from social scientists and policy analysts are included in the list. These papers appear in the appropriate socio-economic sections (e.g. Socio-Economic) separate from the physical science sections on the list. Regardless, there are over 1000 physical science papers on the list.
Criticism: Papers on the list are not peer-reviewed.
Rebuttal: Every counted paper on the list is checked that it is published in a peer-reviewed journal and (if possible) that the specific document type is peer-reviewed. Critics have always been asked to provide evidence to support their allegations, yet repeatedly fail to do so. If a paper is shown to be listed in error it will be removed. The list also includes supplemental papers, which are not counted but listed as references in defense of various papers. These are proceeded by an asterisk and italicized so they should not be confused with the counted papers. There is no requirement for supplemental papers to be peer-reviewed as they have no affect on the list count.
Energy & Environment is a peer-reviewed scholarly journal (ISSN: 0958-305X)
- The IPCC cites Energy & Environment 28 times
- Indexed in Compendex, EBSCO, Environment Abstracts, Google Scholar, JournalSeek, Scopus and Thomson Reuters (ISI)
- Found at hundreds of libraries and universities worldwide in print and electronic form. These include; Cornell University, Dartmouth College, Library of Congress, McGill University, Monash University, National Library of Australia, Stanford University, The British Library, University of British Columbia, University of Cambridge, University of Oxford, University of Queensland and MIT.
- Thomson Reuters (ISI) lists Energy & Environment as a peer-reviewed scholarly journal
- Scopus lists Energy & Environment as a peer-reviewed physical science journal
- EBSCO lists Energy & Environment as a peer-reviewed scholarly journal
- "E&E, by the way, is peer reviewed" - Tom Wigley, Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
- "I have published a few papers in E&E. All were peer-reviewed as usual. I have reviewed a few more for the journal." - Richard Tol Ph.D. Professor of the Economics of Climate Change, Vrije Universiteit, Netherlands
- "All Multi-Sciences primary journals are fully refereed" - Multi-Science Publishing
- "Regular issues include submitted and invited papers that are rigorously peer reviewed" - E&E Mission Statement
Criticism: Papers on the list do not argue against AGW.
Rebuttal: This is a strawman argument as the list not only includes papers that support skeptic arguments against ACC/AGW but also Alarmism. Thus, a paper does not have to argue against AGW to still support skeptic arguments against alarmist conclusions (e.g. Hurricanes are getting worse due to global warming). Valid skeptic arguments include that AGW is exaggerated or inconsequential, such as those made by Richard S. Lindzen Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Science at MIT and John R. Christy Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science at UHA.
Sorry but there is no consensus...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/05/30/global-warming-alarmists-caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims/
https://www.heartland.org/policy-documents/research-commentary-myth-global-warming-consensus
http://richardtol.blogspot.com/2014/10/erl-does-not-want-you-to-read-this_90.html
http://climateaudit.org/2013/05/24/undercooked-statistics/
http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/the-myth-of-a-global-warming-consensus.html
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/15465-climate-consensus-con-game-desperate-effort-before-release-of-un-report
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/15624-cooking-climate-consensus-data-97-of-scientists-affirm-agw-debunked
http://www.zebrafactcheck.com/making-sense-of-the-claims-about-climate-change-consensus/
http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/kerrys-97-global-warming-consensus-misquote-flawed-study
http://thelibertarianalliance.com/2015/03/06/causes-and-consequences-of-the-climate-science-boom/
Andrew: I don't put much stock (if any) in your links -- they are to blog posts and biased sources, not to the scientific literature. Try harder.
Post a Comment