Senate Report Debunks “Consensus” on Global Warming
Senator Inhofe’s latest U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007 is generating a lot of attention on right-wing news sources like Faux and the Mooney Times. A quick google search showed the parrotheads got the morning e-mail, and unthinkingly cut and pasted the appropriate quotes into their blogs the day after the report came out, all with the same title this post has.
It’s important to understand the type of report we are talking about here. This isn’t a scientific report, where great volumes of scientific data are gathered, analyzed, and peer-reviewed before conclusions are presented. This is citation report, a thesis statement is made, “There are scientists who dispute global warming theory,” and then news reports and Internet sources scoured to support it.
Because this is purely a political book report, it’s okay to examine the political background of it’s authors. Senator Inhofe is the ranking minority member for the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (EPW), the same Inhofe who has compared environmentalists to nazis, and has been the most vociferous skeptic of Global Warming of any politician. Marc Morano is one of Inhofe’s spokespeople, political consultant, and former reporter and producer for the Rush Limbaugh Television Show. So we know where their coming from.
These politicians have written a blockbuster report. We know it’s a blockbuster because the report tells us it’s a blockbuster:
This blockbuster Senate report lists the scientists by name, country of residence, and academic/institutional affiliation. It also features their own words, biographies, and weblinks to their peer reviewed studies and original source materials as gathered from public statements, various news outlets, and websites in 2007. This new “consensus busters” report is poised to redefine the debate. (Emphasis Mine)
I counted approximately 40 climatologists and 60 meteorologists, many of whom were TV weathermen, among those voicing doubts. Fair enough. But there were also approximately 60 physicists, 40 geologists, 15 biologists, and more than five astronomers listed as well. All of these various fields do have perspectives to contribute to Climate Change science, but it is not their field of expertise. The biggest stretch of all was the 20 economists counted among the skeptics. If Alan Greenspan were to voice skepticism of Global Warming tomorrow, I doubt it would get much media attention, but the parrotheads won’t think twice about economists appearing in this report as scientists.
You’re not going to see a lot of scientists responding to this report, and that’s because there isn’t any science to respond to. This isn’t a scientific report by any stretch of the imagination; it’s just a collection of quotes disputing everything from a warmer Earth being a bad thing, to other issues that should take priority over Global Warming, to the motivations of Al Gore, the IPCC, and Environmentalists.
Let’s remember the consensus on Global warming is that (1) it’s happening, and (2) humans are causing it. That’s all.
So when inventor Ray Kurzweil is cited as disagreeing with Al Gore on Global Warming because Kurzweil believes nanotechnology will solve Climate Change. Ray doesn’t dispute the consensus, he disputes that Global Warming is a problem because technology will solve it. Ray also believes we will all become immortal in a few decades by transcribing our brains into computers. Maybe half the scientists listed in this report are actually disputing the consensus, and much less then that number offer scientific arguments to back up their opinions.
Inhofe points out that “Only 52 Scientists Participated in UN IPCC Summary;” and his report cites eight times that number. Technically correct, but so what? This is like saying, “Only one scientist took part in writing the IPCC report’s table of contents.” It only means something to unthinking parrotheads. The IPCC report was written by 600 authors from 40 countries, and reviewed by over 620 experts and governments. Inhofe’s report didn’t even have 52 scientists collaborate on it, as the IPCC summary did, it was written entirely by Inhofe’s spokespeople, who aren’t scientists at all, but political consultants. Inhofe is technically correct, but intellectually dishonest.
Inhofe’s report doesn’t hold a candle to the IPCC report because the IPCC Report is a collaboration, not just a cherry-picked list of opinions and names of people, many of whom probably don’t even know they are in his report. The IPCC Report’s scientists and reviewers were all tasked with figuring it out, and they engaged in scientific inquiry to best articulate the truth.
If Inhofe’s report was such an inquiry, then with 400 Scientists disputing global warming, why would Inhofe make science fiction author Michael Crichton his star witness before the Senate Committee investigating Global Warming? Because Inhofe’s list is not a collaboration, it is a grocery list assembled by his aides, who were tasked with digging up as many skeptics they could find.
Most of all, Inhofe’s report is total bull$#!% because I had better things to write about this weekend. The whole reason behind his perpetual stream of nonsense is simply to force people like Grist, Kos, energysmart, ClimateProgress, Andrew Revkin, and others to respond, perpetuating the myth of a debate and feeding parrothead self-righteous indignation. So long as they can keep us debating, they foster inaction. They win the argument just by arguing.
So Inhofe has scrounged up 400 scientists, the majority of whom are not climate scientists and the majority of whom are not demonstrated disputing the consensus on Anthropogenic Climate Change, and probably few, if any, know they were included in this book report.
On the other hand, we have the consensus on Global Warming, which has been explicitly endorsed by the Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil), Royal Society of Canada, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Academié des Sciences (France), Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany), Indian National Science Academy, Accademia dei Lincei (Italy), Science Council of Japan, Russian Academy of Sciences, Royal Society (United Kingdom), National Academy of Sciences (United States of America), Australian Academy of Sciences, Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts, Caribbean Academy of Sciences, Indonesian Academy of Sciences, Royal Irish Academy, Academy of Sciences Malaysia, Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), National Academy of Sciences (NAS), State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Royal Society of the United Kingdom (RS), American Geophysical Union (AGU), American Institute of Physics (AIP), National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), American Meteorological Society (AMS), Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS), and more.
And when the legitimate media doesn’t bother to cover Inhofe’s latest dishonesty, the parrothead lobby will take that as conspiracy against them, further vindicating their skepticism.
They don’t have a response out yet, because real science takes time, but RealClimate always has the best science writing on the subject of Anthropogenic Climate Change. Keep an eye on them for a response to this book report, if they bother.
It appears, not only from the report to the U.S.Senate by many hundreds of scientists and climate experts, but also from the December 13 letter from around 100 climate experts to the UN SG, that the much-ballyhooed “scientific consensus” on anthropogenic global warming (that never really existed) is unraveling.
Of course, the first reaction is to deny that there are serious scientists who are rationally skeptical of the alarming IPCC predictions, either by saying they are not qualified to have an opinion, or writing them off as “parrotheads”.
Sorry, the scientific debate is not at all a ”myth”, as it is portrayed here.
It is the so-called “consensus” that is quite apparently the myth.
Yes, the debate must go on, because that it the way science works in a democratic society.
Don’t wait for the “howls of outrage” from RealClimate on this topic. They will surely come and will (by definition) blindly toe the AGW party line, as did this misinformed article.
Max
Comment by Max — December 24, 2007 @ 7:09 pm
Did you say 400 parrotheads? Gee, that’s a lot of parrotheads! Remember some years ago when we had another bunch crawling out the woodwork, and they kept saying that Iraq had no connections with Al Qaeda, or W.O.M.D? It was nowhere near 400 uglies then though I guess, but hey, maybe it’s some of the same guys doing it again, like professional protestors?
Comment by Black Wallaby — December 26, 2007 @ 2:45 am
Well, the “howls of outrage” from the AGW fundamentalists did come, but not on RealClimate but on the gristmill site.
First approach: “ad hominem” attacks, i.e. discredit the scientists and climate experts that dared to question the AGW mantra.
Tune in to gristmill for the fun.
Max
Comment by Max — December 27, 2007 @ 5:04 am
I for one am glad that the debate continues. I believe global warming is happening, but it always struck me as odd that the same scientists that claimed we were heading for a new ice age in the 70’s have led the “man made global warming” charge. Further, I recall about 8 years ago a similar report that was used by lefties all throughout the election cycle that contained views on global warming from scientists that had absolutely nothing to do with climatology studies.
Suffice to say people need to quit deciding with their hearts here. The scientific method has been hijacked by the cause of ‘man made global warming” and there are efforts being made to silence/discredit anyone that does not go along with the so called “consensus.”
Even if the “consensus” is correct, that’s a disturbing trend that will lend itself to serious problems in the not so distant future.
Is the world getting warmer? Yes. Where would I start pointing fingers? Oh, I don’t know….maybe that giant thurmo-nuclear reactor in the center of the solar system??? Again, I’m not narcissistic enough to think that man doesn’t have an adverse effect on the envorionment – clearly we do – but nor do I believe any of these oft-misleading sceintiests speak “the truth.” There’s too many agendas, specifically political agenda, floating around to garner my trust.
Comment by kstafford — December 27, 2007 @ 11:53 am
Um.. Black Wallaby.. Iraq *didn’t* have any WMDs — or anything to do with Al Queda until we went there and gave Al Queda a reason to move to Iraq.
You discredit yourself by being an idiot.
Comment by Clint — December 27, 2007 @ 12:18 pm
To quote two IPCC members:
“A categorical summary statement like this (that human activity is causing global waming) is not supported by the evidence in the IPCC WG I report. Evidence shown in the report suggests that other factors play a major role in climate change, and the specific effects expected from greenhouse gases have not been observed.”
Dr. Ross McKitrick, University of Guelph, Canada.
“The text of the IPCC report shows that this is decided by a guess from persons with a conflict of interest, not from a tested model.”
Dr. Vincent Gray, New Zealand
The assertion that 600 scientists agree with the conclusion that human activity is causing climate change is not supported by the facts. The pertitent section of the report, WG I, was reviewed by a total of 62 scientists, 55 of whom have a vested interest (by organizational ties or research funding) in perpetuating the myth that human activity has been proven to cause climate change. That’s not consensus. That’s propaganda.
In addition, in the December issue of the International Journal of Climatology, a study published by four climate scientists said that worldwide temperature data does not correspond to predictions from the models used to blame mankind for the current warming trend. According to author David Douglas: “The inescapable conclusion is that the human contribution (to global warming) is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming.”
The fact is that there are many, many qualified scientists who 1) agree that the climate is warming up (as it has in the past), and 2) see no compelling evidence that mankind has anything to do with it. After all, the ice caps on Mars are shrinking too. Go figure.
(For this humble scientist’s take on global warming, you may view a brief – and hopefully entertaining – slideshow with narration here:
http://trzupek.wordpress.com/global-warming-lite-slideshow/
Cheers!
Comment by Rich T — December 27, 2007 @ 12:38 pm
When this first came out, I did a google search to find an approximate number of how many climate scientists there are.
If there are around 20,000 climate scientists (if someone has a more accurate number, please correct me) and 400 of them question the two-point consensus, that’s still a relatively small number. Only about 2%. So while we can never say the debate is “over,” I don’t think this document is as big of a deal as the right would want us to believe.
Comment by Stephen — December 27, 2007 @ 2:16 pm
hahahahahaha
This is better than The Onion
Comment by Eco Warrior — December 27, 2007 @ 3:02 pm
Stephen wrote: “If there are around 20,000 climate scientists (if someone has a more accurate number, please correct me) and 400 of them question the two-point consensus, that’s still a relatively small number. Only about 2%. So while we can never say the debate is “over,” I don’t think this document is as big of a deal as the right would want us to believe.”
Please provide a list of 20,000 climate scientists. Do not include political IPCC writers or computer jockeys.
Max
Comment by Max — December 27, 2007 @ 6:16 pm
Clint wrote: “Um.. Black Wallaby.. Iraq *didn’t* have any WMDs — or anything to do with Al Queda until we went there and gave Al Queda a reason to move to Iraq.
You discredit yourself by being an idiot.”
You make the point, exactly, Clint. There were no WMD but this scare factor was used by politicians to frighten the public in order to justify a political action.
It is just like there is no “tipping point” with overnight 6-meter waves swallowing New York City, but this scare factor is being used by another set of politicians (i.e. Al Gore and the UN Secretary General) to frighten the public in order to justify another political action.
Get the similarity?
Max
Comment by Max — December 27, 2007 @ 6:23 pm
I think I heard a comedian say once, “I’m not a tree hugger . . .but I am an air breather”. I’m a conservative that believes the less crap we put in the atmosphere the better but I’m unwilling to hamstring our economy because a very vocal minority says we must take “immediate/drastic action to avert a looming catastrophe”.
Remember it is IMPOSSIBLE to prove that something doesn’t exist. I can no more disprove your assertion that burning fossil fuels has created a rise in average global temperatures than you can disprove the theory that any changes in average global temperature are part of the natural heating and cooling that the Earth has undergone for the last 4.5 billion years.
So if we are at a stalemate then we must look for some common ground, otherwise we are just going to continue talking past each other and NOTHING will get done.
BUT if we made the leap that maybe we are both partially right we might try to understand that the effect man has had is not as severe OR as disastrous that some on the left are claiming and MAYBE more gradual (but important) changes can be made to reduce the fractional impact we do have.
If the left continues the “Al Gore” chicken little routine they will cede the argument to the right.
Comment by kriskovacs — December 27, 2007 @ 11:25 pm
[…] Click Here <== Link to Article […]
Pingback by Chicken Little . . .Your Private Plane is Waiting « KoFacts — December 27, 2007 @ 11:34 pm
It is vital to critically analyze the parrothead report and highlight the numerous falsities that exist. I appreciate your detailed summary of this report.
Comment by amberb4 — December 28, 2007 @ 12:58 am
kriskovacs has made a very wise point.
While it feeds the alarmist media and thus gets headlines “for the cause” in the short term, the exaggerated approach (of Al Gore, James Hansen or the UN Secretary General) of claiming an imminent “tipping point” that will have disastrous consequences for the entire planet is weakening the argument of those who truly believe anthropogenic global warming is taking place and something should be done to slow this down, if possible.
Exaggerating (or outright lying) to sell a message will eventually catch up with the exaggerators (or liars), in that they and their cause will lose all credibility.
The true AGW supporters would do well to distance themselves from the hysteria and hype of the doomsayers and concentrate on real issues related to energy conservation and pollution abatement.
Max
Comment by Max — December 28, 2007 @ 2:46 am
Here is an extract from the lead article:
“…[The author] counted approximately 40 climatologists and 60 meteorologists, many of whom were TV weathermen, among those voicing doubts. Fair enough. But there were also approximately 60 physicists, 40 geologists, 15 biologists, and more than five astronomers listed as well. All of these various fields do have perspectives to contribute to Climate Change science, but it is not their field of expertise. The biggest stretch of all was the 20 economists counted among the skeptics. If Alan Greenspan were to voice skepticism of Global Warming tomorrow, I doubt it
would get much media attention, but the parrotheads won’t think…”
1) Taking your last point first, you are correct; Greenspan would not be heard, but Sir Nicholas Stern, (an economist) was certainly widely heard for his “Armageddon Report”. Could you please explain; why the difference?
2) The word ‘economist’, just like ‘physicist’, is but a lexeme expandable into many things. Many economists have particular skills such as complex data handling and an understanding of statistical science which may be lacking in many scientists, including physicists. For instance, one of the sixteen “Economists” listed in the report is Ross McKitrick whom together with Steve McIntyre, a GEOLOGIST, both being expert in understanding complex data, unravelled the fraud of the Mann et al 1998 Hockey-stick. There is also the case of these guys correcting NASA GISS temperatures for USA recently to show that the 1930’s were warmer than of late. The beneficial process of the cross–fertilization of inter-disciplinary skills is unfortunately scorned by certain scientific elitists. There are too, of course matters of “economics” policy and other peripherals that have an effect on the science, and economists also participated in the IPCC. Consequently, I submit, that amongst the various disciplines, a ~4% representation of environmental economists, including IPCC advisors, statisticians, climate change authors, etc, seems about right!
3) You might care to consider why meteorology (a close branch of atmospheric science to climatology) appears to be over-represented in your count of experts. If you actually read their dissertations, you will see intelligent scientific arguments, among them commonly that computer modelling of weather forecasting is unreliable. Some of them actually are modellers. It is clear to them that climate change modelling MUST be very much less reliable because the number of unknowns that are substituted by assumptions are far greater than in weather forecasting. In short, there is no way of measuring any effect from CO2, which is why the IPCC SPM panel voted on a guess on probability. Incidentally scientists (with degrees in science)whom appear in front of TV cameras, are not lesser scientists because of that are they? Why mention it?
4) Finally, would you like to check-out how many physicists, geologists, biologists and astronomers were involved in the IPCC itself? I’m amazed that you do not think they play an important role, or that they cannot understand the data or work of specialists across the many fields of climate change! But then, you are not a scientist are you?
Comment by Black Wallaby — December 28, 2007 @ 3:51 am
The day before yesterday, the “experts” predicted yesterday would be sunny. Yesterday, it rained.
Then yesterday, they predicted it would rain today. Not a drop has fallen.
And liberals believe these same “experts” can predict a 2-degree change in climate 100 years out.
Comment by tadcronn — December 28, 2007 @ 4:19 pm
Man, I tell you, this global warming has got me down. What with all the airports being snowed in today and record snowfall in Denver, man, global warming is a bitch!
The fact is there are a lot of scientists who don’t buy the party line on global warming. But you know, if you want a government grant for your research it sure helps to parrot the global warming line.
Yep.
Comment by lwk6431 — December 28, 2007 @ 6:49 pm
Thanks for the scientific reporting, Amateur Ninja Scientist Fact Finder!
Good Work!
Stick to your day job
Comment by Sheryl Crowe — December 31, 2007 @ 2:04 am
Hey Sheryl,
I think your perceptive comment about the ninja lead author may well float high in the atmosphere above his cranium. (wherein there may possibly be but a walnut of convoluted neuron-flow matter)
But anyway, wherefore dost goeth he?
And, will he sometime return with a less silly hair-styling?
Comment by Black Wallaby — December 31, 2007 @ 3:36 am
Specifically, the “consensus” about anthropogenic climate change entails the following:
1) the climate is undergoing a pronounced warming trend beyond the range of natural variability;
2) the major cause of most of the observed warming is rising levels of the greenhouse gas CO2;
3) the rise in CO2 is the result of burning fossil fuels;
4) if CO2 continues to rise over the next century, the warming will continue; and
5) a climate change of the projected magnitude over this time frame represents potential danger to human welfare and the environment.
These conclusions have been explicitly endorsed by:
Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil)
Royal Society of Canada
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Academié des Sciences (France)
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
Indian National Science Academy
Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
Science Council of Japan
Russian Academy of Sciences
Royal Society (United Kingdom)
National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
Australian Academy of Sciences
Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
Caribbean Academy of Sciences
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Royal Irish Academy
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
In addition to these national academies, the following institutions specializing in climate, atmosphere, ocean, and/or earth sciences have endorsed these conclusions:
NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Royal Society of the United Kingdom (RS)
American Geophysical Union (AGU)
American Institute of Physics (AIP)
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
American Meteorological Society (AMS)
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)
These organizations also agree with the consensus:
The Earth Institute at Columbia University
Northwestern University
University of Akureyri
University of Iceland
Iceland GeoSurvey
National Centre for Atmospheric Science UK
Climate Group
Climate Institute
Climate Trust
Wuppertal Institute for Climate Environment and Energy
Royal Meteorological Society
Community Research and Development Centre Nigeria
Geological Society of London
Geological Society of America
UK Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment
Pew Center on Global Climate Change
American Association for the Advancement of Science
National Research Council
Juelich Research Centre
US White House
US Council on Environmental Quality
US Office of Science Technology Policy
US National Climatic Data Center
US Department of Commerce
US National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service
The National Academy of Engineering
The Institute of Medicine
UK Natural Environment Research Council
Office of Science and Technology Policy
Council on Environmental Quality
National Economic Council
Office of Management and Budget
The National Academy of Engineering
The Institute of Medicine
UK Natural Environment Research Council
Australian Government Bureau of Meteorology
Engineers Australia
American Chemical Society
American Association of Blacks in Energy
World Petroleum Council
The Weather Channel
National Geographic
The following companies agree with the consensus:
ABB
Air France
Alcan
Alcoa
Allian
American Electric Power
Aristeia Capital
BASF
Bayer
BP America Inc.
Calvert Group
Canadian Electricity Association
Caterpilliar Inc.
Centrica
Ceres
Chevron
China Renewable
Citigroup
ConocoPhillips
Covanta Holding Corporation
Deutsche Telekom
Doosan Babcock Energy Limited
Duke Energy
DuPont
EcoSecurities
Electricity de France North America
Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand
Endesa
Energettech Austraila Pty Ltd
Energy East Corporation
Energy Holding Romania
Energy Industry Association
Eni
Eskorn
ETG International
Exelon Corporation
ExxonMobil
F&C Asset Management
FPL Group
General Electric
German Electricity Association
Glitnir Bank
Global Energy Network Institute, Iberdrola
ING Group
Institute for Global Environmental Strategies
Interface Inc.
International Gas Union
International Paper
International Power
Marsh & McLennan Companies
Massachusetts Municipal Wholesale Electric Company
MEDIAS-France
MissionPoint Capital Partners
Munich Re
National Grid
National Power Company of Iceland
NGEN mgt II, LLC
NiSource
NRG Energy
PG&E Corporation
PNM Resources
Reykjavik Energy
Ricoh
Rio Tinto Energy Services
Rockefeller Brothers Fund
Rolls-Royce
Societe Generale de Surveillance (SGS Group)
Stora Enso North America
Stratus Consulting
Sun Management Institute
Swiss Re
UCG Partnership
US Geothermal
Verde Venture Partners
Volvo
In addition, the scientific consensus is also endorsed by the CEO’s of the following companies:
A. O. Smith Corporation
Abbott Laboratories
Accenture Ltd.
ACE Limited
ADP
Aetna Inc.
Air Products and Chemicals, Inc.
AK Steel Corporation
Alcatel-Lucent
Allstate Insurance Company
ALLTEL Corporation
Altec Industries, Inc.
American Electric Power Company, Inc.
American Express Company
American International Group, Inc.
Ameriprise Financial
AMR Corporation/American Airlines
Anadarko Petroleum Corporation
Apache Corporation
Applera Corporation
Arch Coal, Inc.
Archer Daniels Midland Company
ArvinMeritor, Inc.
AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP
Avery Dennison Corporation
Avis Budget Group, Inc.
Bechtel Group, Inc.
BNSF Railway
Boeing Company
Brink’s Company
CA
Carlson Companies, Inc.
Case New Holland Inc.
Ceridian Corporation
Chemtura Corporation
Chubb Corporation
CIGNA Corporation
Coca-Cola Company
Constellation Energy Group, Inc.
Convergys Corporation
Con-way Incorporated
Corning Incorporated
Crane Co.
CSX Corporation
Cummins Inc.
Deere & Company
Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu
Delphi Corporation
Dow Chemical Company
Eastman Chemical Company
Eastman Kodak Company
Eaton Corporation
EDS
Eli Lilly and Company
EMC Corporation
Ernst & Young, L.L.P.
Fannie Mae
FedEx Corporation
Fluor Corporation
FMC Corporation
Freddie Mac
General Mills, Inc.
General Motors Corporation
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.
Goodrich Corporation
Harman International Industries, Inc.
Hartford Financial Services Group
Home Depot, Inc., The
Honeywell International, Inc.
HSBC – North America
Humana Inc.
IBM Corporation
Ingersoll-Rand Company
International Textile Group
ITT Corporation
Johnson Controls, Inc.
JP Morgan Chase & Co.
KPMG LLP
Liberty Mutual Group
MassMutual
MasterCard Incorporated
McGraw-Hill Companies
McKesson Corporation
MeadWestvaco Corporation
Medco Health Solutions, Inc.
Merck & Co., Inc.
Merrill Lynch & Company, Inc.
MetLife, Inc.
Morgan Stanley
Motorola, Inc.
Nasdaq Stock Market, Inc.
National Gypsum Company
Nationwide
Navistar International Corporation
New York Life Insurance Company
Norfolk Southern Corporation
Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company
Nucor Corporation
NYSE Group, Inc.
Office Depot, Inc.
Owens Corning (Reorganized) Inc.
Pactiv Corporation
Peabody Energy Corporation
Pfizer Inc
PPG Industries, Inc.
Praxair, Inc.
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Principal Financial Group
Procter & Gamble Company
Prudential Financial
Realogy Corporation
Rockwell Automation, Inc.
Ryder System, Inc.
SAP America, Inc.
Sara Lee Corporation
SAS Institute Inc.
Schering-Plough Corporation
Schneider National, Inc.
ServiceMaster Company
Siemens Corporation
Southern Company
Springs Global US, Inc.
Sprint Nextel
St. Paul Travelers Companies, Inc.
State Farm Insurance Companies
Tenneco
Texas Instruments Incorporated
Textron Incorporated
Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc.
TIAA-CREF
Tyco Electronics
Tyco International Ltd.
Union Pacific Corporation
Unisys Corporation
United Technologies Corporation
UnitedHealth Group Incorporated
USG Corporation
Verizon Communications
W.W. Grainger, Inc.
Western & Southern Financial Group
Weyerhaeuser Company
Whirlpool Corporation
Williams Companies, Inc.
Xerox Corporation
YRC Worldwide Inc
I’ll take this “consensus” over the 400 “scientists” handpicked by Sen Inhofe for his minority skeptics report.
Comment by brewski — December 31, 2007 @ 2:26 pm
Hi brewski, December 31,2007@2:26pm
You really are a fruitcake, you missed out the most important of all!
What about G. W. Bush? He is a believer too you know!
THINK, and Crease thy Brow
THINK, and Crease thy Brow
THINK, and Crease thy Brow
THINK, and Crease thy Brow
THINK, and Crease thy Brow
THINK, and Crease thy Brow
Got it yet?
Ask if thou non comprendo
Black Wallaby
Comment by Black Wallaby — January 2, 2008 @ 3:55 am
Hi brewski, December 31,2007@2:26pm
You allege:
“1) the climate is undergoing a pronounced warming trend beyond the range of natural variability;”
My Response: There is much evidence that there was a Medieval Warm Period (MWP)not long ago, that was warmer than today. Are you able to refute this?
2) the major cause of most of the observed warming is rising levels of the greenhouse gas CO2;
Oh really, could you please quote the actual evidence that these rising CO2 levels measured in parts per million, cause significant warming? Please, I’m anxious to learn!
I guess you realise that the consumption of Kentucky Fried Chicken and other consumables shows a somewhat similar correlation?
THINK DEEPLY THOU…..Black wallaby
Comment by Black Wallaby — January 2, 2008 @ 4:15 am
Brewski has listed around 250 corporations and CEOs of corporations that he says “endorse the scientific consensus” on AGW (whatever that is supposed to mean).
Two questions:
Does this “endorsement of the scientific consensus” include agreement with the doomsday predictions of disastrous consequences from AGW and endorsement of the proposed policy measures to stop these consequences (carbon taxes, cap and trade and carbon credit schemes, etc.)?
I kinda doubt it.
Does this mean that the thousands of non-listed corporations and CEOs of corporations do NOT “endorse the scientific consensus” on AGW?
Max
Comment by Max — January 2, 2008 @ 4:41 am
[…] 3, 2008 My deconstruction of the logical fallacies in Inhofe’s recent report, titled Senate Report Debunks “Consensus” on Global Warming drew a whole lot of comments on my otherwise thoroughly-ignored blog. I really wish the report had […]
Pingback by Inhofe’s Global Warming Book Report Continued… « ideonexus — January 3, 2008 @ 2:00 am
Here’s some good news for you, Ryan
In January 2007 the UK Meteorological Office predicted that 2007 would be “the hottest year on record”.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/01/04/phew_what_a_scorcher/
Met office scientist Katie Hopkins said: “This new information represents another warning that climate change is happening around the world.”
The article went on to say, “The long-term prognosis is alarming. As Reuters puts it: ‘Most scientists agree that temperatures will rise by between two and six degrees Celsius this century due mainly to carbon emissions from burning fossil fuels for power and transport.’”
It’s great to be able to predict a whole year’s average temperature, and even to predict that it will be a “record hot year”.
Let’s see how well the UK’s Meteorological Office really did.
Under the eye-catching headline, “2007 ‘second warmest year’ in UK”, BBC tells us what really happened on a global scale.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7169690.stm
Turns out the top 10 were (from hottest to coolest): 1998, 2005, 2003, 2002, 2004, 2006, 2007, 2001, 1997 and 1995.
OOPS! So, despite the eye-catching headline, 2007 was number seven out of ten and not the “record hot year” at all. If you only take the years in the 21st century, 2007 ranked only number five out of seven, so it was kind of a “blooper”.
So much for predicting temperature for a whole YEAR in advance.
But cheer up, folks, as the article said IPCC’s scientists can predict (or project, as they prefer to call it) that “temperatures will rise by between two and six degrees Celsius” a whole CENTURY in advance.
Too bad none of us will be around in 2100 to see how well (or poorly) they actually did.
Max
Comment by Max — January 5, 2008 @ 9:18 pm
[…] need only look to Senator Inhofe’s and David Demming’s blatantly dishonest attacks on Global Warming Theory to understand why […]
Pingback by NCSBC 2008: Framing Science, Science Debate 2008 « ideonexus — January 21, 2008 @ 7:36 pm
[…] The NY Times reports that Senator Inhofe “has said that [Global Warming’s] effects are exaggerated,” which is a pretty tame way of describing the position of a man who has called global warming a hoax and compared Al Gore to Hitler. (I’ve covered Inhofe here). […]
Pingback by Science Etcetera Saturnday, 20080308 « ideonexus — March 8, 2008 @ 11:15 am
I have been reading up on this subject quite a bit lately and find this long list of CEOs and corporations posted on every blog + site I look at. No matter how hard I try I can not find any real reference for this list of names/supporters. I have searched the IPCC site, googled a ton of terms and have come up with nothing. Does anyone have an actual source link? Is this list just rampant blog wildfire or is it actually backed up by something I can read – I would like to see this list of names within the context of the report it is supposedly pulled from…any help is appreciated.
Comment by Mark — November 19, 2009 @ 11:22 am