Re: NBC: Questions for Al Gore; by Dr. Roy Spencer

Do you even take the smallest amount of time to check any of this out?

Here's the Exxon *** on your newest stooge:

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfact***.php?id=1068

What is the problem over there at Exxon? Have they reached the bottom of the
barrel? Do we get a chemist? NO. Do we get a physicist or a biologist? NO.
Do we get a geologist? NO. What do we get? A Social Anthropologist and
Sports Sociologist. Is Sociolology now part of the Department of Natural
Science and Mathematics at any college you know about? Maybe Falwell's
Liberty University.

Pathetic.A Social Anthropologist is going to lecture us on chemistry. What's
next?



JH




"SMBalloon" <smballoon@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:m10i72h64ej35b0qgm9o5jmf84778qc1uh@xxxxxxxxxx
On Sat, 27 May 2006 18:32:36 -0500, "gumboman" <noemail@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

Since you can't provide a single peer reviewed paper challenging the
science
that has accumulated on global warming

Essay Claiming 'Scientific Consensus' for Global Warming is Ridiculed
By Marc Morano
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
December 07, 2004

(CNSNews.com) - A Science Magazine essay claiming there is a
"scientific consensus" about human-caused "global warming" was
ridiculed Monday by a British scientist, who compared such a
"consensus" to the near-unanimous elections that existed in the old
Soviet Union.

On Monday, Benny Peiser, a United Kingdom social anthropologist,
called the Dec. 3 essay, "The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change,"
a "disturbing" study.

"A one-hundred-percent record of 'scientific consensus' on
anthropogenic climate change would be a sensational finding indeed. In
fact, such a total result would be even more remarkable than any
'consensus' ever achieved in Soviet-style elections," Peiser noted
sarcastically.

The Science Magazine essay analyzed 928 abstracts containing the
keyword "climate change," all published in peer-reviewed scientific
journals between 1993 and 2003. The essay found that not a single one
of the studies showed climate change to be naturally occurring.

The essay was written by University of California professor Naomi
Oreskes, a member of the University's Department of History and
Science Studies Program.

According to Oreskes, "None of these (928) papers argued that [current
climate change is natural]."

"This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed
literature agree with [United Nations] IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change), the National Academy of Sciences, and the public
statements of their professional societies," Oreskes wrote.

"Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the
impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate
scientists, but that impression is incorrect," she added.

"The question of what to do about climate change is also still open.
But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic
(human caused) climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly
tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen,"
concluded Oreskes.

But Peiser, a senior lecturer in Social Anthropology & Sport Sociology
at Liverpool John Moores University and the editor of of CCNet
(Cambridge Conference Network) webzine, labeled Oreskes' essay a
"disturbing article.

"Whatever happened to the countless research papers published in the
last ten years in peer-reviewed journals that show that temperatures
were generally higher during the Medieval Warm Period than today, that
solar variability is most likely to be the key driver of any
significant climate change and that the methods used in climate
modeling are highly questionable?" Peiser asked.

"Given the countless papers published in the peer-reviewed literature
over the last ten years that implicitly or explicitly disagree with
the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming, one can only conclude
that all of these were simply excluded from the [Science Magazine]
review. That's how it arrived at a 100 percent consensus!" he added.

According to Peiser, Oreskes' assertion that there is a 100 percent
consensus about the issue is not backed by science.

"Even [former Soviet dictator Joseph] Stalin himself did not take
consensus politics to such extremes," Peiser explained. "In the Soviet
Union the official 'participation rate' was never higher than 98-99
percent.

"So how did the results published in Science achieve a 100 percent
level of conformity? Regrettably, the article does not include any
reference to the [unpublished?] study itself, let alone the
methodology on which the research was based. This makes it difficult
to check how Oreskes arrived at the truly miraculous results," he
added.

'Easily debunked falsehood'

Chris Horner, a senior fellow at the free market environmental group
Competitive Enterprise Institute, also criticized the idea that there
is a "scientific consensus" on "global warming."

"Publishing such an easily debunked falsehood in an erstwhile
reputable, peer-review publication (Science Magazine) demonstrates
either a new low in desperation or a new generation believing there
are no checks and therefore no limits," Horner told CNSNews.com.

After all, past nonsense brought increasing taxpayer funding for
decades. What would make them think they can't just make things up?"
Horner added.

Iain Murray, a senior fellow in International Policy at the
Competitive Enterprise Institute, wrote a letter to the editor of
Science Magazine questioning why the study was even published.

"I was surprised to see Science publish an article crowing over the
existence of a scientific consensus on global warming and then
advancing the non-sequitur that political action is therefore needed.
Neither is a point worthy of consideration in an objective, scientific
journal," Murray wrote in his letter to the editor, dated Dec. 6.

"...the message of the article -- that politicians must act on the
basis of the science -- is clearly a political point rather than a
scientific one," Murray continued.

"...the argument advanced by the author that 'our grandchildren will
surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of
anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it' is
barely economically literate and has no place in a scientific
journal," he added.

(end of commentary)


.