The Climate Conspiracy Exposing the deceit of climate scientists

The Scientific Consensus on Global Warming

A topic that usually comes up in the great anthropogenic global warming debate is whether or not there is a consensus among scientists that human produced greenhouse gases were the primary driving force behind the most recent warming episode we experienced (1975 - 1998). (I think it's hilarious that when we discuss global warming we have to put the years in brackets, because it's been missing for quite a while now!)

The alarmist's argument:

97% of climate scientists actively publishing climate papers endorse the position that human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures. (2009 poll)

The skeptic's argument:

The Petition Project features over 31,000 scientists signing the petition stating "there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases will, in the forseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide may produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth." (Petition Project)

So let's look at both of these arguments.

The Alarmists

We will start with the argument the alarmists use. They quote a 2009 poll in which 10,257 Earth scientists were invited to participate in an internet based poll which asked two questions:

1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?

2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

Question 1 is ridiculous. I'm pretty sure basically everyone will agree that we experienced warming as we came out of the Little Ice Age (although 3 climatologists in their poll disagreed - I'd love to know why.)

The answers to question 2 were the main result that was discussed in the poll. I feel question two is very poorly worded. Does significant mean "an important contributing factor" or does it mean "the driving force"? Does significant mean that it contributes to the majority of climate change, or does it mean that it contributes a (minimally) quantifiable amount? I think that CO2 contributes to climate change, but I think we greatly exaggerate the amount. How would I answer that question?

Of the 10,257 people that were invited to participate, only 3,146 answered the poll. The vast majority of respondents were from the U.S., with the rest being from Canada and other countries. About 90% of respondents had PhDs, which is approximately 2,830. The rest had M.S. (masters) and B.S. (bachelors) degrees.

According to the poll, 97.4% of climate scientists (97.4% sounds impressive until you see that it means 75 people out of 77) who are actively publishing papers agree that CO2 is a significant contributing factor to changing mean global temperature. For most alarmists, this is all they need to read. They see this result, and they run with it. They think that this means that 97.4% of climate scientists agree that we are on a crash course to hell, all the worlds ice is going to melt, the polar bears will die, everyone will get malaria and HIV, and we will lose most of our land because of rising sea levels.

But it's not that simple. Do these 75 (97.4%) climate scientists think that we are undergoing catastrophic warming as shown in the IPCC reports? Or do they believe that the warming is marginally greater than that of natural variation? Do they think that CO2 is the sole factor contributing to warming? Or do they think that CO2 has contributed to a minor (but quantifiable) amount of warming? Do they think that our current warming is unmatched in the last 1,000 years? Or do they think prior times were warmer than this? Do they think that dendrochronology is a junk science? (As Dr. Ed Cook implied here.) Or do they think that it is an appropriate way to look at paleoclimate? Do they think solar irradiance was a major input or not?

The problem is the poll question is too simple. We can not infer the answers to any of the above questions from the poll. It operates on the principle that if you ask a vague enough question then you can prove whatever you want. This poll is as clever as a carnival fortune teller.

Let's look at what the climate scientist Keith Briffa thinks, and then we can further evaluate if there is really a scientific consensus. (I apologize for this long, poorly formatted email but this is how Dr. Keith Briffa wrote it. I didn't want to alter anything. You can access the original here. If you don't know who Keith Briffa is, he is one of the climate scientists involved with the ClimateGate scandal. There is a great article that speculates that he may be the whistleblower that leaked all of the ClimateGate emails and documents.)

From: Keith Briffa
To: "Folland, Chris" , 'Phil Jones' , "Michael E. Mann"
Subject: RE: IPCC revisions
Date: Wed Sep 22 16:19:06 1999
Cc: tkarl@ncdc.noaa.gov

Hi everyone

Let me say that I don't mind what you put in the policy makers summary if there is a general concensus. However some general discussion would be valuable . First , like Phil , I think that the supposed separation of the tree-ring reconstruction from the others on the grounds that it is not a true "multi-proxy" series is hard to justify. What is true is that these particular tree-ring data best represent SUMMER temperatures mostly at the northern boreal forest regions. By virtue of this , they also definately share significant variance with Northern Hemisphere land and land and marine ANNUAL temperatures - but at decadal and multidecadal timescales - simply by virtue of the fact that these series correlated with the former at these timescales. The multi proxy series (Mann et al . Jones et al) supposedly represent annual and summer seasons respectively, and both contain large proportions of tree-ring input. The latest tree-ring density curve ( i.e. our data that have been processed to retain low frequency information) shows more similarity to the other two series- as do a number of other lower resolution data ( Bradley et al, Peck et al ., and new Crowley series - see our recent Science piece) whether this represents 'TRUTH' however is a difficult problem. I know Mike thinks his series is the 'best' and he might be right - but he may also be too dismissive of other data and possibly over confident in his (or should I say his use of other's). After all, the early ( pre-instrumental) data are much less reliable as indicators of global temperature than is apparent in modern calibrations that include them and when we don't know the precise role of particular proxies in the earlier portions of reconstruction it remains problematic to assign genuine confidence limits at multidecadal and longer timescales. I still contend that multiple regression against the recent very trendy global mean series is potentially dangerous. You could calibrate the proxies to any number of seasons , regardless of their true optimum response . Not for a moment am I saying that the tree-ring , or any other proxy data, are better than Mike's series - indeed I am saying that the various reconstructions are not independent but that they likely contribute more information about reality together than they do alone. I do believe , that it should not be taken as read that Mike's series (or Jone's et al. for that matter) is THE CORRECT ONE. I prefer a Figure that shows a multitude of reconstructions (e.g similar to that in my Science piece). Incidently, arguing that any particular series is probably better on the basis of what we now about glaciers or solar output is flaky indeed. Glacier mass balance is driven by the difference mainly in winter accumulation and summer ablation , filtered in a complex non-linear way to give variously lagged tongue advance/retreat .Simple inference on the precidence of modern day snout positions does not translate easily into absolute (or relative) temperature levels now or in the past. Similarly, I don't see that we are able to substantiate the veracity of different temperature reconstructions through reference to Solar forcing theories without making assumptions on the effectiveness of (seasonally specific ) long-term insolation changes in different parts of the globe and the contribution of solar forcing to the observed 20th century warming .

There is still a potential problem with non-linear responses in the very recent period of some biological proxies ( or perhaps a fertilisation through high CO2 or nitrate input) . I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards 'apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data' but in reality the situation is not quite so simple. We don't have a lot of proxies that come right up to date and those that do (at least a significant number of tree proxies ) some unexpected changes in response that do not match the recent warming. I do not think it wise that this issue be ignored in the chapter.
For the record, I do believe that the proxy data do show unusually warm conditions in recent decades. I am not sure that this unusual warming is so clear in the summer responsive data. I believe that the recent warmth was probably matched about 1000 years ago. I do not believe that global mean annual temperatures have simply cooled progressively over thousands of years as Mike appears to and I contend that that there is strong evidence for major changes in climate over the Holocene (not Milankovich) that require explanation and that could represent part of the current or future background variability of our climate. I think the Venice meeting will be a good place to air these isssues.
Finally I appologise for this rather self-indulgent ramble, but I thought I may as well voice these points to you . I too would be happy to go through the recent draft of the chapter when it becomes available.

cheers to all
Keith

In that very telling email we see at least four things: 1. that Dr. Briffa believes the Medieval Warm Period was as warm or warmer than it is today (which means our current warming is not unique, which means he believes natural variation is more than enough to account for our current warming), 2. that he is under pressure to manipulate his data to present a nice and tidy story of global warming, 3. that he does not agree with Dr. Michael Mann on which tree ring reconstructions are the best ones (note the lack of a consensus about certain data within the ClimateGate team), and 4. he believes that Mann has misrepresented the data before (about it cooling progressively over a thousand years.)

So how would he have answered the poll question? I believe he would have said that he thinks CO2 is a significant factor that contributes to changing global mean temperatures and therefore would be included in the 97.4%. But I don't think that he believes we are on a crash course to hell caused by global warming. So would it really be right for an alarmist to claim that he is part of a scientific consensus that believes in what they believe?

Next, we have to look at the poll's definition of a climate scientist, which is as follows: "respondents that listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change." How many of those did they have that agreed? 75. If we look at just the U.S., that is about 1.5 climatologists per state! The "consensus" is just 75 climatologists!

It gets worse. At first glance we would be tempted to believe those 75 people are all climatologists, but we would be wrong. It is impossible to know who responded to the poll, but we can cast doubt on some of the responders qualifications by looking at some of the biggest players in the climatology game.

Let's start with Dr. Rajendra Pachauri. He is the head of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - they compile data that presents a picture of global warming and use it to try to convince the world's legislators that we are on a crash course to hell.) By the above definition he would be considered a climatologist. But his PhD is in Railroad Engineering.

We also know about Dr. Michael Mann from Penn State. He is the climate "scientist" that is infamous for publishing his hockey stick tree ring graphs that have been thourougly debunked multiple times. He's notorious for using horrible program code to present his data in widely distorted ways, he has bullied journal editors into not accepting skeptical climatology papers, and he has corrupted the peer review process. By the above definition he would be considered a climatologist, but his PhD is in Geology / Geophysics.

And we have Gavin Schmidt, who founded the CRU propaganda site RealClimate, credited as a climatologist. But his PhD is in Applied Mathematics. And we also have Dr. Edward Cook who has a PhD in Watershed Management. You gotta love what Dr. Cook thinks about his own field of study!

(Note: in no way am I down-playing Applied Mathematics, Geology, or Railroad Engineering, nor am I saying that they are unqualified to discuss climate change, but they technically aren't climatologists. I am merely pointing this out to demonstrate that the poll's definition of a climatologist is flawed.)

This leads us to the next problem with the poll. There is no way to audit the poll's results. We can't go through their data and see the names of the people who claim to be climatologists. We can't verify their credentials. We don't know if they actually exist. We don't know what kinds of papers they've published, which journals they've been in, if any, or anything else.

Lastly, an alarmist arguing that the are correct because a "scientific consensus" agrees with them is a logical fallacy known as an appeal to authority, in which it is argued that a statement is correct because the statement is made by a person or source that is commonly regarded as authoritative.

So, we have shown that the poll's questions were rather vague, that their definition of climatologist was rather vague, that we can't audit who responded to the poll, and that there is pressure put on climatologists to present a tidy picture of global warming (thanks ClimateGate!).

I'll leave it up to you to decide if you think that the poll shows that there is a consensus among climatologists about anthropogenic global warming. Personally, I feel that the poll was worthless and the questions were too vague to get anything useful from. Even most skeptics think CO2 has contributed to the recent warming period, just in very, very small amounts.

The Skeptics

The Petition Project is a petition that consists of (currently) 31,478 signatures all of which support this very concrete statement:

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases will, in the forseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide may produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

The statement behind this petition is strengthened by the NIPCC (Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change) report. The NIPCC report is an 880 page book that demonstrates overwhelming scientific support for the position that the warming of the twentieth century was moderate and not unprecedented, that its impact on human health and wildlife was positive, and that carbon dioxide probably is not the driving factor behind climate change. The report is available for download here.

Of those 31,478 signatures from the petition, 9,029 are PhDs, 7,153 M.S.s, 2,585 M.D.s or D.V.M.s, and 12,711 B.S.s. These are staggering numbers. This petition has 10 times the number of people than the alarmist poll had. This petition has three times more PhDs than the alarmists poll had.

Reader Frank Evans has noted the following: "I would add that the OISM Petition signers were each painstakingly verified. The M.D. and D.V.M. signers were also required to have earned a degree in one of the hard sciences. All petition signers were required to be U.S. citizens or U.S. legal residents; if the Petition had been opened to scientists worldwide, the numbers would have been far higher."

This petition is powerful because it backs a very specific statement, as quoted above. It is not vague, and it makes it very clear what the people who signed it believe. This is the opposite of the alarmist poll, because the poll was rather vague in asking what people felt about the anthropogenic contributions of greenhouse gases.

Also, this petition is powerful because people had to voluntarily go out of their way to sign it. They had to contact the Petition Project, fill out a form, and mail it in. For the alarmist poll, the population was contacted by the pollers and they were able to (much more easily) fill out a form on the internet without having to even leave their office.

Some criticisms of the petition project are the population that make up the signatures. Critics say that some of the people who have signed are not qualified to give their opinion on climate science. But at the same time they would let a railroad engineer head the IPCC. Let's look at a breakdown of the educational backgrounds of the signees and see why each educational background is important to understanding climate change.

1. Atmospheric, environmental, and Earth sciences includes 3,803 scientists trained in specialties directly related to the physical environment of the Earth and the past and current phenomena that affect that environment.

2. Computer and mathematical sciences includes 935 scientists trained in computer and mathematical methods. Since the human-caused global warming hypothesis rests entirely upon mathematical computer projections and not upon experimental observations, these sciences are especially important in evaluating this hypothesis.

3. Physics and aerospace sciences include 5,810 scientists trained in the fundamental physical and molecular properties of gases, liquids, and solids, which are essential to understanding the physical properties of the atmosphere and Earth.

4. Chemistry includes 4,818 scientists trained in the molecular interactions and behaviors of the substances of which the atmosphere and Earth are composed.

5. Biology and agriculture includes 2,964 scientists trained in the functional and environmental requirements of living things on the Earth.

6. Medicine includes 3,046 scientists trained in the functional and environmental requirements of human beings on the Earth.

7. Engineering and general science includes 10,102 scientists trained primarily in the many engineering specialties required to maintain modern civilization and the prosperity required for all human actions, including environmental programs.

The outline below gives a more detailed analysis of the signers’ educations. The numbers in parenthesis are the number of signatures in that particular area of study. The subjects in bold are the broad categories, and beneath them are a breakdown of the categories.

Atmosphere, Earth, and Environment (3,803)
1. Atmosphere (578)
a) Atmospheric Science (113)
b) Climatology (39)
c) Meteorology (341)
d) Astronomy (59)
e) Astrophysics (26)

2. Earth (2,240)
a) Earth Science (94)
b) Geochemistry (63)
c) Geology (1,684)
d) Geophysics (341)
e) Geoscience (36)
f) Hydrology (22)

3. Environment (985)
a) Environmental Engineering (486)
b) Environmental Science (253)
c) Forestry (163)
d) Oceanography (83)

Computers and Math (935)
1. Computer Science (242)

2. Math (693)
a) Mathematics (581)
b) Statistics (112)

Physics and Aerospace (5,810)
1. Physics (5,223)
a) Physics (2,365)
b) Nuclear Engineering (223)
c) Mechanical Engineering (2,635)

2. Aerospace Engineering (587)

Chemistry (4,818)
1. Chemistry (3,126)

2. Chemical Engineering (1,692)

Biochemistry, Biology, and Agriculture (2,964)
1. Biochemistry (744)
a) Biochemistry (676)
b) Biophysics (68)

2. Biology (1,437)
a) Biology (1,048)
b) Ecology (76)
c) Entomology (59)
d) Zoology (149)
e) Animal Science (105)

3. Agriculture (783)
a) Agricultural Science (296)
b) Agricultural Engineering (114)
c) Plant Science (292)
d) Food Science (81)

Medicine (3,046)
1. Medical Science (719)

2. Medicine (2,327)

General Engineering and General Science (10,102)
1. General Engineering (9,833)
a) Engineering (7,280)
b) Electrical Engineering (2,169)
c) Metallurgy (384)

2. General Science (269)

Again, the numbers are staggering. There are 3,803 signees that specialize in atmosphere, earth, and environmental science. Compare that to the 75 that the alarmist poll had. Yikes

The Conclusion

I've presented all the facts and you are free to draw your own conclusions. This should give you plenty to think about the next time you hear an alarmist cry that the "consensus among scientists is that humans are causing global warming." Just remember that their consensus was 75 anonymous people who may have not even been climatologists, and remember that the questions from that poll were so vague that even skeptics could possibly answer "yes" to it.

Update
In open letter to the United Nations Secretary-General, Ban Ki Moon, 141 Scientists state that the science behind anthropogenic global warming is anything but "settled". See it here.

This link has a list of 500 peer reviewed papers which support skepticism of "man-made" global warming or the environmental or economic effects of. See it here.

A great article about many professionals who had to hide their skeptical views in order to keep receiving funding. See it here.