Wednesday, March 03, 2010

Global Warming: Fact or Fraud? Cui Bono?

These Groups Say The Danger Of Manmade Global Warming Is A . . .

U.S. Agency for International Development

United States Department of Agriculture

National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration

National Institute of Standards and Technology

United States Department of Defense

United States Department of Energy

National Institutes of Health

United States Department of State

United States Department of Transportation

U.S. Geological Survey

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

University Corporation for Atmospheric Research

National Center for Atmospheric Research

National Aeronautics & Space Administration

National Science Foundation

Smithsonian Institution

International Arctic Science Committee

Arctic Council

African Academy of Sciences

Australian Academy of Sciences

Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts

Academia Brasileira de Ciéncias

Cameroon Academy of Sciences

Royal Society of Canada

Caribbean Academy of Sciences

Chinese Academy of Sciences

Académie des Sciences, France

Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences

Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina of Germany

Indonesian Academy of Sciences

Royal Irish Academy

Accademia nazionale delle scienze of Italy

Indian National Science Academy

Science Council of Japan

Kenya National Academy of Sciences

Madagascar’s National Academy of Arts, Letters and Sciences

Academy of Sciences Malaysia

Academia Mexicana de Ciencias

Nigerian Academy of Sciences

Royal Society of New Zealand

Polish Academy of Sciences

Russian Academy of Sciences

l’Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal

Academy of Science of South Africa

Sudan Academy of Sciences

Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences

Tanzania Academy of Sciences

Turkish Academy of Sciences

Uganda National Academy of Sciences

The Royal Society of the United Kingdom

National Academy of Sciences, United States

Zambia Academy of Sciences

Zimbabwe Academy of Science

American Academy of Pediatrics

American Association for the Advancement of Science

American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians

American Astronomical Society

American Chemical Society

American College of Preventive Medicine

American Geophysical Union

American Institute of Physics

American Medical Association

American Meteorological Society

American Physical Society

American Public Health Association

American Quaternary Association

American Institute of Biological Sciences

American Society of Agronomy

American Society for Microbiology

American Society of Plant Biologists

American Statistical Association

Association of Ecosystem Research Centers

Botanical Society of America

Crop Science Society of America

Ecological Society of America

Federation of American Scientists

Geological Society of America

National Association of Geoscience Teachers

Natural Science Collections Alliance

Organization of Biological Field Stations

Society of American Foresters

Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics

Society of Systematic Biologists

Soil Science Society of America

Australian Coral Reef Society

Australian Medical Association

Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society

Engineers Australia

Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies

Geological Society of Australia

British Antarctic Survey

Institute of Biology, UK

Royal Meteorological Society, UK

Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences

Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society

European Federation of Geologists

European Geosciences Union

European Physical Society

European Science Foundation

International Association for Great Lakes Research

International Union for Quaternary Research

International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

World Federation of Public Health Associations

World Health Organization

World Meteorological Organization


American Petroleum Institute

US Chamber of Commerce

National Association of Manufacturers

Competitive Enterprise Institute

Industrial Minerals Association

National Cattlemen’s Beef Association

Great Northern Project Development

Rosebud Mining

Massey Energy

Alpha Natural Resources

Southeastern Legal Foundation

Georgia Agribusiness Council

Georgia Motor Trucking Association

Corn Refiners Association

National Association of Home Builders

National Oilseed Processors Association

National Petrochemical and Refiners Association

Western States Petroleum Association

“FACT” organizations from Is There a Scientific Concensus on Global Warming?,

“FRAUD” organizations are petitioners v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act.

HT: Hazel Rubenstein.


Anonymous said...

"If the Nigerian Academy of Sciences says it, that settles it" is my motto in all things.

Shackleman said...

LOLOLOL!!!! "American Academy of Pediatrics"

Just one example of a plethora of the "FACT" supporters who, by virtue of their specialties have no more expert knowledge about climate science than does my hamster.

Few things irritate me more in this debate than lists of "scientsts" who claim Global Warming as fact. What a complete canard those lists are. Both of them. They're completely and utterly irrelevant to the truth or falsehood of GW simpliciter, and AGW in particular.

The only opinions that should matter on the subject, and the only names that should be in any list pro or con are names of persons or institutions who specialize in climate science.

Anonymous said...

I'm no more impressed by this list than most here would be impressed by the number of governmental and scientific organizations that thought eugenics and sterilization programs was damn important. Or the number of governments and academics who thought marxism and its "scientific" treatment of history and the human condition was undeniable.

What's more, and here's the part everyone dances around: A) A lot of the most famous 'denialists' (as idiots call them) do not deny there is global warming. They question whether the warming is caused by man or the degree of warming. Treating any person who has a problem with AGW claims as a denier of global warming is a farce.

And B) Many of those who believe in global warming, or even AGW, are not convinced that the best way to handle it is as so many yammering politicians believe - or, for that matter, scientists who want to start dictating policy (back in the lab, you freaks).

The authority card with AGW died the moment the CRU's emails were leaked. Since then, so many retractions, corrections, etc have come to the IPCC's documents that everyone can see the BS for what it is. It wasn't merely the reality of some kind of global warming or climate change that people wanted acknowledgment of, but a willingness to accede to all kinds of inane economic and political ideas without question because the sky is falling. That time is over.

oleg said...

So let's restrict the lists to persons or institutions taht specialize in climate science.


National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration

American Meteorological Society

National Center for Atmospheric Research

Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society

Royal Meteorological Society, UK

Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences

Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

World Meteorological Organization



Martin said...

The American Psychiatric Association and every other Psychiatric Assosiation assure me that homosexuality and transgenders are normal. The American Gynecologic Association assures me that abortion is good.

Guess I'm wrong about all these things.

Besides, an arument from authority is the weakest argument. it would require I have faith in these instituions. I don't. it seems to me that they all trust the initial studies w/out verifing the data and results so they use their data anf results to confirm the assumption

Shackleman said...


If your post was directed toward me, then you're barking up the wrong tree since I happen to agree that AGW is *probably* true. Unlike you (evidently) I'm just completely unimpressed with long, and utterly irrelevant lists of so called "experts".

I'm also completely unimpressed with arguments (implied or explicit) that get their force by no other means than from authority and majority.

Anon, you make excellent points.

CrisisMaven said...

Wow, that is an amazingly long list. I see you are dealng with statistical research. I have put one of the most comprehensive link lists for hundreds of thousands of statistical sources and indicators on my blog: Statistics Reference List. And what I find most fascinating is how data can be visualised nowadays with the graphical computing power of modern PCs, as in many of the dozens of examples in these Data Visualisation References. If you miss anything that I might be able to find for you or you yourself want to share a resource, please leave a comment. I will add some of the institutions you listed, though I mayhave to search for the links myself :-(

Shackleman said...

"it seems to me that they all trust the initial studies w/out verifing the data and results so they use their data and results to confirm the assumption"

-quoted for truth.

Blaise Pascal said...

@Oleg: Be fair and put at least the IPCC and the Royal Meteorological Society under the fraud-heading.

Steven said...

Dear Sir,

Excuse me--how can NOAA say anything at all about the matter? NOAA is not a person--it cannot speak with one voice nor can any agency on that list. So how is a range of experts subsumed into one voice meaningful. If you asked a majority of voting members of the IUP if Pluto is a planet they'd tell you know--thus IUP would show up on the NO list. Does that make it true, or again even meaningful?

As an Earth Scientist myself, I find it highly likely that Earth is warming up. I think than not from recent data but from the idea that we are emerging from one of the coldest periods in Earth history. It behooves us to remember that there have been significant stretches of Earth's past during which we have had no polar ice cap. If someone suggested that we were warming up, I would say that climate data from the little Ice Age of 1666 until today support that conclusion--but they do not support the extreme opinions on either side.

Moreover, I would say the geoscientists of the API are at least as competent to advance a professional opinion on the matter than many you have sited as saying that it is happening. But I suspect they were discounted because they might have an agenda? And do we presume from that that other scientists do not?

I am actually very tired of the whole debate framed in these terms because it blurs a purely moral/ethical question that doesn't really require science to answer. If we have the means to do so with serious damage to other Earth resources and human lives, should we not do what we can to curtail our degradation of the environment?

To me, that is a far more interesting, far-reaching question that the strictly utilitarian issue of whether we're polluting ourselves to death. We may be--but even if not, if the means exist to reduce pollutants, why do we not use them, and by using them, make them less expensive to use ultimately. They are expensive now in the same way any new or unused technology is expensive, but as they become used, new means are discovered to reduce costs and increase efficiencies. So the strictly economic question needs to be weighed with all of those factors in mind.

Any way--it is an interesting way to introduce a point--but entirely beside the important central point--Dominion or stewardship--which capacity is more natural and more reasonable.





Shackleman said...

Mr. Riddle, you're quite right by my estimation.

The Deer Hunter Objection applies to GW.

For those who may have missed it. The Deer Hunter Objection says that if you're not entirely sure that the thing you're pointing your rifle at is a deer, and if there's any reasonable chance that the thing in your sites is a human, then you have a moral obligation not to pull the trigger.

It applies to abortion too. And in this case applies in reverse to GW.

If there's a reasonable chance that GW is real, and that humans are contributing to it, and that we have the means to reduce our contribution to it, then we have a moral obligation to do what we can, (in spite of long irrelevant lists, sloppy scientists, or scientists with political agendas).

Blaise Pascal said...

I disagree, Shackleman. The burden of proof lies on the side that promotes action against global warming.

One could turn your argument around and say: "If there's a reasonable chance that the damage to our economy by acting against non-existent GW is real, and that humans are contributing to it, and that we have the means to reduce our contribution to it, then we have a moral obligation to do what we can, (in spite of long irrelevant lists, sloppy scientists, or scientists with political agendas)."

J said...

Note that most org.s claiming AGW's a fraud tend to be in the
petroleum biz, or cattle, or development.

Sort of the same people who get their science from FoxNews. AGW's bad for the oil companies, which are being strapped with additional regulations. Ergo, to the wingnut right, AGW, given its slightly anti-capitalist implications, must be mistaken.

That said, few AGW experts consider Al Gore or IPCC responsible spokespersons. Global temperatures have steadily increased over the last century, and GHGs appear to be a contributing factor. Yet the specifics of man-made CO2 to warming have not been conclusively established.

Gordon Knight said...

suppose that global warming was a mere intellectual issue. Suppose that whatever happened to the climate, there would be no practical consequences one way or the other

How many people would be arguing against it?

I remember in the 80s (!) an article in scientific american predicting global warming.

And what was predicted, has started to happen

Nothing is certain,but its pretty damn good evidence for what,after all, is an empirical issue.

Mark said...

The authority card with AGW died the moment the CRU's emails were leaked.


Shackleman said...


I don't necessarily disagree with you. Which is why the debate about whether or not GW *is* real is so important. It's also why the credibility issues with respect to the email leaks (among other blunders and frauds) are so damaging to the GW proponents.

That said, to me, it's a "preponderance of the evidence" case, not a "beyond reasonable doubt" case. That's because it's doubtful we will ever have the technology, data, and understanding to know with certainty.

It also means, in my view, "doing what we can" implies that we shouldn't act in ways that will ruin economies. Instead, we could do things which mitigate our contribution to GW that won't break the bank. Putting on clean smokestacks would hurt one company, but benefit the company who manufactures the smokestack. Meanwhile, there may even be ways we can mitigate our contribution to GW while simultaneously *boosting* our economy. Such as in the production, manufacture, and sale of clean-emission automobiles. Things of this nature are win-win and really ought to be pursued.

Martin said...

Relevent to many who post here: A large part of the GW people push manditory population control as a necessary part of the "cure" for GW. I heard Noah Webster on NPR ask Al Gore about his new book. Even Noah asked why we would try to limit the number of Chinese farmers with a next to zero carbon foot print bring technology to the remaining ones to increase their foot print. Al answered that with the new magic we can decrease the footprint of us global trotters.

Overall GW has spun far away from the question of what is happening to the globe but rather who calls the shots.

Anonymous said...

Victor Reppert, dangerous screwball?

Victor Reppert said...

I think you have to distinguish the question of whether global warming is likely to be real from the question of what is reasonable and not reasonable to do about it. So, for example, we can certainly acknowledge that Jihadist terrorism is a serious threat and that some things need to be done about it, without at the same time saying that waterboarding detainees is morally justified. Similarly, one can think global warming is a good idea without necessarily endorsing everything that, say, Al Gore, wants to do about it.

The way I look at it, capitalism is at its best when it is democratic, when anybody can enter the field with a new idea or new product and be successful. If we are trying to change to non-traditional energy sources, then I would hope for a fresh field day for innovative entrepreneurs. That's when the pressures of competition actually will pressure even greedy bastards in business to do things that benefit the common good. Capitalism is at its weakest when it becomes oligarchic, when a few entrenched companies have taken over the field, and may in fact be in collusion. That is how I see the oil industry today. Of course, oligarchic capitalists will try to hold on to their position, and use government to preserve their postiion. . The banking industry, with the "too big to fail" companies, which prevailed upon a Republican-dominated government to do the most socialistic thing our government has ever done, would be another example of oligarchic capitalism. It's my hope that acknowledging global warming might give a shot in the arm to democratic, as opposed to oligarchic capitalism.

Captain Obvious said...

You have a bunch of individual parties that have it in their interest to perform actions that contribute to global warming and those costs are all externalities. You think these same parties will somehow fix the problem? They'd have to internalize costs that no one is making them internalize while doing that in the pursuit of self-interest. That's something like a proof that it will never ever happen.

Victor Reppert said...

So the pressure to undermine this oligarchy has to come from....government? Can't be. What a Marxist idea.

Anonymous said...

"cui bono" -- "to whose benefit?"

I thought somebody should explain that. -- Bilbo

Captain Obvious said...

"So the pressure to undermine this oligarchy has to come from....government? Can't be. What a Marxist idea."

I'm guessing that you're joking, but in case you aren't.

Q: What's "Marxist" about forcing firms to internalize the costs that they otherwise impose upon others?

A: Nothing.

Q: Doesn't this involve an unjust imposition upon the liberty of these firms?

A: Tricky question. Their behavior constitutes an imposition upon the welfare of the rest of us. On its face, that's the beginning of a case for thinking that the answer is 'No'.

Victor Reppert said...

Hey Bilbo, thanks for explaining cui bono. I guess I expected people to know their Poirot.

And CO, yes, I was kidding.

J said...

Govt. intervention of various types should not be labelled (and summarily dismissed) as "Marxist," VR. The EPA established various regs in the 70s, but that was hardly communism (as did say Teddy Roosevlt via safe workplace/labor/health laws and codes, etc). The cap and trade legis. merely puts a few additional limits on oil, coal and other energy-related industries in regard to GHGs

Bilbo said...

I think Dr. Reppert was using "Marxist" facetiously.

Victor Reppert said...

Yes, I was kidding about Marxism. The point of the lists was not to appeal to the authority of scientific organizations, but to point out the fact the organizations that support skepticism about manmade global warming are the same ones who benefit from out doing nothing about global warming. The question, cui bono, was central to the whole thing. Those whose profits depend upon global warming denial support the skepticism about global warming.