[Vision2020] Climate

[Ted Moffett]

I do not expect to change your mind, but the misinformation you are
promoting on climate science might mislead those who have not
investigated this subect in depth.  The urgency for citizens to push for
action from government, the private sector and on a personal level, to
address anthropogenic climate change, is weakened by misinformation on this
critical scientific issue. So for those who may be following this thread,
such as it is, I will respond.

The Heartland Institute, which you referenced regarding an upcoming
"International Conference on Climate Change," is not a legitimate peer
reviewed scientific organization, and is well known for promoting junk
science on climate, not "a broader view," as you asserted.   For example,
they promoted the book "Unstoppable Global Warming," by Avery and Singer,
which fraudulently used the work of climate scientists the authors claimed
supported their book's conclusions, scientists who have stated their work
was misused in this book.  Some of these scientists are quoted rejecting the
use of their work in this book at the second URL below.  Read on this
subject, and the so called "scientific" conferences sponsored by the
Heartland Institute, at the other two URLs below, sourced from Realclimate,
a website sponsored by a group of the world's leading climate scientists:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/01/what-if-you-held-a-conference-and-no-real-scientists-came/

http://www.desmogblog.com/500-scientists-with-documented-doubts-about-the-heartland-institute

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/11/avery-and-singer-unstoppable-hot-air/
------------------

Of course, the scientific consensus on climate change relating to human
impacts, is expressed in the findings of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change),

http://www.ipcc.ch/

and numerous prominent science academies and climate science organizations
worldwide (American Meteorological Society, the Union of Concerned
Scientists, the American Geophysical Union, the American Association for the
Advancement of Science, et. al.), with thousands of climate scientists in
broad agreement that current climate warming is primarily caused by human
activity, and will increase with profound impacts, as human sourced CO2
emissions increase atmospheric CO2 levels, unless greenhouse gas emissions
are not dramatically reduced.

Read documents below, for validation:

 *http://dels.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/climate_change_2008_final.pdf*
**
 http://www.nationalacademies.org/includes/G8Statement_Energy_07_May.pdf

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

----------------

Can you refer to a credible source for the petition you reference, stating
that global warming is "natural" and "not a crisis," signed by 34,000
scientists?

I suspect that this so called "petition" is the fraudulent effort rejected
by the National Academy of Science, that originated with Frederick Seitz and
the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine.  I exposed this fraudulent
petition's questionable legitimacy in a post to Vision2020 answering
Courtney's right-mind.us assertions regarding climate science, an excerpt of
which follows lower down.

For my full answer to Courtney's right-mind.us, where I also reference a
paper from the American Institute of Physics, that clarifies that the
greenhouse effect due to increasing atmospheric CO2 levels is based on well
established principles of physics, read the post at this URL:

http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2008-July/055108.html

Paper from the American Institute of Physics on climate science at URL
below:

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
----------------
>From my Vision2020 post above:

Courtney wrote:

Second, there are *a lot* of scientists who flatly disagree with
anthropogenic global warming. 31,072 American Scientists have publicly
signed a petition denying anthropogenic global warming. There are 228 from
Idaho<http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdatabase/Signers_By_Statephpcontent.php?run=Idaho>and
603
from Washington<http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdatabase/Signers_By_Statephpcontent.php?run=Washington>that
have signed; and 9,021 with PhD's.

 My response:

The petition Courtney referenced originated in part from a former president
of the National Academy of Sciences, Frederick Seitz, who misused his
connections to the NAS to present the petition as though it originated from
the NAS.  This forced the NAS to issue a public statement of rejection of
connection to the petition, and an emphatic disagreement with the scientific
claims made in this petition. The results of any petition presented with
misrepresentation of its origins should be questioned.  And the climate
science arguments used by Seitz, and his associates promoting this petition,
have been examined in detail and found to be highly questionable (a polite
way of saying "junk science").  Where is Courtney's skepticism regarding
Seitz and the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine?   Apparently,
Courtney applies extreme levels of skepticism rather selectively.  Seitz,
the petition under question, and the Oregon Institute of Science and
Medicine, are examined in detail at URL below:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/10/oregon-institute-of-science-and-malarkey

At the URL below is the statement from the NAS regarding the petition
Courtney cited, with a few quotes below:

http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=s04201998

The Council of the National Academy of Sciences
<http://www2.nas.edu/nas/>(NAS) is concerned about the confusion
caused by a petition being circulated
via a letter from a former president of this Academy. This petition
criticizes the science underlying the Kyoto treaty on carbon dioxide
emissions (the Kyoto Protocol to the Framework Convention on Climate
Change), and it asks scientists to recommend rejection of this treaty by the
U.S. Senate. The petition was mailed with an op-ed article from The Wall
Street Journal and a manuscript in a format that is nearly identical to that
of scientific articles published in the *Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences* <http://www.pnas.org/>.  The NAS Council would like to make it
clear that this petition has nothing to do with the National Academy of
Sciences and that the manuscript was not published in the *Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences* or in any other peer-reviewed journal."

The petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the
Academy.
---------------
Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett

On 2/11/09, lfalen <lfalen at turbonet.com> wrote:
>
> I missed the Climate Conference at the University las week because I was
> baby sitting grandkids. I assume the tenor of this conference was mostly in
> line with the view that global warming is man caused. A broader view of this
> will be the "International Conference on Climate Change" to be held March
> 8-10 in New York. There will be 73 conference speakers.
> More than 34,000 scientists have signed a petition saying that global
> warming probably is natural and is not a crisis. For more information see
> www.globalwarmingheartland.org.
> Even so, efforts should be continued to clean up air pollution and more
> toward alternative energy sources using the market system to do so.
> Roger
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20090216/6f23909e/attachment-0001.html