Your source for this information is not what I would call a particularly reliable one: Senator Inhofe. This guy has been spreading falsehoods about global warming issues for years now. His wild claims include repetition of the nonsense about planetary warming that I and another have completely debunked elsewhere in this blog. We really should track down each of the people he cites and find out what's really going on with them. Senator Inhofe himself has zero credibility here.

Thank you for the debunking!

But I really don't think you or anyone else has any more credibility than Inhofe (who, because of his power and position has more credibility than you or I whether you or I like it or not). It's easy to get caught up in particularities and forget that these are not debates to be won. They are opinions, none of which are conclusive one way or another. Debating any of this strikes me as a pointless exercise in futility because my only concern is in stopping the loss of human freedom. So-called "scientific" positions are about as relevant to me as whether someone calls himself liberal or conservative. It's a bit like the gun issue; statistics are fine as far as they go, but the larger issue involves the rights of man.

Of course, you can disagree all you want. I've been blogging for years, and there have been many commenters who have disagreed with me. And yes, even debunked me!

Their comments are there for the entire world to read.

I like the picture of Margaret Hamilton!

Inhofe's comments here are not science claims, they are headcount claims.

I am supposed to trust the authority of a guy with a name like frog licks over the authority of multiple prominent scientists on Inhofe's list?

I am supposed to believe that because Inhofe may have said something dumb in the past, I can't trust the list he put out?

Each person on that list is a datum that can be verified independently of any authority. If you can prove that Inhofe has misrepresented their credentials, or misrepresented their doubts about AGW, that would be a refutation. Attacking Inhofe's character because you don't like his data is intellectual thuggery.

As far as I know, Senator Inhofe has never lied about a list of people before, so I see no reason why he should have "zero credibility" when it comes to producing such a list--a list full of hyperlinks, no less!

Fair enough, although I don't think that political office affords any credibility. Actually, I'd like to delve into this list of scientists who are said to have changed their minds. I have my suspicions. About three years ago, I tracked down a list of experts who had signed a declaration that global warming was a hoax. What I found was that the experts on the list were anything but experts. Several were oil company executives (not in a scientific or technical role, either); there was a soils scientist and a forestry guy; quite a few people whose identities could not be verified; the wife of one of the leaders of the group; and so on. There was one genuine, honest-to-gum meteorology guy -- but the last thing he had published was 25 years ago.

I agree that there are plenty of issues to argue about with respect to our response to the problems of global warming. What I have no tolerance for is the pig-headed refusal to accept a scientific conclusion that thousands of scientists have urged upon us. The basic facts are no longer in question; what we should do about those facts will always be up for debate.

Sorry, but the facts ARE in question.

Sorry, but the facts ARE in question.

"I am supposed to trust the authority of a guy with a name like frog licks over the authority of multiple prominent scientists on Inhofe's list?"

Well, if you want to rely on the authority of multiple prominent scientists, you can do no better than the national academies of sciences of the G8 countries -- who vastly outnumber the scientists on Mr. Inhofe's list. So what's it going to be: do you rely on scientific authority or not?

"Sorry, but the facts ARE in question."

Not by the great majority of scientists, they aren't. At least, not the basic issue of anthropogenic global warming. Most of the opposition we see has nothing to do with science and everything to do with political beliefs. As if politics could dictate scientific truth!

Scientists can say whatever they want, and just as they are free to take scientific positions on various theories, so they are free to take political positions. These theories were of little interest to me until it became apparent that they were being applied in a political manner (to advance proposals that would harm the economy, and even invade my life and my home).

When science is used politically, skepticism is the inevitable result. But, just as I am skeptical about anthropogenic global warming and the dangers of second hand cigarette smoke, it really wouldn't matter whether I was. If the government seeks to restrict human individual and economic freedom, I'll simply oppose the restrictions.

Using scientific claims to restrict human freedom is not new. In San Francisco in the 1980s, scientists running the city's health department closed gay bathhouses because of AIDS. You don't have to be gay, or a bathhouse patron, or an AIDS skeptic to oppose that.

Similarly, scientists claim that their "statistics" show that owning a gun is dangerous, and these arguments are used to advance gun control. I don't consider such statistics to be legitimate constitutional arguments, and while I might ridicule them in this blog, my political position is unaffected.

Frob,

It is not a matter of authority.

It is a matter of scientist changing their minds.

It is like the "Luminiferous Ether". At one time a solid theory. Not much in favor these days. A lot of scientists changed their minds.

Frob,

You also missed the UNs attempt to supress dissent.

That is not very scientific is it?

Frob,

You will love this excerpt from the linked article:

“We thus find ourselves in the situation that the entire theory of man-made global warming—with its repercussions in science, and its important consequences for politics and the global economy—is based on ice core studies that provided a false picture of the atmospheric CO2 levels,” Jaworowski wrote. “For the past three decades, these well-known direct CO2 measurements, recently compiled and analyzed by Ernst-Georg Beck (Beck 2006a, Beck 2006b, Beck 2007), were completely ignored by climatologists—and not because they were wrong. Indeed, these measurements were made by several Nobel Prize winners, using the techniques that are standard textbook procedures in chemistry, biochemistry, botany, hygiene, medicine, nutrition, and ecology. The only reason for rejection was that these measurements did not fit the hypothesis of anthropogenic climatic warming. I regard this as perhaps the greatest scientific scandal of our time,” Jaworowski wrote.

See the IPCC is not a scientific body. It culls the science to find supporting documents. Which is to say it is a trial where only the prosecution can provide evidence and testimony. "Good" politics. Bad science.

I find it highly depressing, but it has been years since I saw the Wizard of Oz on TV. I've even been searching for at least the last few months, and it just isn't on.

In a few years, kids won't have a clue what the movie is even about...

2006 wasn't a good year to be a global warming hysteric.
No hurricane season for the papers to blaim on global warming. Frozen orange fields and snow in Los Angeles.
Kennedy was president the last time it snowed in LA.

The Al Gore induced extended winter centered over Nashville.
Dozens of baseball games called due to snow. (ain't it strange how when Katrina hit AGW was causing it, but when 21,000 people froze to death that was just weather?)
And then there was this from the NAS;
June 22 -- There is sufficient evidence from tree rings, retreating glaciers, and other "proxies" to say with confidence that the last few decades of the 20th century were warmer than any comparable period in the last 400 years (meaning since the little Ice Age -P) , according to a new National Research Council report. There is less confidence in reconstructions of surface temperatures from 1600 back to A.D. 900, and very little confidence in findings on average temperatures before then.
Meaning that Micheal Mann and all his parrots lied when they said that the 1990s were the hottest decade in a millenium and 1998 the hottest year - and similar statements that had filled the media so many times in the past - are unjustifiable by existing data, despite 10 years of passionate statements that these insights are definitive, ever more definitive, and that the debate was over.

When you list skeptics, does the National Academy of Science count? Perhaps they are not published enough.

Jon Thomson,

If you look over the summary of the entire NAS report on Mann's work, you will find that their overall judgement was quite positive. Here is a link to the NAS statement, from where you can go to the report: http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=11676

The bottom line in the NAS report? "The committee pointed out that surface temperature reconstructions for periods before the Industrial Revolution -- when levels of atmospheric greenhouse gases were much lower -- are only one of multiple lines of evidence supporting the conclusion that current warming is occurring in response to human activities, and they are not the primary evidence." (emphasis added). In other words, don't get too hung up on errors in Mann's paper: It's correct on the big picture, and got people going off on the direction that turned out to be right.

And the statements by the most important scientific societies in the world have been quite definite on anthropogenic global warming as caused by fossil-fuel emissions of C-O2:

- AAAS: http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2007/0218am_statement.shtml

- American Meteorological Society: http://www.ametsoc.org/POLICY/2007climatechange.pdf

- American Geological Society: http://www.geosociety.org/aboutus/position10.htm

- American Association of State Climatologists: http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/aasc/AASC-Policy-Statement-on-Climate.htm

- American Geophysical Union: http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/climate_change_position.html

- and a joint statement by the Royal Society and other national scientfic academies: http://www.royalsociety.org/displaypagedoc.asp?id=13619

Papertiger,

Oops! I replied to a comment by you but addressed it to Jon Thomson.

It should show up shortly; currently it's being held up because of the number of URLs.

M. Simon,

I would not place much credence in statements by Jawarowski. On one of his webpages, he used to claim to have testified before the U.S. Congress on environmental matters, but people looking at the records couldn't find his name anywhere.

The IPCC has to log and address every comment made against drafts of their report, and they get thousands of commenters who are professional climate scientists. They most certainly do reference and discuss published articles (from peer-reviewed scientific journals) even when they lean towards a different view than typical. For example, the current IPCC report, the AR4, discusses & references the work of Landsea on hurricanes, even though his views on this topic differ from most others.

I have worked with another UN group, the International Telecommunication Union, to develop technical standards for modems. They have to document everything quite carefully to be sure of being fair technically, commercially and according to national interests. So all filed comments are tabulated & organized by source and document location, and the specific response to them is also tabulated. They have to seek agreement in order to get the document out, and this tends to ensure that the standards are somewhat conservative. I believe the same approach would apply in IPCC as well, and so the reports are likely to be somewhat conservative.