Buy WILLisms

XML Feed

Featured Entries

The Babe Theory Of Political Movements.
Mar. 21, 2005 11:50 AM

Iran's Sham Election In Houston.
June 20, 2005 5:36 AM

Yes, Kanye, Bush Does Care.
Oct. 31, 2005 12:41 AM

Health Care vs. Wealth Care.
Nov. 23, 2005 3:28 PM

Americans Voting With Their Feet.
Nov. 30, 2005 1:33 PM

Idea Majorities Matter.
May 12, 2006 6:15 PM

Twilight Zone Economics.
Oct. 17, 2006 12:30 AM

The "Shrinking" Middle Class.
Dec. 13, 2006 1:01 PM

From Ashes, GOP Opportunities.
Dec. 18, 2006 6:37 PM

Battle Between Entitlements & Pork.
Dec. 21, 2006 12:31 PM

Let Economic Freedom Reign.
Dec. 22, 2006 10:22 PM

Biggest Health Care Moment In Decades.
July 25, 2007 4:32 PM

Unions Antithetical to Liberty.
May 28, 2008 11:12 PM

Right To Work States Rock.
June 9, 2008 12:25 PM



Blogroll Me!



July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004

Social Security Reform Thursday.
March 13, 2008

Caption Contest: Enter Today!
Due: July 29, 2008

The Carnival Of Classiness.
Mar. 14, 2006

Quotational Therapy: Obama.
Apr. 4, 2008

Mainstream Melee: Wolfowitz.
May 19, 2007

Pundit Roundtable: Leaks.
July 9, 2006

A WILLisms.com(ic), by Ken McCracken
July 14, 2006


Powered by Movable Type 3.17
Site Design by Sekimori

WILLisms.com June 2008 Book of the Month (certified classy):

The WILLisms.com Gift Shop: Support This Site


This Week's Carnival of Revolutions: carnivalbutton.gif

Carnival Home Base: homebase.gif


« The Ultimate Example of Wasteful Government Spending. | WILLisms.com | Ruffini On The Democratic Debate »

Global Warming Consensus? What Consensus?

Lawrence Solomon debunks the myth, largely propagated by Al Gore and his supporters, that there is a consensus among scientists about global warming:

Somewhere along the way, I stopped believing that a scientific consensus exists on climate change. Certainly there is no consensus at the very top echelons of scientists -- the ranks from which I have been drawing my subjects -- and certainly there is no consensus among astrophysicists and other solar scientists, several of whom I have profiled. If anything, the majority view among these subsets of the scientific community may run in the opposite direction. Not only do most of my interviewees either discount or disparage the conventional wisdom as represented by the IPCC, many say their peers generally consider it to have little or no credibility. In one case, a top scientist told me that, to his knowledge, no respected scientist in his field accepts the IPCC position.

Scientists don't accept the IPCC position because, contrary to the myths about the IPCC, it is not a collection of 2,000 or so top scientists - it is a political grievance committee populated by many people who have no background in science at all. The IPCC is becoming a kind of new Flat Earth Society, with a preordained agenda that will cook the books to arrive at the results they want. They have not even released the names of the supposed scientists on the panel, and many of them have demanded to have their name removed from the list of participants.

Do you think the IPCC is unbiased? Here is part of their statement of purpose:

The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.

It appears that the IPCC considers 'human-induced climate change' to be a forgone conclusion. Now, all they have to do is cherrypick the reports they admire, claim they have a 'consensus' of 2,000 scientists (whom they don't reveal) and let their spokesman Al Gore claim that 'the debate is over'.

This is at odds with the actual scientific community, which is far from reaching a consensus on this issue. Again, from Solomon:

A great many scientists, without doubt, are four-square in their support of the IPCC. A great many others are not. A petition organized by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine between 1999 and 2001 claimed some 17,800 scientists in opposition to the Kyoto Protocol. A more recent indicator comes from the U.S.-based National Registry of Environmental Professionals, an accrediting organization whose 12,000 environmental practitioners have standing with U.S. government agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Energy. In a November, 2006, survey of its members, it found that only 59% think human activities are largely responsible for the warming that has occurred, and only 39% make their priority the curbing of carbon emissions. And 71% believe the increase in hurricanes is likely natural, not easily attributed to human activities.

Of course, none of this keeps the global warming dogmatists from getting great press they don't deserve.

Posted by Ken McCracken · 3 June 2007 04:00 PM


ken, Ken, Ken...

Do you really have to resort to cranks and hacks to support your discredited thesis?

Here's some research for you to do:

1. Look into the "Urban Renaissance Institute" and the "Consumer Policy Institute" which are "divisions" of the "Energy Probe Research Foundation," and see what you turn up.

2. Look up "Apology to Dr. Nigel Weiss"--one of Solomon's "Deniers."

3. Look up another one of Solomon's deniers--Dr. Shaviv. He, too, claims Solomon never interviewed him, never spoke to him, and alos misrepresented his views.

In fact, none of Solomon's (who is neither a scientist nor climatologist) denies global warming is real, is problematic and caused by human activities.

This is getting fun, Ken.

A petition organized by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine between 1999 and 2001 claimed some 17,800 scientists in opposition to the Kyoto Protocol.

You must be the last person on earth who puts any stock into the OISM petition.

Posted by: Jadegold at June 3, 2007 05:00 PM

Glad you are having fun Jadegold!

We here at WILLisms.com are all about fun.

Posted by: Ken McCracken at June 3, 2007 06:09 PM

Lying whore Solomon refers to a 1991 Gallup poll that is supposed to have found that only a few scientists think there is man-made global warming.

Here is the TRUTH:

Associated Press
December 8, 1997, Monday, BC cycle
SECTION: Washington Dateline
HEADLINE: WASHINGTON TODAY: Global warming debate generates much heat
BYLINE: By DONALD M. ROTHBERG, Associated Press Writer

One conservative group criticized the news media for accepting claims that there is widespread scientific agreement on global warming. The Media Research Center cited "a recent Gallup poll" that said only 19 percent of the members of the American Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Union think that a warmer climate has been the result of greenhouse gas emissions.

The Gallup organization said the poll was taken in October of 1991. It noted that some people, opposed to claims that human-induced global warming is occurring, "have used the study to support their position."

"These writers have taken survey results out of context that appear to show scientists do not believe that human-induced global warming is occurring."

The statement from Gallup noted that when asked if they thought human-induced global warming was occurring, 66 percent of the scientists surveyed said yes.

Posted by: Steve J. at June 3, 2007 08:47 PM


Yeah, some concensus there.

Posted by: Ken McCracken at June 3, 2007 09:39 PM


The poll was done in 1991. Since then, the evidence for man-made global warming has increased.

Posted by: Steve J. at June 4, 2007 02:46 AM

Ah, I see.

So . . . what is the consensus percentage up to now, then?




If the percentage was 99% perhaps Jadegold would be correct, and his analogy to creationism might then be appropriate.

The percentage just simply is not that high, and there are far too many well-respected scientists (as opposed to IPCC 'reviewers') who are skeptical to say that there is some kind of definite consensus and that the debate is over.

What is it that you guys fear so much about scientists actually involved in climatology who doubt Al Gore's dogma? If you were truly scientific about things, you would open your ears to that rather than working busily trying to shove it down the memory hole, like some Pravda-like editorial board.

Lemme guess, you guys are hoping Al Gore is going to jump into the presidential race. Or you want us all to ride bicycles instead of driving cars. Or you just want the liberal view of things to prevail over the conservative view of things, consequences be damned.

Posted by: Ken McCracken at June 4, 2007 04:48 AM


The fact remains you trotted out a discredited hack whose "deniers" don't even deny global warming. A hack who lies and uses a discredited petition. Ahack whose publications are forced to issue apologies and corrections.

Another fact: there is no scintific organization in the field that denies global warming. In addition to the IPCC, the EPA, NOAA, The American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) have all enorsed thee fact global warming is real and a

I'd be very confident in stating there are probably more scientists who believe in creationism than those who don't believe in global warming.

Posted by: Jadegold at June 4, 2007 08:33 AM

Jadegold, you would be wrong.

Sure, trot out all the AABB CCDD EEFF organizations you like, the fact is, there are a lot of scientists who disagree with your position, and you seem very threatened by that.

I am just wondering why that is.

Posted by: Ken McCracken at June 4, 2007 02:03 PM

the fact is, there are a lot of scientists who disagree with your position

How many? Where? Is it more than 1? More than 10?

Names, Ken, names.

Look, global warming is a scientific fact. It is disputed by almost no one in the scientific community.

You can trot out some more folks--like Solomon--who have been discredite and I'll keep whackin' over the fence.

Posted by: Jadegold at June 4, 2007 05:01 PM

Okay, let's say I come up with 20, 30, 40 names.

What does it matter?

You have bought into the orthodoxy that man has such knowledge - bordering on the omniscient - that we can predict what the climate will be like 20 or 30 years from now.

Never mind that they can't even predict the weather for next weekend, you are convinced that they are infallible.

They can't even agree on how many tons of carbon dioxide is being pumped out by man every year - yet, never mind, they have it all figured out somehow.

Because, what's to figure out? The IPCC, for example, has already preordained the outcome.

Posted by: Ken McCracken at June 4, 2007 05:57 PM

Actually I'm a published scientist, having published several articles in peer reviewed journals (Carbon and Langmuir to be specific).

I disagree with Al Gore's position on global warming. In fact, I believe that while the Earth is indeed warming, it is not nor has it ever been anthropogenic.

Global warming is a scientific fact in the same way that global cooling is. Both occur.

Anthropogenic or Anthropomorphic global climate change? Eh.

Posted by: k2aggie07 at June 5, 2007 03:11 PM

**The statement from Gallup noted that when asked if they thought human-induced global warming was occurring, 66 percent of the scientists surveyed said yes.**

That may be. But now ask them what portion of the warming is caused by humans. If one tenth of one percent is caused by humans, then the answer is "yes." Is it significant? THAT answer is no. It's all in the question.

Posted by: WBS at June 9, 2007 03:35 AM