Green | February 01, 2012 | 10 comments

38 climate scientists push back with letter to Wall Street Journal

source: http://www.climatecentral.org/blogs/climate-scientists-push-back-with-their-own-wall-street-...

Image
JanforGore
The Wall Street Journal published a letter to the editor today from a group of 38 climate scientists, harshly criticizing a global warming op-ed that ran in that paper last week for its scientific inaccuracies. Today's letter, "Check with Climate Scientists for Views on Climate", states that the op-ed misstated the evidence on global warming and falsely represented certain authors as climate scientists despite their lack of expertise in the field.

Nine of the 10 warmest years since 1880 have occurred since the year 2000, as the Earth has experienced sustained higher temperatures than in any decade during the 20th century. Credit: NASA Earth Observatory, Robert Simmon.

The op-ed states:

"You published "No Need to Panic About Global Warming" (op-ed, Jan. 27) on climate change by the climate-science equivalent of dentists practicing cardiology. While accomplished in their own fields, most of these authors have no expertise in climate science. The few authors who have such expertise are known to have extreme views that are out of step with nearly every other climate expert."

The letter pushes back against the assertion that global warming has stopped in recent years, which is a claim that has frequently been made in the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal and elsewhere.

"Climate experts know that the long-term warming trend has not abated in the past decade. In fact, it was the warmest decade on record," the letter states. The lead author of the letter, Kevin Trenberth, is a senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research.

Many other climate scientists, economists, and writers have also weighed in on last week's op-ed. A few notable examples include climate scientist and water expert Peter Gleick, who wrote a piece for Forbes.com, Andy Revkin of the DotEarth blog, and Bill Chameides, a dean at Duke University, writing for the Huffington Post.

More at the link
  1. groups:
    Green,   Earth and Science,   Earth Care,   Endangered Earth,   3 more
  2. tags:
    Environment,  Climate Change,  Climate Science,  Misinformation,  5 more
  3.     
    |

10 comments // 38 climate scientists push back with letter to Wall Street Journal

  • Naumadd
    • 0
      Naumadd  

    • You can only beat the science with better science. No matter how strongly you wish it, majority view can't change the facts.

      Global warming can't be solved by popular vote.

    • 4 months ago
  • coolplanet
    • 0
      coolplanet  

    • What it will take is another year like 2011 only 100 times worse.
      Sad to say but it could happen this year.
      I have felt in my bones a year without winter coming for many years now. Not from some supernatural source but in what I've been reading from climate science and witnessing as a gardener.
      The deniers want proof? They will get their proof running for the hills.

    • 4 months ago
  • JanforGore
  • JanforGore
  • JanforGore
  • JanforGore
  • JanforGore
  • JanforGore
  • JanforGore
    • +3
      JanforGore  
    • Image

    • http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jan/22/opinion/la-oe-oreskes-judging-climate-ch...

      Recent op-ed by Dr. Naomi Oreskes.
      Excerpt:

      "I study the history of climate science, and my research has shown that the think tanks and institutes that deny the reality or severity of climate change, or promote distrust of climate science, do so out of self-interest, ideological conviction or both. Some groups, like the fossil fuel industry, have an obvious self-interest in the continued use of fossil fuels. Others fear that if we accept the reality of climate change, we will be forced to acknowledge the failures of free-market capitalism. Still others worry that if we allow the government to intervene in the marketplace to stop climate change, it will lead to further expansion of government power that will threaten our broader freedoms.

      But most Americans do not work for the fossil fuel industry, and most Americans accept that there is an appropriate role for government to protect human and environmental health. So why has the denial of climate change achieved so much traction?

      In my travels, I have met many, many people who have told me that they are not in denial about climate change; they simply don't know enough to decide. It strikes me that these people aren't unlike my fellow jurors at the start of jury selection. They are trying to keep an open mind, something that we are routinely enjoined to do in many other aspects of daily life.

      But just as open-mindedness can be the wrong answer in jurisprudence, it can also be the wrong answer in science and public policy. Since the mid-1990s, there has been clear-cut evidence that the climate is changing because of human activities: burning fossil fuels and cutting down forests. For the last decade or so it has been increasingly clear that these changes are accelerating, and worrisome.

      Yet many Americans cling to the idea that it is reasonable to maintain an open mind. It isn't, at least not to scientists who study the matter. They have been saying for some time that the case for the reality and gravity of climate change has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. But there's the rub. The public seems to view scientists as the equivalent of the prosecuting attorney trying to prove a case. The think tanks, institutes and fossil fuel corporations take on the mantle of the defense.

      We have to get over that flawed notion. Scientists don't play the role of prosecutor trying to prove a case. Rather, they are the jury trying to evaluate the evidence. And they have rendered their verdict. The problem is not that scientists have become advocates, as some have claimed. The problem is that there is no judge, no recognized authority giving us instructions we accept, and no recognized authority to accept the scientists' verdict and declare it final.

      Consider for a moment the case against tobacco. There too scientists were nearly unanimous in their conclusion, based on research, that tobacco use had serious health consequences. Meanwhile, the tobacco industry tried to play the role of defense attorney, offering up denials and dodges and pseudo-scientific studies denying a link between smoking and lung cancer. So how did Americans decide whom to believe?

      In that case, there was a judge whose instructions had a large effect on public consciousness: the U.S. surgeon general. Without a scientist general to instruct us on climate change, we as a nation have been adrift, looking for leadership and not finding it."

    • 4 months ago
  • JanforGore
    • +2
      JanforGore  

    • http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204740904577193270727472662.html?m...

      Here is the letter from actual climate scientists.
      Excerpt:

      "Climate experts know that the long-term warming trend has not abated in the past decade. In fact, it was the warmest decade on record. Observations show unequivocally that our planet is getting hotter. And computer models have recently shown that during periods when there is a smaller increase of surface temperatures, warming is occurring elsewhere in the climate system, typically in the deep ocean. Such periods are a relatively common climate phenomenon, are consistent with our physical understanding of how the climate system works, and certainly do not invalidate our understanding of human-induced warming or the models used to simulate that warming.

      Thus, climate experts also know what one of us, Kevin Trenberth, actually meant by the out-of-context, misrepresented quote used in the op-ed. Mr. Trenberth was lamenting the inadequacy of observing systems to fully monitor warming trends in the deep ocean and other aspects of the short-term variations that always occur, together with the long-term human-induced warming trend.

      The National Academy of Sciences of the U.S. (set up by President Abraham Lincoln to advise on scientific issues), as well as major national academies of science around the world and every other authoritative body of scientists active in climate research have stated that the science is clear: The world is heating up and humans are primarily responsible. Impacts are already apparent and will increase. Reducing future impacts will require significant reductions in emissions of heat-trapping gases.

      Research shows that more than 97% of scientists actively publishing in the field agree that climate change is real and human caused. It would be an act of recklessness for any political leader to disregard the weight of evidence and ignore the enormous risks that climate change clearly poses."

    • 4 months ago
more from Green:
from the community

top videos