http://thinkprogress.org/2010/02/25/sout...global-warming/

BRAVUS

WELL thank you for this link...it was interesting
what the South Dakota law makers are doing

dgrimm60

Once Believers, Now Skeptics

Geophysicist Dr. Claude Allegre, a top geophysicist and French Socialist who has authored more than 100 scientific articles and written 11 books and received numerous scientific awards including the Goldschmidt Medal from the Geochemical Society of the United States, converted from climate alarmist to skeptic in 2006. Allegre, who was one of the first scientists to sound global warming fears 20 years ago, now says the cause of climate change is "unknown" and accused the “prophets of doom of global warming” of being motivated by money, noting that "the ecology of helpless protesting has become a very lucrative business for some people!" Allegre was one of 1500 scientists who signed a November 18, 1992 letter titled “World Scientists' Warning to Humanity” in which the scientists warned that global warming’s “potential risks are very great.”

Geologist Bruno Wiskel of the University of Alberta recently reversed his view of man-made climate change and instead became a global warming skeptic. Wiskel was once such a big believer in man-made global warming that he set out to build a “Kyoto house” in honor of the UN sanctioned Kyoto Protocol which was signed in 1997. Wiskel wanted to prove that the Kyoto Protocol’s goals were achievable by people making small changes in their lives. But after further examining the science behind Kyoto, Wiskel reversed his scientific views completely and became such a strong skeptic, that he recently wrote a book titled “The Emperor's New Climate: Debunking the Myth of Global Warming.” A November 15, 2006 Edmonton Sun article explains Wiskel’s conversion while building his “Kyoto house”: “Instead, he said he realized global warming theory was full of holes and ‘red flags,’ and became convinced that humans are not responsible for rising temperatures.” Wiskel now says “the truth has to start somewhere.”

Astrophysicist Dr. Nir Shaviv, one of Israel's top young award winning scientists, recanted his belief that manmade emissions were driving climate change. ""Like many others, I was personally sure that CO2 is the bad culprit in the story of global warming. But after carefully digging into the evidence, I realized that things are far more complicated than the story sold to us by many climate scientists or the stories regurgitated by the media. In fact, there is much more than meets the eye,” Shaviv said in February 2, 2007 Canadian National Post article.

Mathematician & engineer Dr. David Evans, who did carbon accounting for the Australian Government, recently detailed his conversion to a skeptic. “I devoted six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian government to estimate carbon emissions from land use change and forestry. When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty conclusive, but after 2000 the evidence for carbon emissions gradually got weaker -- better temperature data for the last century, more detailed ice core data, then laboratory evidence that cosmic rays precipitate low clouds,” Evans wrote. “As Lord Keynes famously said, ‘When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?’” he added.

Climate researcher Dr. Tad Murty, former Senior Research Scientist for Fisheries and Oceans in Canada, also reversed himself from believer in man-made climate change to a skeptic. “I stated with a firm belief about global warming, until I started working on it myself,” Murty explained on August 17, 2006. “I switched to the other side in the early 1990's when Fisheries and Oceans Canada asked me to prepare a position paper and I started to look into the problem seriously,” Murty explained. Murty was one of the 60 scientists who wrote an April 6, 2006 letter urging withdrawal of Kyoto to Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper which stated in part, "If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary.”

Botanist Dr. David Bellamy, a famed UK environmental campaigner, former lecturer at Durham University and host of a popular UK TV series on wildlife, recently converted into a skeptic after reviewing the science and now calls global warming fears "poppycock." According to a May 15, 2005 article in the UK Sunday Times, Bellamy said “global warming is largely a natural phenomenon. The world is wasting stupendous amounts of money on trying to fix something that can’t be fixed.”

Climate scientist Dr. Chris de Freitas of The University of Auckland, N.Z., also converted from a believer in man-made global warming to a skeptic. “At first I accepted that increases in human caused additions of carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere would trigger changes in water vapor etc. and lead to dangerous ‘global warming,’ But with time and with the results of research, I formed the view that, although it makes for a good story, it is unlikely that the man-made changes are drivers of significant climate variation.” de Freitas wrote on August 17, 2006. “Significant [scientific] advances have been made since the [Kyoto] protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from a concern about increasing greenhouse gases.”

Meteorologist Dr. Reid Bryson, the founding chairman of the Department of Meteorology at University of Wisconsin (now the Department of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences, was pivotal in promoting the coming ice age scare of the 1970’s ( See Time Magazine’s 1974 article “Another Ice Age” citing Bryson: & see Newsweek’s 1975 article “The Cooling World” citing Bryson) has now converted into a leading global warming skeptic. In February 8, 2007 Bryson dismissed what he terms "sky is falling" man-made global warming fears. "...it has now become a media free-for-all and a political issue more than a scientific problem,” Bryson explained in 2005.

Global warming author and economist Hans H.J. Labohm started out as a man-made global warming believer but he later switched his view after conducting climate research. Labohm wrote on August 19, 2006, “I started as a anthropogenic global warming believer, then I read the [UN’s IPCC] Summary for Policymakers and the research of prominent skeptics.” “After that, I changed my mind,” Labohn explained. Labohn co-authored the 2004 book “Man-Made Global Warming: Unraveling a Dogma,” with chemical engineer Dick Thoenes who was the former chairman of the Royal Netherlands Chemical Society. Labohm was one of the 60 scientists who wrote an April 6, 2006 letter urging withdrawal of Kyoto to Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper which stated in part, “’Climate change is real’ is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural ‘noise.’”

Paleoclimatologist Tim Patterson, of Carlton University in Ottawa converted from believer in C02 driving the climate change to a skeptic. “I taught my students that CO2 was the prime driver of climate change,” Patterson wrote on April 30, 2007. Patterson said his “conversion” happened following his research on “the nature of paleo-commercial fish populations in the NE Pacific.” “[My conversion from believer to climate skeptic] came about approximately 5-6 years ago when results began to come in from a major NSERC (Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada) Strategic Project Grant where I was PI (principle investigator),” Patterson explained. “Over the course of about a year, I switched allegiances,” he wrote. “As the proxy results began to come in, we were astounded to find that paleoclimatic and paleoproductivity records were full of cycles that corresponded to various sun-spot cycles. Patterson says his conversion “probably cost me a lot of grant money. However, as a scientist I go where the science takes me and not were activists want me to go. ...The temperatures match very closely with the solar cycles."

Physicist Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, chairman of the Central Laboratory for the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Radiological Protection in Warsaw, took a scientific journey from a believer of man-made climate change in the form of global cooling in the 1970’s all the way to converting to a skeptic of current predictions of catastrophic man-made global warming. “At the beginning of the 1970s I believed in man-made climate cooling, and therefore I started a study on the effects of industrial pollution on the global atmosphere, using glaciers as a history book on this pollution,” Dr. Jaworowski, wrote on August 17, 2006. “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. “

Paleoclimatologist Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor of the Department of Earth Sciences at University of Ottawa, reversed his views on man-made climate change after further examining the evidence. “I used to agree with these dramatic warnings of climate disaster. I taught my students that most of the increase in temperature of the past century was due to human contribution of C02. The association seemed so clear and simple. Increases of greenhouse gases were driving us towards a climate catastrophe,” Clark said in a 2005 documentary "Climate Catastrophe Cancelled: What You're Not Being Told About the Science of Climate Change.” “However, a few years ago, I decided to look more closely at the science and it astonished me. In fact there is no evidence of humans being the cause. There is, however, overwhelming evidence of natural causes such as changes in the output of the sun. This has completely reversed my views on the Kyoto protocol,” Clark explained. “Actually, many other leading climate researchers also have serious concerns about the science underlying the [Kyoto] Protocol,” he added.

Environmental geochemist Dr. Jan Veizer, professor emeritus of University of Ottawa, converted from believer to skeptic after conducting scientific studies of climate history. “I simply accepted the (global warming) theory as given,” Veizer wrote on April 30, 2007 about predictions that increasing C02 in the atmosphere was leading to a climate catastrophe. “The final conversion came when I realized that the solar/cosmic ray connection gave far more consistent picture with climate, over many time scales, than did the CO2 scenario,” Veizer wrote.
------------

It is one thing to change from skeptic to believer (very uncommon.) This will get a scientist lots of money and accolades.

It is a whole other ball of wax to change from advocate to skeptic. This is a politically incorrect uphill climb all the way, and much more meaningful, IMHO.

'astrological'

My point was not about climate change at all, or at least only glancingly. It was about the appalling scientific ignorance of the politicians who mandate what is to be taught in our schools. They have mistakenly written 'astrological' when they presumably (one would absolutely hope - unless they want children taught that climate change is due to the sun being on the cusp of Aries and Sagittarius) meant 'astronomy'. 'Thermological' makes absolutely no sense in that context either, since it mainly relates to medical imaging. And then they voted this into law.

Sometimes people don't write what they intend to write. We all need proof-readers but some of us need them worse than others.

i guess one would have had to actually at least have looked at the article... :)perhaps they did mean "astrology". no one could be that ignorant, but then.... :)

The fact that some people in South Dakota exhibited elements of ignorance is important because.....??

We all know there are ignorant people in the world.

What happened to keeping religion out of schools?

Oh, I guess astrology doesn't count since it's multireligious.

What's the big fuss about? They've been teaching religion in public schools for decades and no one's made a big deal of it.---------Evolution, the anti-religion/religion non-religion. Your tax dollars at work!

DOUG YOWELL

yes in the early years of our history yes religion was
a very important part....the bible was every taught...
but it seems that every form of religion is
taught but the bible principles

dgrimm60

And thermology is not a proven medical imaging procedure anyhow.

Science is great at producing technology. But science, with it's methodological reliance on induction, can never produce truth. Truth comes only by revelation, and understanding by deduction from God's revealed truth.

0g

Thanks for this Bravus, pretty interesting. Who wanted this so bad to be taught in the public school system?

pk

Commentary on this-

TRMS

Can never produce truth? Really? Never? Perhaps you would like to revise that.

Hey, Laz....

Ever notice that when TRMS is put up in a link that has some very good commentary on one of the conservatives subjects....they seem to become quiet.....Oooooooooooooooooooo!

We have already discussed this on this thread. You think Maddow's caviling somehow makes the discussion different?

We also discussed judgmentalism on another thread.

And you *still* completely missed the point, on the other thread as well. It was nothing to do with their attitude to climate change. It was that they passed a bill mandating the teaching of astrology in schools. I mean sure, people make mistakes, but no-one, anywhere in the processes involved in getting a bill proposed and voted on, picked it up. And you, apparently, are having trouble with it too.

when the moon is in the seventh house...and Jupiter aligns with Mars...

They did not pass a bill mandating the teaching of astrology, and you know it. They, as you pointed out in your great superiority, used the word astrology instead of astronomy in their bill, but the bill did not mandate the teaching of either.

Admit it, you and good ol' Rachel are just making fun of those simpleton hayseeds over in South Dakota. You're using the old technique of associating ill repute with the opposing argument instead of straight-up discussing the issue.

Is that really the tack you want to take? Those hayseeds, in at least one regard, have shown more sense than a lot of people in the mainstream. As I've pointed out before, some very bright people are opposed to Global Warming hysteria. When many well-published scientists, who formerly supported it, have turned into skeptics that ought to make you think rather than ridicule.

Read the bill and get back to me. They passed a law, by mistake, mandating the teaching of astrology in schools. My point all along - and this is the third time now that I've said it - has not been about climate change.

Maybe it will help if you know something about me that many others here already know: I am a science educator. That's my job and vocation. I taught high school science and maths for years, and now I teach teachers and conduct research in science education.

My point was that we have a long way to go and a lot of work to do in science education, when our legislators are making this kind of completely elementary mistake. The tone was not one of ridicule, and has not been at any stage, but of sorrow. It's sad and scary when the world faces a wide variety of challenges, most of which have some science component - leave aside climate change and there's still energy, pollution, pandemics, food and water, population and several more - and those who are supposed to be leading the response do not know the absolute basics.

I suppose it's too much to expect an apology for your consistent misunderstanding of my point and ascription of malicious motives to me, but I hope at least now you understand a little better.

Not simpleton hayseeds... lawmakers. Who should hopefully know the difference between astronomy and astrology. But apparently not.

what is your problem?

Excellent post Bravus.

pk

Here it is. Below is what was written on the link you provided, verbatim. Can you tell me where the teaching of astrology is mandated? You're insisting on this non-existent legislation in defense of your motives, so just highlight it for dummies like me who consistently can't see it (and still don't.) The lawmakers urged that South Dakota teachers approach the teaching of the subject of climate change considering a wide range of factors, but there is no mandate. Really, it seems rather reasonable except, as you pointed out, the word "astrology" should be "astronomy."

Get back to me, pard. No apology required. Just get your facts straight. Educators were urged, not mandated, to include a wide variety of factors concerning the subject of Global Warming. The Senate first concurred and then amended the bill to remove the objectionable material.

So tell me, now. What is the problem?

There hasn't yet been a vote on the amended bill, so I guess we'll see. I concede that the word 'mandated' may be too strong, and 'encouraged' would have been a better choice. That's kind of off topic though.

The point is simply that I was lamenting the scientific ignorance on display. I was *not* making any argument pro or con about climate change. You grabbed the wrong end of the stick from the start and just kept on running with it.

Where is MY judgmentalism??? All I said was that this thread became quiet...And that seemed to have challenged you all... and you came, howling like a pack of wounded animals...

As for "Maddow's caviling", she make more points in her show over this subject than you ever did in any of your discussions.

And since you are so judgmental in your posts, and jumping to conclusions, this time why not contribute something worthwhile to support your side of the debate...you started this little escapade, why don't you man up and REALLY debate the issue..with some facts!

Are you, or are you not, an educator, Bravus?

Do you do this to your students? Just throw something up on the board with your only comment being the broad stroke condemnation, "Dear America: Do you plan to get it together any time soon?" and then come down on your students when they start discussing the conclusion of the author in the article that YOU posted?

Here is the concluding paragraph:


Note that the objection in the concluding paragraph of the author is not what the legislators took out, but what they left in - about the global warming debate. And I, and all those scientists I posted early in this thread, agree with what the legislators left in the Bill.

So, please acknowledge that I was addressing the conclusion of the author in the article at the link YOU provided to start the thread and, subsequently, the open derision on TRMS link provided by Neil. In my opinion, if you weren't trying to ridicule those who are opposed to the unproven theory that man's miniscule contribution to greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is causing warming of the planet, you did an extremely poor job of distancing yourself from those who were.

And, incidentally, the substitution of the word "astrology" for "astronomy" is a linguistic error which does not mandate your conclusion that it is accompanied by "scientific ignorance."

QR frame:

Several things: first, the brief should lie nowhere except with the pusullus

Re: Dear America: Do you plan to get it together any time soon?

I find the above to indicate, similarly, a contribution by, seemingly, the sorts of 'progressive liberals' who have insinuated themselves into our traditional form of Gov't. Sad.

America has made, makes, and will continue making mistakes. It is a natural continuum... However,

the bolded above is such a tell – as to reflect rather badly, imho, upon its composer.

Second, astrology is correct – when meaning astronomy – should one prefer the conceit of an obsolete. In similar fashion I prefer to spell supercede in its alternate form (OED).

Thirdly, Gorebal Warming is just that – Gorebal – when conflated with ‘man-made’. Global warming goes hand-in-hand with the ‘warming’ evidenced throughout our entire solar system. The generally frozen ‘oceans’ of Mars are melting; witness the images taken by our satellites showing icebergs floating in ‘newly melted oceans’. The only contribution man has made to Mars-warming has been entirely ‘Green’ – specifically, the green rover, which emits no CO2.

Even the giant Jupiter shows signs of massive disturbances.

(For a number of decades the earth’s magnetic density field has been weakening; we don’t know why. A weakened or lessened magnetic field contributes to a more fluid magma underlying earth’s tectonic plates. By that fact itself, we may infer friction with friction implying heat, as in warming.)

Not to fear, y’all – we’ll soon have such climatic changes, as to cause mass starvations followed by mass deaths – from Gov’ts and from debilitated immune systems, as well – chemical and genetically-modified bio weapons.

Enjoy today, for assuredly, tomorrow’s goin’ tah be a bummer!

Substituting the word "astrology" for "astronomy" still strikes me as being funny. But, then, I have a warped sense of humor...comes from working nights for too many years in the ER.

It was my understanding that science was designed to find truth, not produce it. It is to their shame they(the scientists) have chosen to eliminate truth as reality unless it could be smelled, tasted, felt, seen, heard, or tasted.

Satellite photos of icebergs floating in newly melted oceans on Mars? Linkage please! Far as I know there's still a fair bit of uncertainty that there's water on Mars at all, let alone oceans of the stuff...

And karl, I am an educator in relation to my students, but do not stand in that role in relation to you. We are equal interlocutors having a discussion, that's all. I started the discussion by lamenting the state of science education in the US, a country that since the push just after Sputnik has led the world in science and technology. As stimulus for that discussion I juxtaposed a thread title and a link to an article with no further comment. Perhaps I should have been more explicit, but I do like to assume people will read and choose. And yeah, I guess it was quite legitimate of you to take the debate off in another direction: but attacking me for views I never held or expounded wasn't something I was going to just sit still for.

The thread title was also not intended as an insult to or attack on America. Although I'm an old leftie librul I am *not* reflexively anti-American. America is the world's sole current superpower, and it's going into a decline and fall, at least in part because of this lack of attention to science. How many science PhDs graduated in America last year? And how many in China?

I want America to get it together some time real soon!

I would like to see our educators go back to the basics. No doubt many of South Dakota's legislators went to school, and looking at the bill they proposed it is obvious some of them did not receive a very good education in English.

The most important skill learned in school is READING.

It is an absolute travesty that so few students graduating from our schools read well. If one can read with comprehension, one can learn just about anything else he needs to know by reading.

Amen! The schools need to focus on it - and Australian schools across the country are moving back to teaching phonics and grammar, which the evidence shows helps with that. But IMO also parents need to be reading to their kids, having their kids read to them, and reading for pleasure themselves so their kids see reading as the normal thing to do. Learning to read in school is one thing, but actually reading regularly is something else - and vitally important.

>>Satellite photos of icebergs floating in newly melted oceans on Mars?<<

Geezerville, memory circuits cascade: read lakes rather than oceans...

>>Linkage please!<<

M11-03072, and M10-00798

>>Far as I know there's still a fair bit of uncertainty that there's water on Mars at all, let alone oceans of the stuff...<<

Indeed, there is that uncertainty; however... Personally, I hold to a hypothesis that much, if not the most part, of Mars’ former oceans are now part of ours.

Hear, hear! Reading is becoming a lost art. Too much getting our news from TV these days, without learning phonics or spelling by actually seeing good words in PRINT.

But my response to this very interesting thread is:

(1) astrology and astronomy are two very different words, meaning two very different disciplines. If they're used incorrectly I think it's the fault of the author(s) -- maybe even the state legislators in South Dakota.

(2) and "supercede" is an improper spelling - even if OED does show it as an alternate spelling. Because the word has no relationship to "cede-ing" [giving over] anything, thus cede is not a part of the word. The word is "supersede:" to lead, or to take the place of something which is now out of date.

Sorry to get this thread off topic; but sometimes the "word freak" inside me just takes over.

do you think that will help them know the difference between astrology and astronomy? lol.

>>(1) astrology and astronomy are two very different words, meaning two very different disciplines. If they're used incorrectly I think it's the fault of the author(s) -- maybe even the state legislators in South Dakota.

(2) and "supercede" is an improper spelling - even if OED does show it as an alternate spelling. Because the word has no relationship to "cede-ing" [giving over] anything, thus cede is not a part of the word. The word is "supersede:" to lead, or to take the place of something which is now out of date.<<

Hmm, kinda goes to vernacular, yes? Anyway, here’s how the Online Etymology Dictionary treats the subject:

astrology:
late 14c., from L. astrologia "astronomy," from Gk. astrologia "telling of the stars," from astron "star" (see astro) + -logia "treating of," comb. form of logon "one who speaks (in a certain manner)." Originally identical with astronomy, it had also a special sense of "practical astronomy, astronomy applied to prediction of events." This was divided into natural astrology "the calculation and foretelling of natural phenomenon" (tides, eclipses, etc.), and judicial astrology "the art of judging occult influences of stars on human affairs" (also known as stromancy, 1650s). Differentiation between astrology and astronomy began late 1400s and by 17c. this word was limited to "reading influences of the stars and their effects on human destiny." Astrological is recorded from 1590s. [bolded is mine]

As I said, “...conceit of an obsolete.”

Hard to second-guess the authority of the OED – notwithstanding... Were it otherwise, the OED could easily state that supercede is an improper spelling of supersede – rather than legitimizing it as an alternate spelling.

Conceit has its perks and we do cling to our druthers, do we not?

>>Conceit has its perks...<<

Hmmm..., "perks"?—or ‘perqs’? :(

Yep, them too. How many layers of meaning can we fit in 4 words? (One thing I deeply appreciate about your posts is how you make a few words do a lot of work (I leave the inversion as an exercise for the reader))

The 'lurker' is ever gentle on my mind...