Can The 400 Hold?

The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee (minority report) notes that more than 400 prominent scientists, including several former members of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have raised objections – some strenuously – to the hysteria that Al Gore and his sycophants have been screeching. Even the media has begun to notice that the "consensus" is more than a bit wobbly.

Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.  

The new report issued by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee’s office of the GOP Ranking Member details the views of the scientists, the overwhelming majority of whom spoke out in 2007. 

Even some in the establishment media now appear to be taking notice of the growing number of skeptical scientists. In October, the Washington Post Staff Writer Juliet Eilperin conceded the obvious, writing that climate skeptics "appear to be expanding rather than shrinking." Many scientists from around the world have dubbed 2007 as the year man-made global warming fears “bite the dust.” (LINK)  In addition, many scientists who are also progressive environmentalists believe climate fear promotion has "co-opted" the green movement. (LINK) 

This blockbuster Senate report lists the scientists by name, country of residence, and academic/institutional affiliation.  It also features their own words, biographies, and weblinks to their peer reviewed studies and original source materials as gathered from public statements, various news outlets, and websites in 2007. This new “consensus busters” report is poised to redefine the debate.

Many of the scientists featured in this report consistently stated that numerous colleagues shared their views, but they will not speak out publicly for fear of retribution. Atmospheric scientist Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, author of almost 70 peer-reviewed studies, explains how many of his fellow scientists have been intimidated.

 “Many of my colleagues with whom I spoke share these views and report on their inability to publish their skepticism in the scientific or public media,” Paldor wrote.  [Note: See also July 2007 Senate report detailing how skeptical scientists have faced threats and intimidation - LINK ]  

Regular readers know that I am not on any true believer Christmas card lists. But I have been looking into a couple of things lately (which will probably really get some folks angry with me.) I took a look at a bit of data and generated a graph. Then looked at some other data and looked at the graph they generated. To an engineer, these graphs show a trend. But it isn't the one you and I have been hearing from Al Gore and the media. First, data from the Rutgers University Global Snow Lab or GSL. I took the monthly snow cover numbers for the Northern hemisphere directly from their site and plugged it into a spreadsheet. I then generated a graph. No data manipulation was done at all.

(Click for larger)

The magenta line is the average, as calculated by the spreadsheet program. The black trendline is generated by the spreadsheet graph. Draw your own conclusions. Again, no manipulation of data was done.

Next, the graph from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Cryosphere Today website. This graph (no raw data) shows the amount of sea ice around Antarctica.

(Click for larger)

That does not look like a declining trend to me, nor does it to my wife who is also a trained engineer. In fact, neither look like declining trends.

So, are the 400 holding at the Hot Gates? Time will tell. But it seems that things are not quite as they seem – or as Al Gore and company are portraying them, does it?