Who you gonna call? Gorebusters!

Three guesses where this quote comes from:

To many scientists and students of scientific history, there really is no such thing as a consensus.

Nope, it’s not the Wall Street Journal. It’s not TCS Daily. It’s not from the Climate Denialist and UFO Nutters Digest either. This is from a columnist/blogger at the New York Times, Andrew Revkin. He’s been among the more informative media voices, doggedly reporting both sides — and the middle — of the climate debate.

Gorebusters! (click for large version)His piece notes a typically detailed and well-referenced minority report (intro here, full document here) released by Senator James Inhofe, ranking member of the US Environment and Public Works Committee. It documents the views of over 400 scientists who disagree with the “consensus” claimed by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (and its patron saint, Al Gore), and links to much peer-reviewed research work that undermines the orthodox views of “settled science”.

An excerpt from the introduction:

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.” In addition, many scientists who are also progressive environmentalists believe climate fear promotion has “co-opted” the green movement.

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.

If 400 sounds like a consensus-busting number, but still paltry in comparison with the UN’s exagerated claim of 2 500 scientists that back the IPCC view, consider this:

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.

Whichever side is right, in debunking the notion that the science is — barring a few extremist nutters and oil company shills — settled, Inhofe’s report is timely indeed. If they’re going to draft Gore, perhaps they could draft Inhofe to run against him. The campaign would be most entertaining.

Like it? Please spike it: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • muti
  • Slashdot
  • Technorati
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • del.icio.us
  • blogmarks
  • Fark
  • NewsVine
  • StumbleUpon
  • TailRank
  • SphereIt
Similar spikes:

2 comments so far

  1. Lubos Motl December 21, 2007 12:16

    Wow, did you have independently the very same idea? ;-) http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/12/consensus-buster-james-inhofe-400.html

  2. Ivo Vegter December 21, 2007 12:30

    Hehe, snap! Inhofe’s report mentioned “consensus busters”, so I guess the connection was fairly obvious, but if I’d seen your post, I wouldn’t have wasted two hours with the Gimp ;-)

    The link in your post to the predictable response from the Gore camp is interesting: Oh, nevermind them, they’re just oil-company funded.

Leave a comment

Please be polite and on topic. Your e-mail is needed to help verify you are not a spam-bot, and rarely if I need to contact you privately. It will never be published, abused or disclosed to anyone.

Please be aware that first-time commenters, as determined by your name and e-mail, are moderated. This unconscionable attack on your freedom of speech is regrettable, but since it helps combat the spam flood, it is non-negotiable. Please do not submit your comment twice. It will appear as soon as I see it in the moderation queue.