What is becoming a oft quoted stat by the opposition to "cap-and-trade" legislation is that 700 scientists from around the world have reached out in opposition to the "consensus" regarding man-made global warming. The actual 255 page report detailing each scientist and their doubts can be found here. Many a conservative politician and talk show host have used this report and the 700 scientists claim to attack the current cap-and-trade legislation which just passed through the House and is now on its way to the Senate. In an earlier post I began to detail why the 700 scientists claim may be bogus. This article will provide a more comprehensive and in-depth analysis of why the 700 scientists claim does not really carry much weight.
#1: 700 scientists is actually not a large number when you look at the overall number of scientists
Just within the United States there are 2,685,000 scientists. This does not include the millions of scientists one could find in Japan, India, China, Great Britain, etc. If we just take the number of scientists in the United States, the number of "dissenters" regarding global warming make up .02% of the overall scientists population. That means at least 99.98% of scientists either are on board with the global warming consensus or do not know of this report. The opposition to climate change legislation makes it seem as though 700 scientists is an overwhelming number of scientists and that no consensus exist in the scientific community. However, in looking at the bigger picture we can see this claim does not completely hold water. Now the opposition will surely next argue that their scientists outnumber scientists on record as supporting global warming. This brings me to my next argument.
#2: The 13:1 ratio is bogus
Opponents of climate change legislation claim the doubters of global warming outnumber the supporters 13:1. There are a number of problems with this claim. First, opponents come up with this ratio by comparing the number of scientists they were able to scratch together from the entire scientific community with the number of scientists who authored the U.N. report regarding global warming. The problem is that there exists far many more supporters of global warming than the scientists who authored the IPCC report. By only using the number of authors one significantly skews the numbers. This would be akin to saying socialists outnumber capitalists 1 billion to one because after all Adam Smith is the only person who wrote Wealth of Nations and therefore he must be the only capitalist on earth. We know the truth to be otherwise. I am sure pro climate change forces are forming their own report and I am guessing they will be able to find more than 700 scientists who support the "consensus." But as I will reveal in my next contention, numbers of scientists are not really what we should be focused on.
#3: The truth regarding global warming should be about more than "I have more scientists than you!"
The fight over global warming cannot be simplified into a numbers equation. All scientists are not created equal. So, for example, a scientists with a doctorate in atmospheric science would carry much more weight than a scientists with doctorate degree in biology. Just as I would rather have a cardiologist perform my heart surgery rather than a pediatrician I would say that some scientists have more authority than others when it comes to global warming. Even among scientists both holding atmospheric science degrees I would lend more weight to the one who has published hundreds of articles about global warming than the scientists who has published ten articles on acid rain.
Even one of the top scientists in the dissenting report, Ivar Giaever the Nobel Prize winner in physics, says himself that "We frequently hear about the number of scientists who support it. But the number is not important: only whether they are correct is important." On this point I agree with Mr. Giaever. I am sure 99% of the scientific community disagreed with Galileo when he said the earth revolved around the sun. This did not make Galileo incorrect it just made him outnumbered.
The report listing the 700 scientists does have many well known names in climatology and environmental science. However, the report also contains scientists who specialize in mathematics, physics, and engineering. Now I will grant you that an engineer knows more than the lay person as to global warming but that does not mean they are qualified to qualify as a dissenting voice against the scientific consensus.
To explain a bit further I will use the field of law with which I am most familiar. Any lawyer will tell you that specialization is the norm now. A lawyer working in a private firm who specializes in corporate taxation is probably the last person you would want representing you in a criminal trial. The lawyer may be an expert in corporate taxation but it may have been ten or twenty years since they dealt with anything in the field of criminal law. Similarly, if an engineer has spent the last twenty years of his scientific career focusing on ways to make buildings withstand an earthquake I do not think he or she is necessarily qualified to give an opinion on global warming. Many of the scientists in the report are engineers, physicists, astronauts, etc. While I duly respect their opinion in their given field I do not believe all of them are qualified to give an opinion regarding global warming.
#4: If one reads the report you see that not all the scientists actually deny the existence of man-made global warming
Opponents were likely counting on no one actually reading the 255 page report but when you do read the report you find that not every scientists, or even most of them, in the report dispute the existence of global warming. Many of them deny global warming will have catastrophic impacts but they do not deny that global warming exist or that it will have some impact. Some say they have doubts regarding global warming but saying you have doubts is a far cry from denying the existence of something. Some of the scientists decry how they are no longer being funded by pro global warming forces which sounds to me more like sour grapes than a real scientific opinion. One quote from an Indian geologist simply attacks the fact that "that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists." How dare geologists not give out the Nobel Peace Prize! What, if anything, is this scientists really saying about global warming claims? Many of the quotes in the report are simply conclusive statements that global warming simply is not 100% established with no real support behind the conclusions.
Conclusion: This may be an inconvenient truth, but the mere fact that opponents of climate change legislation found 700 dissenting scientists means nothing in reality. Instead we should be asking what the most qualified scientists who specialize in the field agree is happening regarding man-made global warming. Stay tuned for a future article addressing this very question.
Comments
Republicans are concerned with business and business in the 21st century can't see past this quarter's earnings reports. That makes Republicans extraordinarily dangerous as they have no long term vision. Making money is the only thing that matters even if it means the end of the world.
Hi could you please give me the name of the climatologist that originally came up with the greenhouse theory. Oops there was no such thing as climatology when the theory was first postulated by a physicist. So the idea that in order to understand the science of global warming you must be a climatologist to understand it is mute from the get go, so to speak. Actually climatology especially as related to the hypothesis of man made global warming is a multi disciplinary science. Currently the driving force (besides research money) behind the hypothesis of man made global warming are the computer modelers, little children with their computer games, have a good day.
Your "700" is up to 60,000 and growing fast.
Have you ever heard of a book titled "Silent Spring" by Rachel Carson published first in 1962? Today we are all supposed to be wearing gas masks in order to breath outdoors. She attached DDT pesticide. For further Information go to Examiner dot com and look up Famous health scares
The fact that Oceans are cooling not warming, that the last 5 years have seen Global cooling not warming, that the Sun is the primary driver of global temperature (duh) and that none of the climate models predict cooling over this period is rather important don't you think?
This "science" will go down as one of the most over-hyped hysteria's of all time. In fact I distinctly recall as a high school senior the consensus was of global cooling, that we were all to die of starvation, wars for food and a new ice age that would bury the continental US.
Final thought: in 1974 Garrett Hardin published his thesis of "life boat ethics" suggesting that wealthy nations cease food aide for impoverished ones under the misguided concept that with limited resources it was every man for himself. Further he predicted that massive famines would result if we did not heed his wisdom. Gee, that hasn't exactly happened either. Don't believe me, read for yourself at garretthardinsociety.org
You know, the Oceans are hot pink, not blue and they're getting colder!
Who needs facts when you can just make things up?
Ask questions for yourself. Ice studies show temps leading CO2 levels. The theory which fits the data is that the earth's orbit which is not a perfect circle or on a constant path shifts thereby warming the earth & then the oceans released CO2. All current climate models ass u me the suns influence to be constant so it can be eliminated as a variable. In the 1970's NASA scientists proved through satalite data the there is sun irradiance. That is to say variable intensity which affects earth temps. Recent studies show a better correlation between sun irradiance & earth temps than anthropogenic(man made) cause. This would suggest that further study of astrological affects should be explored & reaching a conclusion that man made cause is the only variable is foolish. I do agree with the author in that we should be talking about the science, but it seems that if a real scientist disagrees with the idea that the warming could have another explination they are instantaniously on the take.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!