Good news for those of us interested in putting the “Science” back into “Scientific Debate”
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.
This new report details how teams of international scientists are dissenting from the UN IPCC’s view of climate science. In such nations as Germany, Brazil, the Netherlands, Russia, New Zealand and France, scientists banded together in 2007 to oppose climate alarmism.
(Emphasis added by PoliTech)
Read the whole U.S. Senate Article here. I will try to post a link to the report in it’s entireity when it becomes available.
UPDATE 2: In answer to some heated messages recieved regarding this post:
The excitement in science comes from exploring a topic from every possible angle and to try to comprehend how things function. To adhere to the scientific method, a scientist must be open-minded, and not be influenced by preconceptions and prejudices that exist because of political, religious, or other predispositions.
Science can only thrive on the repeated challenge of every explanation, where a scientist may even take particular satisfaction in finding something wrong with a traditional or time-honored theory. Such scientific challenges allow for strengthened scientific understanding. By this process new answers can raise additional questions, thus further refining our knowledge.
Skepticism is essential to good scientific research, and rather than trying to silence skeptics, serious science invites skepticism as contributory. So the global warming debate can only benefit from traditional scientific skepticism.
I have posited many times that many Global Warming zealots as well as many Global Warming skeptics actually subvert the scientific process, by ceasing to think objectively, and choose to concentrate on only presenting one side of the equation, like lawyers defending a viewpoint on trial.
Nonetheless some of the topics focused on, by the skeptics and zealots alike, are indeed acknowledged as legitimate research subjects.
However it’s reasonable to point out that the accumulation of environmental, political and religious perspectives in the midst of the actual science and research has occurred from both sides in the global warming debate, and has reached the point where the noise of zealotry is drowning out the music of science.
The point of this post (and others like it) is to illustrate this fact. We need much more hard science and much less heated hyperbole in this discussion. Unfortunately the political players on the left and right are using climate change science as some kind of political bludgeon, causing the layman to gravitate to one extreme side or the other, while purposely muzzling, or otherwise hindering the actual science of the subject.
The news here is that over 400 distinguished scientists have expressed a dissenting view of climate change data to the Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis.
The existence of this much scientific dissent indicates that the so-called “consensus” about AGW does not in fact exist.
For if there exists significant “dissent” then there can by definition be no “consensus”, can there?