Senate Report Debunks “Consensus” on Man-Made Global Warming.

Good news for those of us interested in putting the “Science” back into “Scientific Debate”


U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007

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: Complete Report: (LINK) Complete Report without Introduction: (LINK)

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?



  1. We are in the 11th(th) hour of climatic destruction. Algore warns that the abuses done to Mother Earth are quickly becoming irreversible. When will we wake up and stop this madness before it is too late?


  2. Jonny, that’s just the sort of hyperbole that has made such a mess of the science in the field of climate study. (I think you are having some satirical fun here, but I will continue on anyway as if your comment were serious)

    If we actually are in the 11th hour and on the brink of disaster, then it’s too late to do anything at all about it at all.

    The truth is that we are just at the beginning of industrialization in most of the world, and as the African, South American and Indo-Chinese continents catch up with the west in their industrialization, pollutants introduced into the ecosphere are going to increase exponentially.

    The sooner those in the field of climate study get off the soap-box and back to doing hard science the better for all of mankind.

    Your satirical comment got me though – Algore as one word should have clued me in, but alas … and so you earned yourself a spot on the PoliTech blogroll. I placed your Blog under Humor, but can move it to a more appropriate topic if you desire, let me know.


  3. Specifically, the “consensus” about anthropogenic climate change entails the following:

    1) the climate is undergoing a pronounced warming trend beyond the range of natural variability;
    2) the major cause of most of the observed warming is rising levels of the greenhouse gas CO2;
    3) the rise in CO2 is the result of burning fossil fuels;
    4) if CO2 continues to rise over the next century, the warming will continue; and
    5) a climate change of the projected magnitude over this time frame represents potential danger to human welfare and the environment.

    These conclusions have been explicitly endorsed by …

    Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil)
    Royal Society of Canada
    Chinese Academy of Sciences
    Academié des Sciences (France)
    Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
    Indian National Science Academy
    Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
    Science Council of Japan
    Russian Academy of Sciences
    Royal Society (United Kingdom)
    National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
    Australian Academy of Sciences
    Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
    Caribbean Academy of Sciences
    Indonesian Academy of Sciences
    Royal Irish Academy
    Academy of Sciences Malaysia
    Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
    Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences

    In addition to these national academies, the following institutions specializing in climate, atmosphere, ocean, and/or earth sciences have endorsed these conclusions:

    NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
    National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
    State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)
    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
    Royal Society of the United Kingdom (RS)
    American Geophysical Union (AGU)
    American Institute of Physics (AIP)
    National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
    American Meteorological Society (AMS)
    Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)

    I’ll take this “consensus” over the 400 “scientists” handpicked by Sen Inhofe for his minority skeptics report.


  4. brewski, you’re missing the point.

    The news here is that over 400 distinguished scientists have expressed a dissenting view of the climate data to that which you so generously provided above.

    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?

    I will concede one point that you seem to make, in that the science should come before the politics.


  5. I have changed my earlier position on climate change. After an exhaustive study of the matter, I concur with you. The founder of GreenPeace acknowledges that when Communism fell, thousands flocked to the environmental movement. It is a diabolical plan to restrain the resources of the West and force us into one world government. Ask yourself, who benefits from this myth? The elites who will harness the World’s resources for their own nefarious ends.


  6. johnnypeepers,
    Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality.

    Your comments are always welcome, thought provoking and fun.

    This subject actually goes far beyond environmental issues alone. Advocates for effective and real change in human impact on the environment need to understand that we’re all in this together, and we can only alter our energy consumption behavior by detaching ourselves from preconceived notions, prejudices, and to a large degree our politics.

    I don’t think anyone wants us as a species to drown ourselves in our own waste, but the proposed solutions shouldn’t be worse for mankind than the problems we’re trying to solve.


  7. I’d like you to think about one thing. Al gore just mentioned a couple of months ago that 30% of man made CO2 was from 3rd world counties using cut trees for heat and fuel for cooking. Now, it has been discussed that 90% of CO2 is produced by oceans, decaying foliage and volcano’s. If thats true, then we control 10% of the CO2 production. Taking the fact the unless your going to give solar food heaters to 2 billion people, or something that works close to that, you have to take 30% off the table.
    Now, let’s say we can change by 25%. And it’s only 25% of 70% of 10$ of the total CO2 produced. How much does that save us? Do the math. CO2 is only about .035 0f 1%. is it that much of a problem?
    I’ve read science reports that state that it could increase by 3 times the amount and it would only help plant life and lead maybe to a warmer climate that who;s to say is the wrong temperature.
    Al gore is off his rocker. You alarmists (he means YOU brewski -ed.) should do some serious research.


Comments are closed.