U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed ... - NJIAT

of other human climate forcing on global warming, and more generally, on climate
variability and change," Pielke, Sr.'s blog states on the "Main Conclusions" page.
(LINK) In a May 10, 2007 blog post, Pielke wrote that the UN was "disingenuous" with
many of their claims. "Since about 2002 there has been NO statistically significant global
average warming in the lower and middle troposphere and since about 1995 there has
been NO statistically significant cooling in the stratosphere. The IPCC SPM conclusion
that ‘warming of the climate system is unequivocal' is wrong as it ignores the lack of
such warming in recent years by these other metrics of climate system heat changes,"
Pielke explained. "Perhaps global warming will begin again. However, the neglect to
include the recent lack of tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling (both of which
are predicted to continue quasi-linearly for the coming decades by the multi-decadal
global climate models, except for major volcanic eruptions) results in a seriously biased
report by the IPCC. It has been disappointing that the media so far has chosen to parrot
the statements in the IPCC SPMs rather than do investigative reporting on these issues,"
he concluded. (LINK)
Meteorologist Bill Steffen of Grand Rapids, Michigan noted that C02 is not the only
factor to consider in climate change. "There are at least several causes of recent ‘global
warming'. Carbon Dioxide (CO2) gets most of the attention, but there are other factors. A
minor effect is the lack of a substantial volcano in recent years. The last volcano to pump
a lot of dirt into the upper atmosphere was Mt. Pinatubo in the Philippines in 1991,"
Steffen wrote in a January 28, 2007 blog post. (LINK)
Mathematician David Orrell dismissed long-term climate models as unreliable. "The
track record of any kind of long-distance prediction is really bad, but everyone's still
really interested in it. It's sort of a way of picturing the future. But we can't make longterm
predictions of the economy, and we can't make long-term predictions of the
climate," Orrell said in an April 3, 2007 article in Canada's National Post. The National
Post article explained Orrell's views: "And so scientists use theoretical concepts like ‘flux
adjustments' to make the models agree with reality. When models about the future
climate are in agreement, ‘it says more about the self-regulating group psychology of the
modeling community than it does about global warming and the economy.'" (LINK)
Biochemistry researcher Dr. Thomas Lavin, who is a physician who holds patents
regarding physical, chemical, and biological sciences and has conducted peerreviewed
research and experiments, expressed climate skepticism in 2007. "I first
published a peer reviewed paper in 1981, and have been looking at data for 30 years,"
Lavin wrote to EPW on December 13, 2007. "I am somebody who has designed
experiments and looked at data. And if you simply freeze Al Gore's movie when he
introduces the CO2 and temperature relationship through geologic time, and look at the
graph, the temperature goes up before the CO2 in every one of the six or seven elevations
recorded geologically. And this time gap is on the order of a few hundred years," Lavin
explained. "Add this to the NASA temperature revision [making 1934 the hottest year in
the U.S.] and then add that many of the climate models which predict doom use the old,
unrevised NASA data, and you have total garbage in/ garbage out," he wrote. "Before we
start regulating who gets to build a factory, and who gets to fly on a private jet, or drive
to work, I think the data has to be real and convincing," he added. "This episode in
48