Jennifer,
I note of late a tendency to refer to the “growing” number of AGW skeptics in the scientific community and am a bit puzzled by this.
If, like myself, you are not a scientist much less an expert in a climate related discipline, then the relative proportions and credibility of genuine experts is an important factor in making your mind up about the significance of AGW.
So who are the skeptics and is their number growing?
It might be useful to keep an up-to-date list of the genuine experts who are skeptical about either/or the existence of AGW and the seriousness of the threat it poses.
Highlighting recent "defections" either way might indicate a change in sentiment in scientific opinion if one really exists?
Of course, some principles would have to be adopted and applied rigorously if such an exercise was really to be of any use.
For example, many would argue that scientists who received funding from a source which may have an agenda served by a particular finding should be excluded.
This includes scientists who have been funded by oil and mining companies, environmental organizations , NGO’s or scientists who have received research grants specifically linked to AGW.
There is a link at Wiki which lists skeptics and provides details of their qualifications:
But who are the recent converts?
I can only think of two – Allegre and David Evans.
I don’t know of any defections the other way.
Should we be expecting to see more if scientific sentiment is really changing?
Regards,
Jim
Australia
c'mon schiller, the suspense is killing me
Ian, I apologies, someone is listening to you. Alan doesn't get that CO2 can lag temp increases and still cause temp increases!
there is so much gold on this blog it's not funny.
Schiller, which of the studies that you linked do you beleive? Be very careful now... one MAY contradict the other (of course I haven't checked this and would not bait you, i would just like you to make a simple choice...)
Would you like the green pill or the blue pill? The choice is yours.
Schiller - boring - you talk about cheap points - the trouble is Schiller is that you're just a neo-con robot - programmed to stay on message regardless of facts - Bug Girl has demolished your Carson tripe. Your argument is road kill. Your response is to attack me.
Luke,
You've pretty much exhausted your debating bag of tricks. Nice tricks, I gotta give you that. But I don't see any coherence, substance or commitment. Just a penchant for scoring 'cheap shot' debating points.
I for one have become tired of responding to your tirades. It's important that the uninformed not fall prey to your malformed, flawed arguments, and that the uninitiated not be prey to the greenie Beatitudes you eagerly repeat.
You're getting so repetitive you should probably start a business printing bumper-stickers.
Apropos the delay between temperature proxy and co2 in Vostok cores, using full cross correlation analysis, the delay is more like 4000 years, so it is not sensible to argue that CO2 is a "cause".
The data is online. Don't take anyone's word for it.
No Schiller - just been to Mottsa's debating class - blame him. Look I've given you the evidence and now you're wussing out of the debate. Typical neo-con in defeat mode.
The whole Carson thing is an immense fabrication to support dodgy environmental practices and create a diversion. Shame on you.
So how are you going to cope with a green sympathetic Democrat president. You guys will be howling.