Is it reasonable to be a global warming skeptic?


OK, if you insist, let’s talk personalities. Starting with the charge of fraud in “hide the decline” which you used to impugn the character of Phil Jones. I asked before and I will ask again. Have you taken the trouble to read Phil Jones’s defense on this charge before you made up your mind about his character?


That’s a reasonable explanation. However, after working 49 years in my field, my experience belies that belief. Many of my 23 patents occur (and occurred) by proving the experts wrong. I am sometimes wrong. If I weren’t, my employer couldn’t possibly pay me enough.

No, one should NOT always trust experts in their field, but to totally discount them as well is also folly.



Maybe, but not if:

  1. The premiere authority on climate change, the UN’s IPCC, has proved to be utterly unworthy of belief.
  2. The scientific community which produces the conventional wisdom on climate science has proved to be politicized and corrupt.
  3. 95% of the computer models, upon which all the scary climate predictions are based, over-estimate the warming.
  4. To create the myth of the 97% consensus, Cook et al divided 64 by 12,000.

No, in the case of climate science, the scientists cannot be given the deference and trust we normally give them.


The methodology and the review process itself speak for itself.

No one has even come close to modeling the dynamics of the earth’s climate.


Not my field of expertise, but I’d tend to agree. I think they’re trying, but the sophistication of the modelling sure doesn’t match the volume of the verbal output. The old Mose Allison song comes to mind: "your mind’s on vacation, but your mouth’s workin’ overtime. "

Been monitoring this thread. Nothing I’ve seen leads me to believe that it is UNreasonable to be skeptical of global warming.



I will post this here.

To remind me to post the author and title of a book demonstrating the ways that scientists are pro-global warming UNTIL THEY RETIRE.

And then after they have their pension, they become anti-global warming.


Lawrence Solomon

“The Deniers”


Solomon states that, as an environmentalist and active member of the Canadian environmental, anti-nuclear, activist organization Energy Probe, he did not originally question the mainstream opinion on global warming or views that sceptics of the climate change consensus were paid shills of the Energy Lobby. Solomon, however, states that he was aware, based on his experiences opposing nuclear power during the 1970s that it was possible, “that scientists with integrity can hold unconventional and upopular views,” by dissenting with the conventional wisdom of the day. Solomon states that at a dinner in 2004, his friend and fellow environmentalist Norm Rubin remarked that the science on global warming was “settled.” Solomon challenged Rubin to name three climate-change areas that he felt were settled and Solomon would try to find a credible dissenting opinion for each.[1]

To Solomon’s stated surprise, he was able to find reputable scientists who Solomon believed disputed conclusions contained in the IPCC’s reports on climate change or media reports on global warming issues. Solomon began profiling these scientists in a series of columns for the National Post under the title, “The Deniers.” The series began on November 28, 2006 with its debut article, Statistics needed, describing Edward Wegman’s report to the United States House Committee on Energy and Commerce on the Hockey stick controversy.[2]

By 2007 the series had grown to 38 separate articles.[3][4][5][6][7][8][9] Solomon states that he was frustrated with the limitations of newspaper columns, such as a limit on how much he could write, no footnotes, and no graphs. Thus, Solomon states that he decided to write a book expanding his columns on those he labeled “Deniers.”[10][11]

Three of those profiled by Solomon in his “Deniers” columns disputed his portrayals of their opinions and/or research. Sami Solanki stated on his personal website that Solomon’s article was a misleading account of his views and reiterated his belief that manmade greenhouse gases are responsible for global warming and their effects would continue to be felt as concentrations increase. Solanki also stated that he felt that The National Post had similarly misquoted other scientists regarding the topic.[12] Nir Shaviv disputed Solomon’s 2007 National Post profile of some of his opinions and research findings. Shaviv stated on his blog that he was never interviewed by Solomon and that there were inaccuracies in Solomon’s article, but Shaviv did state that global warming happened but he does not believe that it is caused by man.[13] Nigel Weiss, “rebutted claims that a fall in solar activity could somehow compensate for the man-made causes of global warming”[14] and The National Post retracted the allegation and published an apology.[15] Solanki and Shaviv were included in Solomon’s subsequent book; Weiss was not.


The book expands Solomon’s National Post columns about those who he labeled as “Deniers” and who, in Solomon’s opinion, dissented in some way from the mainstream opinion on global warming.[3][16] In the book, Solomon questions the assertion that the “science is settled”, which he believes is claimed by advocates of the “consensus theory” and criticizes the “alarmist” view on global warming. Among the issues raised and alleged flaws presented are the Hockey stick controversy; the Stern Review; hurricane frequency and intensity; the lack of signs of global warming in Antarctica’s climate; reservations on the predictability of climate models and its lack of falsifiability; the Singer-Revelle-Gore controversy; and the alternate solar variation theory, regarding the hypotheses of the warming being driven by the interaction of the solar wind with cosmic rays affecting cloud formation. Each chapter includes end notes with references and website addresses.

Those mentioned in the book are, in order of appearance in the book’s chapters: Edward Wegman, Richard Tol, Christopher Landsea, Duncan Wingham, Robert M. Carter, Richard Lindzen, Vincent R. Gray, Syun-Ichi Akasofu, Tom Segalstad, Nir Shaviv, Zbigniew Jaworowski, Hendrik Tennekes, Freeman Dyson, Antonino Zichichi, David Bromwich, Eigil Friis-Christensen, Henrik Svensmark, Sami Solanki, Jasper Kirkby, Habibullo Abdussamatov, George Kukla, Rhodes Fairbridge, William M. Gray, Cliff Ollier, Paul Reiter, Claude Allègre, Reid Bryson, David Bellamy, and the cautious position of Roger Revelle. A brief curriculum vitae for each scientist is presented. In the final chapter, Mr. Solomon presents his personal point of view on the climate change debate.

Reasons for title[edit]
The term “The Deniers” is controversial even among some of those profiled in the book, which often raises the question of why Solomon would choose it as the title for both his book and its related newspaper series. In explaining his decision, Soloman writes:

"I have been asked many times why I titled my series and now this book The Deniers, in effect adopting their enemies’ terminology. Many of the scientists in this book hate the term and deny it applies to them.
I could give several reasons, but here is the most important. The scientists are not alone in having their credibility on trial in the global warming debate. They are not the only “authorities” in the argument, and not even the most important “authorities.” Most laymen, most citizens, owe most of what we think we know about global warming not to science directly, but to science as mediated by the media and by political bodies, especially the UN and our governments. We citizens, trying to discern what to do about global warming, must judge not only the credibility of the scientists but of those who claim to tell us what the scientists say. To that end, as you read through this book, judge for yourself the credibility of those who dismiss these scientists as cranks or crooks, and call them The Deniers.[17]


As these rather dramatic reversals for the doomsday view mounted, however, I also noticed something striking about my growing cast of deniers. None of them were deniers."[18]


Hi Stephie,

An unfortunate development in the field has been the misuse of climate models as predictive tools. Manabe, one of the pioneers of modeling, warned folks that model output was not real, but that warning has gone largely unheeded. Even IPCC champion Naomi Oreskes admits that computer models are heuristic tools, nothing more. Kevin Trenberth, IPCC insider, in a moment of candor, admitted that the models don’t make predictions and can’t. But yet the IPCC still says its models have mastered all the relevant components of the climate system and enable us “to say something quantitative about the future.” In other words, we can predict future climate.

But in the end, the proof is in the pudding. 95% of the models got it wrong. Or, as Dr. Roy Spencer puts it, 95% of all models agree that the temperature record is wrong!


I hope Dr. Spencer was only joking when he made that remark, because it is inherently an unscientific remark. It makes no sense to speak of models being right or wrong. Models are estimates of the processes they model. The are expected to deviate from the actual processes. The relevant question is how far they deviate. Without such quantification, statements like the one I quoted are meaningless.


Phil Jones email to Mann, Bradley and Hughes (from climategate emails): “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 from Keith’s to hide the decline.”

The decline Jones wanted to hide was the decline in temps as measured by tree rings. This was, and still is, an embarrassment to the paleoclimate field because, while tree rings showed temps falling, thermometer temps were going up. How to explain? If we can’t trust tree rings reconstructions in the latter part of the 20th century, why are we supposed to trust them for prior periods?

Jones first tried to brush off the hiding the decline by saying: “…it’s just about how you add on the last few years, because when you get proxy data you sample things like tree rings and ice cores, and they don’t always have the last few years. So one way is to add on the instrumental data for the last few years.” Montford, Hide the Decline, p. 71

Later Jones released this statement: “My colleagues and I accept that some of the published emails do not read well. I regret any upset or confusion caused as a result. Some were clearly written in the heat of the moment, others use colloquialisms frequently used between close colleagues. We are, and have always been, scrupulous in ensuring that our science publications are robust and honest.” [Montford, p. 78]

But the climategate emails show that it wasn’t about filling in some missing years. It was about hiding something, namely the divergence problem cited above. The problem all along was Keith Briffa’s temperature reconstruction. It matched up with Michael Mann’s famous hockey stick curve until 1961, when the curve declined sharply. Leading up to the IPCC Third Assessment Report in 2001, the authors discussed showing three temp reconstructions, Mann’s, Briffa’s and another, in one diagram. They wanted it to present a unified picture of unprecedented warming for a thousand years. But how to get rid of this troublesome decline in Briffa’s graph because it “diluted” the “nice tidy story” they wanted to tell?


Leading the charge was Michael Mann, the lead author of the paleoclimate chapter. The solution for the IPCC report was to simple delete the decline from Briffa’s graph. The IPCC report, however, was not what Jones referred to in his infamous email. Jones was referring to the upcoming WMO report. Jones went further than Mann. He didn’t just delete the decline. He also grafted or spliced the thermometer temps onto Briffa’s graph. Specifically, Jones deleted the declining data, replaced it with thermometer data, and then smoothed the resulting series to the join could not be visible. This fabrication was put on the cover of the WMO report.

So Jones not only played a role in the conspiracy to hide the divergence problem, he fabricated a phony and misleading graph to do it. Whatever else Jones may have said in his defense cannot justify what he did. Not even Michael Mann defends Jones’ deleting and splicing. See Michael E. Mann, The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars, p. 211.


He was joking, of course. But contained in the joke is a jab at the hubris of the modelers. They really do believe they can predict the future. Yet their predictions deviate so wildly from reality.


You still didn’t answer the question. Did you bother to read what Jones and his supporters say in defense of this charge before making up your mind? Not a very objective judge!


The fact that people believe 97% of climate scientists agree that man is largely responsible for global warming is a testimony to the effectiveness of propaganda.


Jones and Briffa were interviewed (together, not separately) by Boulton and Clarke at the UEA. Boulton’s edited summary of the responses can be found here:

Here is the hiding the decline allegation and Jones’ response summary:

My comment: Jones does not deny deleting and splicing and does not deny that the curve was misleading. “Someone made me do it,” and “It wasn’t intended for the gullible and unsophisticated public,” are not justifications for his deception.


You did not see the best possible defense of Jones et al. Try this:

"Hide the Decline" refers to suppressing what was known to be faulty data in tree ring density reconstructions of temperature in favor of instrumental data after 1960. Instrumental temperature records are more reliable than reconstructing based on tree ring densities, so why wouldn’t you want to switch over to instrumental data if it is available? The problem with the correspondence of these reconstructions after 1960 with instrumental data was published and discussed openly by the group a year before the East Anglia emails were released. So the charge that the group is hiding something about this is unbelievable. There was no deception.


That the data was made public and openly discussed before the emails were finally released doesn’t change what the emails showed, that there was a deliberate attempt to mislead. It doesn’t matter that it was misguided or failed, their intent was to deceive.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit