Global Warming: Dissent Continues Growing

I spent a couple of weeks in Germany this summer -- a country steeped in Global Warming Folklore and heavily influenced by the Green Party. Luckily, I didn't get preached at by my German friends about ecology as I have in the past, but an American colleague -- a science teacher -- was gleefully extolling the virtues of Obama and was mesmerized by the Germans' environmental innovations. These innovations, with a laudable heavy emphasis on recycling, are a part of everyday life.

My colleague is truly indoctrinated into the superstition of global warming, being the good public school teacher that he is. Personally, I do believe in treating our planet with respect and TLC, but my friend was just a bit too much into the typical Liberal mode of saying "we gotta do this!" and "we gotta legislate that!" without considering logistics, practicality and costs. For example, it is indeed cool how the Germans -- even senior citizens! -- bike everywhere. My colleague wanted to have more biking lanes around our school, with which I agree. However, other Americans with us made the point that in high traffic areas, we have roadways consisting of several lanes, which would prove quite dangerous to bikers. When I asked my colleague if he was ready to start biking to school in the fall, since he lives only a couple of miles away, he said no -- it was too dangerous. He said this in spite of the fact that there are some specially designated bike lanes in the area. Typical ...

This morning I was happy to find that Marc Morano of the Climate Depot reported yesterday that dissent among scientists continues to grow, with 60 prominent German scientists, including several United Nations IPCC members, publicly declaring their dissent from man-made global warming in an Open Letter to German Chancellor Angela Merkel. The scientists charge that global warming has become a "pseudo religion", adding that the UN IPCC has lost its scientific credibility. They assert that rising CO2 levels have "had no measurable effect" on temperatures.

Here is an excerpt from Marcano's post (emphasis added):

The July 26, 2009 German scientist letter urged Chancellor Merkel to “strongly reconsider” her position on global warming and requested a “convening of an impartial panel” that is “free of ideology” to counter the UN IPCC and review the latest climate science developments.

The scientists, from many disciplines, including physicists, meteorology, chemistry, and geology, explain that “humans have had no measurable effect on global warming through CO2 emissions. Instead the temperature fluctuations have been within normal ranges and are due to natural cycles.”

“More importantly, there's a growing body of evidence showing anthropogenic CO2 plays no measurable role,” the scientists wrote. “Indeed CO2's capability to absorb radiation is almost exhausted by today's atmospheric concentrations. If CO2 did indeed have an effect and all fossil fuels were burned, then additional warming over the long term would in fact remain limited to only a few tenths of a degree,” they added.

“The IPCC had to have been aware of this fact, but completely ignored it during its studies of 160 years of temperature measurements and 150 years of determined CO2 levels. As a result the IPCC has lost its scientific credibility,” the scientists wrote.

“Indeed the atmosphere has not warmed since 1998 – more than 10 years, and the global temperature has even dropped significantly since 2003. Not one of the many extremely expensive climate models predicted this. According to the IPCC, it was supposed to have gotten steadily warmer, but just the opposite has occurred,” the scientists wrote.

“The belief of climate change, and that it is manmade, has become a pseudo-religion,” the scientists wrote. “The German media has sadly taken a leading position in refusing to publicize views that are critical of anthropogenic global warming,” they added. [Gee, sounds like our media! Must be a universal characteristic.]

“Do you not believe, Madam Chancellor, that science entails more than just confirming a hypothesis, but also involves testing to see if the opposite better explains reality? We strongly urge you to reconsider your position on this subject and to convene an impartial panel for the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, one that is free of ideology, and where controversial arguments can be openly debated. We the undersigned would very much like to offer support in this regard.

Marcano's report continues with the scientists' Open Letter, including their footnotes and references.

So, now I'm deliberating if whether or not I should send a copy of this report to my colleague ...