Jon Huntsman: Of Course I Believe in Global Warming!

Actually, Huntsman’s remark is dumber, because he says he believes in “climate change”. As Ed Morrissey says, that’s a meaningless term. The climate is always changing and always has been changing. Which is why we’ve had ice ages and then, you know, not.

The question is whether the climate is changing because of human activity. Huntsman seems to believe that it is, at least judging by his previous support for the job-killing cap-and-trade legislation that even many prominent Democrats can’t bring themselves to support.

Explaining his belief, Huntsman says:

This is an issue that ought to be answered by the scientific community; I’m not a meteorologist. All I know is 90 percent of the scientists say climate change is occurring. If 90 percent of the oncological community said something was causing cancer we’d listen to them. I respect science and the professionals behind the science so I tend to think it’s better left to the science community – though we can debate what that means for the energy and transportation sectors.

First, he provides absolutely no evidence to back up his 90% claim, and I can quickly and easily provide evidence to the contrary. In fact, ClimateGate came about because scientists couldn’t back up their claims so they needed to twist data to “hide the decline”. Huntsman doesn’t address ClimateGate or what it demonstrated, either.

In fact, just last week we learned that a prominent man-made global warming alarmist has become a skeptic. David Evans, who holds six university degrees and has advised governments on global warming, was once an alarmist. Now:

The debate about global warming has reached ridiculous proportions and is full of micro-thin half-truths and misunderstandings. I am a scientist who was on the carbon gravy train, understands the evidence, was once an alarmist, but am now a skeptic.

In the article announcing his conversion, Evans — a scientist himself — goes about destroying the twisted climate models and claims of the alarmists. One excellent aspect:

This is the core idea of every official climate model: For each bit of warming due to carbon dioxide, they claim it ends up causing three bits of warming due to the extra moist air. The climate models amplify the carbon dioxide warming by a factor of three — so two-thirds of their projected warming is due to extra moist air (and other factors); only one-third is due to extra carbon dioxide.

That’s the core of the issue. All the disagreements and misunderstandings spring from this. The alarmist case is based on this guess about moisture in the atmosphere, and there is simply no evidence for the amplification that is at the core of their alarmism.

Let’s face it: Most global warming climate scientists are no longer scientists primarily. They’re fearmongers who need to keep people scared in order to keep the grant money flowing.

Tell people that everything is going to be okay and governments will stop sending you tons of money. Tell people that everything is going to be okay and the gravy train will come to a halt. Keep the fear going — pump it up even — and governments will spend whatever it takes to stop something you created in the first place.

Less Than Half of Published Scientists Endorse Man-Made Global Warming

I guess there’s no “scientific consensus” as one former Vice-President would like us to believe.

Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte recently updated this research. Using the same database and search terms as Oreskes, he examined all papers published from 2004 to February 2007. The results have been submitted to the journal Energy and Environment, of which DailyTech has obtained a pre-publication copy. The figures are surprising.

Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers “implicit” endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no “consensus.”

Emphasis mine. The “consensus” they’re referring to is man-made global warming. In 2004, history professor Naomi Oreskes looked into peer-reviewed papers published on the ISI Web of Science site. A majority endorsed the so-called consensus view that “humans were having at least some effect on global climate change”. Well, that research and those papers became outdated, some being 15 years old. That’s where Schulte came in.

The papers published between 2004 and 2007 show that just 7% gave an explicit endorsement of that “consensus”. Only a total of 45% came to the conclusion that man has a significant impact on climate change. The largest category of scientists don’t accept or reject the “consensus view”. As the column say, there is no consensus among scientists.

But we haven’t reached the most surprising point, yet. This is it:

The figures are even more shocking when one remembers the watered-down definition of consensus here. Not only does it not require supporting that man is the “primary” cause of warming, but it doesn’t require any belief or support for “catastrophic” global warming. In fact of all papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results.

Be sure to catch Leonardo DiCaprio’s “11th Hour” documentary. In it, the actor shows how much of a significant impact humans have in global warming, and how the end of the healthy planet is very near. He apparently knows better than scientists. VOA News has this quote from a scientist, regarding Leo’s alarmist film:

“We (climatologists) know, I think to a pretty small range of error, how much it’s gonna warm in the next 20 to 50 years or so,” he says. “It’s not that much. It will be about eight tenths of a degree Celsius or so. To spin that into the end of the world story is absurd. It stands history on its head,” he notes.

Of course, to simply go after Leo wouldn’t be fair. Al Gore’s film An Inconvenient Truth quoted erroneous NASA data which previously had 1998 as the hottest year on record. After a revision of its data, NASA found 1934 to hold that honor. 5 of the 10 hottest years on record weren’t in the last 50 years, a couple coming during times of recession.