NMSR's Anthropogenic Global Warming Fact Sheet
Updated December 8, 2014.
by Dave Thomas : nmsrdaveATswcp.com
(Help fight SPAM! Please replace the AT with
an @ )
Mankind can bet on global warming -- and win: Dr.Mark Boslough at TEDxABQ
Mankind can bet on global warming -- and win: Dr.Mark Boslough at TEDxABQ
Mark Boslough is NMSR's Genetic Computing/Impact Physics/Global Warming and Climate Change advisor.
Read Mark Boslough's "Puckerclust" Blog
|In this image from the Third Santa Fe Conference on Global and Regional Climate Change (October 30, 2011 - November 4, 2011), Mark
Boslough attempted to explain basic high-school-level science to Christopher Monckton (whose stage name is the
'3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley'). Boslough demolished Monckton’s false claims on stage, in front of an audience
of scientists and climate science critics. Monckton (known as "Lord" Monckton by his admirers) has neither scientific
training nor lordship credentials. Nevertheless, he is one of the Heartland Institute's most distinguished
'scientists' and serves as a 'Heartland Expert' and Policy Advisor, Science and Public Policy Institute.
Boslough offered to give a presentation at Heartland's Chicago meeting this month, but Heartland appears too afraid of him to let him speak. One wonders if they are worried that he will humiliate more of their 'experts.' Why can't they defend their positions against his criticisms? If they are telling the truth, then what are they afraid of? NMSR invites Jim Lakely to explain why he is shielding Heartland's best and brightest from being debunked.
HEARTLAND INSTITUTE IS IN FEAR OF MARK BOSLOUGH!
The Heartland Institute, which challenges the consensus on global climate change, supposedly wants scientists who disagree to debate them publicly. From the announcement to Heartland's Seventh International Conference on Climate Change, May 21 – 23 in Chicago:
"Heartland has invited dozens of scientists who believe man is chiefly responsible for the fluctuations of the climate to debate those who disagree … again.
... Peter Gleick, president of the Pacific Institute and an elected member of the National Academy of Sciences ... said 'a rational public debate is desperately needed.' We agree, which is why we have repeatedly invited scientists with wide-ranging views to speak at these conferences."
While Heartland talks the talk, they will not walk the walk. Here's what they wrote to Mark Boslough on April 24, 2012:
From: Jim Lakely [mailto:JLakely@heartland.org]
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2012 10:49 AM
To: Boslough, Mark B
Subject: RE: Former NASA Scientists, Astronauts to Attend Heartland Institute Climate Conference
We've invited more than two dozen scientists who are on "your side" of the debate. Considering your treatment in the press of Dr. Harrison Schmitt – who will be presenting at the conference – you will not be getting an invitation to speak.
If you'd like to attend on your own time and dime, you can register here.
Director of Communications
The Heartland Institute
One South Wacker Drive #2740
And Just How did Boslough "Mistreat" Dr. Harrison Schmitt? Why is the Heartland Institute so Afraid of Mark Boslough?
Harrison Schmitt put out a 2009 white paper on climate change.
From the conclusion:
"...Artic [sic] sea ice has returned to 1989 levels of coverage, and snowy, cold winters and cool summers have dominated northern North America and Europe."
All Mark Boslough did was to point out that Dr. Schmitt was mis-stating the facts, and should make a correction:
"The authors of Heartland Institute publications, including Schmitt, refuse to play by the rules of science, which include integrity, honesty, and peer review. Heartland does no research, but generates reports containing, among other things, fabricated temperature data and doctored graphs that are intended to undermine evidence-based science. In 2009, Schmitt submitted a white paper to NASA. He stated, 'Artic (sic) sea ice has returned to 1989 levels of coverage.' I wrote to him, politely pointing out that this was not true, and directing him to the data from the National Snow and Ice Data Center (the ice extent in 2009 had not recovered, and as of this writing is at an all-time winter low). He responded, but never made the necessary correction. Anyone can make a mistake, but scientific integrity requires that authors own up to mistakes and fix them."
Well, was Boslough mistreating Senator Schmitt? How about we show you the data, and let you decide?
On February 7, 2011, staff of the National Snow and Ice Data Center wrote the Santa fe New Mexican to corroborate Boslough's analysis.
More at Desmogblog.
Climate Change Is Based Only on Fact
Albuquerque Journal, 25 April 2012
No propaganda, no politics: just science, plain and simple
By Mark Boslough
Member, New Mexicans for Science and Reason
In his recent column "Global Warming Is Just Propaganda" (4-24-2012), Lewis Green asserts that there is no global warming. His conclusion is based on his master’s degree in mechanical engineering and a few years “reading up on climate change.”
But despite his professed science background (engineers are required to take some science courses), his column is riddled with factual errors about science.
I have respect for engineers. Even after earning a Ph.D. in physics and taking graduate-level courses in mechanical engineering, I do not consider myself competent to challenge established engineering facts. Appeals to supposed authority are dangerous. In science, the ultimate authority is the list of facts, so here are a few.
Fact: Global warming is real. The first decade of the 21st century was the hottest decade since records have been kept. The climatological temperature, the average over both space and time, is continuing to increase.
Fact: Global warming was successfully predicted by physicists without using computer models. In the 1800s, physicists published papers describing the heat-trapping properties of carbon dioxide and correctly predicted that continued fossil fuel burning would cause the Earth’s temperature to rise. In the 1950s, physicists developing the defense technology for heat-seeking missiles predicted that the planet would warm at the rate of 2 degrees per century; a remarkably accurate forecast.
Fact: Scientists indeed accept the reality. A recent scholarly study showed that nearly 98 percent of the most-published climate scientists agree that human activities are causing global warming. My own experience as organizer of an annual scientific session on climate change tells me this is true. Out of hundreds of authors who have submitted abstracts and given presentations, not a single one has presented evidence against human-caused global warming despite my efforts to find someone to try. My professional organization, the American Physical Society, issued a statement saying that “The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring.” Fewer than one-half percent of society members objected.
Fact: Climate and weather are not the same thing. Climate can be predicted far into the future, even though weather can't. Physicists understand that air temperature is a measure of the average speed of molecules. We can describe temperature and predict how it will change without being able to predict the speed and position of every single molecule. Likewise, we can predict it without knowing what the weather will be.
Fact: Global warming is not a left-wing conspiracy. Those who are most concerned with U.S. national security, including the armed forces, are taking global warming seriously. The Russians know that Arctic ice is melting. They are building up regional military forces in what is being called "a new kind of cold war" that we risk losing if we remain in denial. Libertarians are recognizing that the cooling capacity of the atmosphere above us is a property right that should not be infringed without just compensation. Hunters and outdoor sportsmen know that the future of their activities depend on a stable climate that sustains habitat. Farmers and ranchers know that global warming will be increasingly costly. Ski resort owners are worried about the inevitably shorter seasons and losses of revenue. The list goes on.
Global warming will not only continue, it will accelerate. It is a threat to our national security, our private property rights, our economic prosperity, our recreation and our way of life.
Factual information is readily available on the Web. One useful website that provides citations to published scientific literature is skepticalscience.com? . Many professional scientists, including me, are willing to give presentations to civic, cultural and business organizations. We are happy to be challenged by skeptics and are capable of responding with facts, not propaganda.
Mark Boslough is a physicist who uses computers to understand impacts, nuclear explosions and climate change.
Dave Thomas Briefing on Anthropogenic Global Warming (PDF, 4MB) April 2012
Expert credibility in climate change, Anderegg et al, PNAS, PNAS June 21, 2010
"Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers. "
From the N.Y. Times 'Green' Blog:
Drivers moving along Chicago’s inbound Eisenhower Expressway on Friday may have been surprised to see Ted Kaczynski, the so-called Unabomber, staring at them from a massive billboard. 'I still believe in global warming. Do you?' the billboard read in large maroon letters. Just below was the Web address www.heartland.org. Hours later, the digital billboard was gone. It seems that the ad campaign, sponsored by the conservative Heartland Institute, had bombed. 'We know that our billboard angered and disappointed many of Heartland’s friends and supporters, but we hope they understand what we were trying to do with this experiment,' the institute said late Friday afternoon said in a statement. 'We do not apologize for running the ad, and we will continue to experiment with ways to communicate the "realist" message on the climate.' In opening the campaign, Heartland had said that Mr. Kaczynski would not be the only persona gazing down on Chicago's commuters. Among his brethren would be Charles Manson, Fidel Castro, Osama bin Laden and James J. Lee, the institute said. ...
Dave Thomas thanks the Heartand Institute for a classic example of the "Guilt By Association" logical fallacy. These are great resources for my psychology class on Science and Pseudoscience.
NMSR Site Map