Calling For More Global Warming Debate

I am amazed how often Republican climate skeptics such as Texas Governor Rick Perry are called “global-warming-deniers”.

Perry and his fellow questioners do not deny that there is global warming (and cooling)—they simply doubt that human greenhouse gases are a major cause. This is a sensible scientific question on which there are many different views.

We all know about the perspective of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that our greenhouse gas emissions are causing dangerous warming. But, why has there not been more attention paid to the crucially important alternative report, the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC – see, the latest version of which was released on August 29th?

Coauthored by a team of leading scientists recruited and led by climate experts Dr. Craig Idso, Professor Robert Carter, and Professor Fred Singer, the NIPCC shows that the IPCC has ignored or misinterpreted much of the research that challenges the need for carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas controls. In other words, these specialists assert that the science being relied upon by governments worldwide to create multi-billion dollar climate policies is almost certainly wrong.

In light of the just-released Government Accountability Office report that 42% of US temperature measuring stations do not meet basic standards and so their data (used in IPCC global warming reports) are unreliable, isn’t it time to put an end to the name calling and instead welcome open debate about this complex and costly issue?

Tom Harris
Executive Director
International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC)


Connect with NJTODAY.NET

Join NJTODAY.NET's free Email List to receive occasional updates delivered right to your email address!
Email for advertising information Send stuff to NJTODAY.NET Like Us On Facebook Follow Us On Twitter Download this week's issue of NJTODAY.NET
Print Friendly

9 comments for “Calling For More Global Warming Debate

  1. Joshua
    October 21, 2011 at 11:34 am

    Of course it could be accurate and even more importantly would be a perfect place for documenting the affect we are having on our environment. That’s the thing with scientific reasearch is that you have to look at all of the evidence, not just the parts you want to be true, let alone anectdotal evidence and hearsay…

    And the problem is that the scientific evidence is in and the people who are potentially most affected by the conclusion also happen to be some of the most monied interests in the world.

  2. varanus
    October 21, 2011 at 11:34 am

    At what point will these types of articles stop being posted; soon I hope. If anything call for more research/evidence; not more debate. Additional research will lead to more evidence (either for or against) FOLLOWING the acquisition of that evidence we have a reason for renewed debate. This seems to be something that quite a few people just aren’t getting and they (like yourself) call for debate FIRST. Come on. This is conceptually the same as people calling for more debate about biological evolution (without any change in the available evidence). It is like someone saying they want to debate about whether AIDS is caused by a virus. Okay, so whats up? Well, I just think that some of the AIDS researchers contaminated their samples. Okay, well if that is the case, what about the ones that didn’t? Umm, well, let me go think of another thing that may be wrong; but in the meanwhile I’ll use mass media outlets to confuse the masses and call for ‘renewed debate’; hopefully between politicians that don’t have degrees in or study climate science. I’ll help you, if you truly think that 58% of US temp stations meet basic standards then run just their data. If the result contradicts the current view that you would find in all credible peer-reviewed scientific journals then keep going you may be on you way to a Nobel Prize. And if it doesn’t then you better have a reason to reexamine the current evidence like some new conceptual framework or new modeling to apply to the data (do you have any of this? If so, it would be much more interesting than your opaque article).

    Finally, I just can’t help but comment on the last sentence:
    “…welcome open debate about this complex and costly issue.” By costly you mean in terms of short-term economics not ecologically, or long-term economics, right? Or all three? I’m just not sure if you are referring to the potential larger future economic costs of farming in changed ecosystems (resulting from climate change) or if you are only talking about the smaller costs of current regulations. I was just wondering what type of scale you meant.

  3. gregr
    October 21, 2011 at 11:25 am

    I drove past a weather information gathering station the other day in Oklahoma that was located between the runways of an airport 100 yards to the west and a four lane highway 150 yards to the east. Anyone who knows anything about heat radiation and Oklahoma wind patterns would agree that this weather station cannot possibly be accurate. I think this just might in some cases be the kind of inaccurately gathered information which is then interpolated to come up with current computer models. The problem here is that placing these stations in areas where they can be affected by heat can happen very easily but placing them where they would be influenced by cold almost never happens. I know this anecdotal but from what I have read it is not uncommon. Considering the magnitude of the projection of the data, a very small error turns in to a very wrong conclusion. Considering the impact of proposed mitigation solutions on the country and the economy, we owe it to ourselves to somehow reach an unbiased conclusion. Accepting the word of people who have a direct conflict of interest either politically or economically in the outcome would just be wrong. Feel free to call me names now.

    • varanus
      October 21, 2011 at 11:41 am

      Good point about certain stations potentially recording high temps due to their locations; I would say that is something to further look into and potentially change. At the same time the evidence for the current view is coming in from all over the map in all sorts of different channels. It is hard to imagine we also have ocean monitoring stations next to extraneous carbonic acid sources causes the ocean acidification data to also be abnormally high. And on and on. There are just so many independent lines of evidence pointing towards the same conclusion. At this point it is possible that it is wrong, but being wrong would require us to find many different sources of error or new information in many different fields of study…

  4. Joshua
    October 21, 2011 at 10:53 am

    Also, are you one who believes we need to “teach the controversy” in our science classes? Because that is exactly how deniers like yourself come off, you could just as easily be out there arguing for “intelligent design”.

  5. Joshua
    October 21, 2011 at 10:43 am

    Mr. Harris, Do you think that the fact that most of the Global-Warming-Deniers are funded and backed by the very industries and corporations such as Exxon-Mobil and other petroleum companies? Don’t you think you should seek out and find some researchers that do not have this obvious conflictr of intrest? As far as Perry is concerned, the man will say and do whatever the highest bidder pays him to, completely unreliable source and a complete non-starter to your, still unfounded arguements.

    Until your ilk can present some real evidence that global climate change is not affected if not actually spurred on, please, quit muddying the waters.

  6. owossokid
    October 21, 2011 at 10:39 am

    Thanks for the article.

    Through out time, the earth’s temperature has fluctuated in extreme ways and we have no exact data on the variance over the millions of years. I am quite sure that we have affected the earth over the past one hundred years. But it would be great to have an unbiased study that is not driven by an agenda of money or power.

  7. Reasonableman
    October 21, 2011 at 10:20 am

    As a republican I can understand the business reasons to oppose man made global warming without proof. The cost to industry would be considerable. We do also have to look at the rise in the incidence of repiratory problems in the general population, the shrinking of the ozone layer and other fossil fuel related problems. As a grandparent I would like to know that we will leave a habitable planet to our great-grandchildren.
    I would also venture to say that most US Citizens do not need to rely on the unreliable 42% of the US temperature measuring stations to tell you that we are becoming increasingly warmer. Did you venture outside this summer?

Leave a Reply