Climate Change

[MNW67]

It was the link that Northman put up,

That is a different report entirely to the thing Harry quoted.

 

[Highway Man]

Oh

 

[Northman]

This seems to be it

You've not referenced your headline, but the language used shows that whoever wrote it is out to smear, rather than engage in constructive criticism. It uses the label 'skeptic' (American spelling) rather than the label 'scientist' which is what the authors are (including one economist). The paper has been published together with a request for comments, and substantive comments will be used in revising the paper. That to me seems a most appropriate process.

Some commenters above seem very keen to assert that there is only one opinion in 'science' on this issue. Even a cursory glance at any of the referenced papers in this document will show that there is a very wide range of scientific opinion on the wide range of topics covered. The paper is a very good contribution to the public debate on the subject. That debate is necessary is because the political actions in response to the 'climate' affect us all in very serious ways.

 

[aveatry]

It is worth explaining the role of water vapour and why Indy Jess John is wrong. Water vapour is currently the biggest greenhouse gas in the atmosphere and contributes about 50% of the natural greenhouse effect.

Its difficult to tax - unless you want to tax breathing - dont give them ideas

 

[aveatry]

Harry dismisses hundreds of thousands of climate scientists as liars.

But he found a news group post by Indy Jess John as very sensible.

Do me a favour.

hundreds of thousands of climate scientists
Really hundreds of thousands If true then it just shows you how the climate gravy train is a good one to be on.

 

[denso13]

hundreds of thousands of climate scientists
Really hundreds of thousands If true then it just shows you how the climate gravy train is a good one to be on.

Or that it is simply true.

 

[MNW67]

You've not referenced your headline, but the language used shows that whoever wrote it is out to smear, rather than engage in constructive criticism. It uses the label 'skeptic' (American spelling) rather than the label 'scientist' which is what the authors are (including one economist). The paper has been published together with a request for comments, and substantive comments will be used in revising the paper. That to me seems a most appropriate process.

Some commenters above seem very keen to assert that there is only one opinion in 'science' on this issue. Even a cursory glance at any of the referenced papers in this document will show that there is a very wide range of scientific opinion on the wide range of topics covered. The paper is a very good contribution to the public debate on the subject. That debate is necessary is because the political actions in response to the 'climate' affect us all in very serious ways.

I am grateful for your original link. I will wait for proper analysis by others with the requisite knowledge. But there is no denying that this report has been written by five of the world's most prominent climate change sceptics.

First quote:

“scattershot collection of oft-debunked skeptic claims” that “are not representative of broader climate science research findings.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/31/climate/trump-climate-skeptics-science-report.html

 

[aveatry]

Or that it is simply true.

What is ? Your assertion that there are hundreds of thousands of climate scientists or is that BS that you made up

 

[denso13]

What is ?

Simply true that science is correct.

 

[MNW67]

Its difficult to tax - unless you want to tax breathing - dont give them ideas

Water vapour is a complex issue. It currently makes up about 50% of the natural greenhouse effect. About 30% comes from carbon dioxide. But this is when the earth's energy balance is in natural equilibrium. Relatively small increases in the greenhouse effect throw that equilibrium out of whack. That is why the amount of water vapour is a red herring. But it is very complex. Global warming sceptics have been misunderstanding the role of water vapour for decades, and Indy Jess John is just the latest in a very long line.

 

[Northman]

But there is no denying that this report has been written by five of the world's most prominent climate change sceptics.

'Five of the world's most prominent climate scientists who are sceptical of many of the claims made' would be a more correct statement.

That these are prominent scientists people can judge for themselves by reading their credentials on page 140 of the linked report. As a taster:

John Christy, Ph.D. is the Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric and Earth Sciences and Alabama's State Climatologist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville...

...Curry has a PhD in Geophysical Sciences from the University of Chicago.She has authored or coauthored 192 peer-reviewed papers in atmospheric and climate sciences...

Roy W. Spencer, Ph.D., is a Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville.He holds a BS is Atmospheric and Oceanic Science from the University of Michigan, and MS and PhD inMeteorology from the University of Wisconsin -Madison...

and so on. I encourage people to read the full biographies of these scientists. MNW67 seems reluctant to use the word 'scientist' in describing them, perhaps because to do so renders invalid any claim that 'scientists' have a single unchallenged view on the complexities of climate science. As I've said above, just read the document and you will see that the 'science' of climate is one where there is much debate and uncertainty.

 

[pete01]

Better looking at science, there is no doubt any more.

Billy Billy Billy?

 

[denso13]

As I've said above, just read the document and you will see that the 'science' of climate is one where there is much debate and uncertainty.

There isn't really much debate. Some are sceptics but the science is clear.

 

[MNW67]

'Five of the world's most prominent climate scientists who are sceptical of many of the claims made' would be a more correct statement.

That these are prominent scientists people can judge for themselves by reading their credentials on page 140 of the linked report. As a taster:

John Christy, Ph.D. is the Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric and Earth Sciences and Alabama's State Climatologist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville...

...Curry has a PhD in Geophysical Sciences from the University of Chicago.She has authored or coauthored 192 peer-reviewed papers in atmospheric and climate sciences...

Roy W. Spencer, Ph.D., is a Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville.He holds a BS is Atmospheric and Oceanic Science from the University of Michigan, and MS and PhD inMeteorology from the University of Wisconsin -Madison...

and so on. I encourage people to read the full biographies of these scientists. MNW67 seems reluctant to use the word 'scientist' in describing them, perhaps because to do so renders invalid any claim that 'scientists' have a single unchallenged view on the complexities of climate science. As I've said above, just read the document and you will see that the 'science' of climate is one where there is much debate and uncertainty.

In this thread I have expressed my own doubts about climate science several times.

But I am not going to read 151 pages. I would doubt that you have.

 

[MNW67]

Billy Billy Billy?

Eh?