Friday, December 4, 2009

113 Wisconsin Scientists Want Strong Climate Change Action

One hundred and thirteen Wisconsin scientists will urge the state’s US senators to enact strong federal policies to combat climate change.

A letter signed by the scientists will be delivered to Senators Herb Kohl and Russ Feingold on Tuesday, December 8.

Leading scientists from the University of Wisconsin will hold a press teleconference to explain the specific ways that climate change threatens Wisconsin ’s economy and public health and how Wisconsin stands to benefit from climate change solutions.

Speakers will include:

Professor Jonathan Patz: Director of Global Environmental Health at the University of Wisconsin in Madison, lead author for the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), past Co-Chair of the health expert panel of the US National Assessment on Climate Change.

Professor John Magnuson: Professor Emeritus of Zoology, and Director Emeritus of the Center for Limnology at the University of Wisconsin, Madison . Convening lead author for the UN IPCC.

Professor Don Waller: Professor Botany and Environmental Studies at the University of Wisconsin in Madison.

The teleconference will take place at 10:00 AM CST on Tuesday December 8, 2009: details are available from Peter Gray, at the Environmental Law Policy Center, 312-795-3715.

The 113 Wisconsin scientists who have joined together to write this letter, along with the scientific community around the world, are urging their leaders to act swiftly to reduce greenhouse gas pollution and avoid the worst effects of climate change.

The Environmental Law Policy Center, for years, has done outstanding work on environmental, energy and transportation issues, including Midwest High-Speed Rail.


Anonymous said...

Have these guy been able to any sort of independent peer review of the climate change data? How much of the raw data have they been able to review and retest? If they aren't making independent assessments using independent research and testing, how do we know they aren't being unduly influenced by others?

If they aren't independently arriving at these recommendations, then they are sheepltists instead of scientists.

Joe Klein said...

Your comment is nothing more than a rhetorical attack. I humbly submit that you are not even willing to read the peer reviewed papers and studies on the subject, let alone argue validity.

The theory goes back to the early 60s. In 1977? Scientific America published a compendium of data on the global warming theory. Unless Al Gore and the IPCC are time travelers the theory has existed for some time.

What has happened in the interim is that computer modeling and data, both current and geological, have tended to support the theory. Moreover World Meteorological Organization data has lined up with data collected by NASA and the National Climatic Data Center; leading many scientist to think many of the IPCC estimates of temperature and sea level change may be on the conservative side.

Unless the Illuminati is pulling the strings on 75% of the world's scientists, we probably have a great deal of cause for concern.

This Al Gore/leftist conspiracy theory cooked up by Conservative Mad Hatters at their Tea Parties, belongs the same category of bunk as General Jack D. Ripper's ravings about water fluoridation in Dr. Strangelove. Please stay away from the mercury and keep wearing the tinfoil hat.

Doesn't it bother you that the climate change side of the argument is supported by independent researchers world wide, while the anti-side is heavily funded by oil, gas and coal interest? Just look at who is pulling the strings at Cato, Reason,and Americans for Prosperity; Koch, Coors, Olin, Lamb and Scaife. It King Coal, Big Oil and Big Gas greasing the palms of naysayer scientist and pumping money into Tea Party demagogues.

That's the real conspiracy.

Anonymous said...

If the GW doubter's are funded by oil and big business, the GW hoaxers are funded by government grants. If there are 113 scientists for, then there are 114 scientists against global warming. Make sure to ask to see their data. Then ask how much grant money the 113 have been receiving for the last ten years.

If GW is true why are we just reducing emissions? Shouldnt we shut down every coal-fired generator and automobile--now?

Joe K: open up your eyes. You are running a fool's errand. GW is about more government control and one world government--nothing more.


Anonymous said...

GT Kid:

You are ridiculous. 113 scientists FOR? 114 scientists AGAINST GW? This isn't something you vote on, for Pete's sake.

You see, the thing about science is that you start with an hypothesis--an estimated guess--you develop a way to test or investigate your idea, you collect data, and THEN you analyze the data and determine what it tells you. It's the data, stupid.

When you are an industry-paid "scientist", you start with the conclusion that is favorable to your business, industry, or personal world-view, and then look for or cook up "data" to support your pre-conceived "conclusion." (Then you call a right-wing talk show, conservative "think" tank, or televangelist to broadcast your minority "findings", couch them in religious terms, or throw doubt on the general science to make your crackpot theories seem credible, but that's another post.)

Think about it: How many "scientific findings" by these industry-paid science-folk are ever, ever, EVER unfavorable to or in disagreement with the business or industry that paid for the "study"?

And for a fascinating example of how one corporate whistleblower was treated when he felt dirty and then came clean, watch "The Insider" and note how close that information came to not being made public--even when everyone--public, medical, corporate, government, and media--KNEW that cigarettes are addictive and cigarette smoking kills.

(When I quit smoking in the mid-80's, I was told then that it was easier to cold-turkey heroin than to quit smoking.)

GT Kid--yeah, it's all about the government trying to control YOU. Why, they even have your address! They send someone to spy on you every day while he or she pretends to be delivering mail-order catalogs and Christmas cards to your front door! There's a satellite passing over your house right now. If you're planning to bury some more canned goods and ammo in your backyard, you'd better do it at night so THEY can't see you. Good luck, brother.

Anon Jim said...

Just curious - how many if any of these 113 scientists are climatologists?

On the other hand - how many of these 113 benefit either directly or indirectly from funding of "climate" research activities?

And remember - it's all about "hiding the decline".