3 ms·

The roll call of scientists who've actively questioned climate alarmism should give pause for thought to those who simply label those who question received opin

• eesmith 9y ago
  There is a direct parallel with how creationists have created lists of scientists who actively question evolution. One response was Project Steve - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Steve https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Steve a list of scientists with the first name Stephen, Steven, Stephanie, Esteban, etc., all of whom support evolution. This list is far longer than any list of scientists that creationists have put out. Similarly, the "roll call of scientists" who support the current rather pessimistic view of the human-caused effects on global climate, is far larger than the list given there. Continuing the parallel, those opposed to evolution say that its supporters treat it as a "religion". I note Ivar Giaever says that of climate change, at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivar_Giaever https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivar_Giaever . As another parallelism, many of the scientists who support creationism/are against evolution aren't from a background which is closely connected to evolutionary biology. (Eg, a physicist instead of a biologist or paleontologist.) That's "many", not "all". Going down the list, Giaever started in superconductivity, and then went into biophysics. He now is an adviser for The Heartland Institute. The Heartland Institute received funding from Exxon, a fossil fuel business. Robert Laughlin, condensed matter physics. Frederick Seitz, solid state physics. He was founding chair of the George C. Marshall Institute, which received funding from Exxon-Mobil. Before getting CO2, he was one of the so-called "merchants of doubt" about the harmfulness of tobacco smoke. Richard Lindzen, a bona fide climate scientist. You know that because they wrote "an atmospheric physicist" instead of a generic "physicist" like the previous scientists. Fred Singer, another atmospheric scientist. Who "has been a paid consultant for many years for ARCO, ExxonMobil, Shell, Sun Oil Company, and Unocal" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Singer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Singer . It's boring now, so I'll jump down the list to John Coleman, a weathercaster trained a journalist who, among other things, claims "the polar ice is increasing, not melting away" - an incorrect statement. He has never done any research in climate change. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Coleman_(news_weathercaster)#Views_on_global_warming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Coleman_(news_weathercast... Now, of course it isn't required that people be trained in field X to provide useful input or counter-point to that field. My point instead is that if the criteria for a "roll call of scientists who've actively questioned climate alarmism" is so broad as to include people who have never done any scientific research in the field, or in the case of Coleman, never having done any scientific research at all, then you need to have a similarly inclusive definition when coming up with people who support "climate alarmism." It is a much larger number. Just like Project Steve.