Scientists ask to be removed from list of global warming deniers

[tinrobot]

Dozens of scientists are demanding that their names be removed from a widely distributed Heartland Institute article entitled 500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares.

The article, by Hudson Institute director and Heartland "Senior Fellow" Dennis T. Avery (inset), purports to list scientists whose work contradicts the overwhelming scientific agreement that human-induced climate change is endangering the world as we know it.

DeSmogBlog manager Kevin Grandia emailed 122 of the scientists yesterday afternoon, calling their attention to the list. So far - in less than 24 hours - three dozen of those scientists had responded in outrage, denying that their research supports Avery's conclusions and demanding that their names be removed.

http://www.desmogblog.com/500-scientists-with-documented-doubts-about-the-heartland-institute

[provis99]

1. global warming deniers deny themselves, too?

I guess they don't like their own stupidity pointed out in public.

[sharp_stick]

3. Most if not all of them aren't global warming deniers

The assholes that run that place just put their names on the list because they needed some names and these folks have at some point printed an article/abstract that did not jive with the current dogma of global warming. Kind of like one person (John) says the sea will rise 8.2 meters and then next guy (Jack) says no it will rise 8.0 meters. Whammo, Jack is now on the list of global warming deniers.

These pricks work in the same way that the intelligent design morons, actually these two groups cross-pollinate pretty well if you know what I mean. Once an asshole idiot, always an asshole idiot.

[RaleighNCDUer]

4. No, these would be legitimate scientists who are arguing certain

points of climate change, who are being used to deny it altogether.

A scientist who says "introduced carbon is not likely the prime cause of global climate change" may have research highlighting the effects of methane release from thawing arctic tundra. If he believes that carbon release added to combinations of volcanic gasses and methane put us over a tipping point, but that the carbon release would not be enough in of itself to do it, they use his name as believing that "introduced carbon is not...the...cause of global climate change". He may, in truth, be wholly in agreement that climate change is happening, and that we need to reduce the one variable that we have control of, carbon emissions, in order to reverse it - but that part of his argument won't be heard.

[The Traveler]

5. That was funny!

:rofl:

But here's the problem ... scientists work and think a way fundamentally different from lawyers or politicians. Science is always refining the body of work, probing for iconsistencies, constructing alternate models. Just because a scientist is applying critical analysis to one aspect of the body of work does not mean that scientist has rejected the entire proposition. Thus I might throw rocks at your model for (as an example) arctic ice melting but that does not mean I reject the notion that human activity has triggered climate change processes.

[BrklynLib at work]

2. THAT info won't hit the mainstream like the original list did...