Search
Close this search box.

Search Results for: Michael Oppenheimer

UN Lead Author Michael Oppenheimer Admits to Congress Climate Science Not ‘Settled’: ‘The question of exactly how warm the Earth will become as a result (of rising CO2), that’s not’ settled

Full Committee Hearing – Examining the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Process 2318 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 | May 29, 2014 11:00am Examining the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Process # The following statements were made during the Q&A session of the May 29th House hearing:  Michael Oppenheimer: ‘Some things are more or less settled, some things are not. The question of whether carbon dioxide is 30 to 40 percent above pre-industrial times, that’s settled. The question of exactly how warm the Earth will become as a result, that’s not.’ Oppenheimer refused to defend the 97% claims. ‘Whether the 97% is defensible, I really don’t know.’ (Climate Depot Note: Oppenheimer was a paid partisan of the environmental pressure group Environmental Defense and the climatologist to the Hollywood stars. Oppenheimer was the holder of the “Barbra Streisand Chair of Environmental Studies” at the Environmental Defense Fund. Streisand explained: “My Foundation started supporting climate change work in 1989, when I donated a quarter of a million dollars to support the work of Oppenheimer at EDF.) Oppenheimer referred to global warming skeptics as “the fringes” during the hearing, prompting California GOP Congressman Dana Rohrabacher to chastise him for his comment. Rohrabacher told Oppenheimer that his comments “lead one to believe that the people on [the IPCC] with outside views are ‘fringes’. Again, it’s an attitude I find overwhelming with those pushing the global warming theory.’ Other scientists comments on global warming ‘consensus’ claims: UN IPCC Lead Author & University of Sussex economist Dr. Richard Tol: ‘Science is, of course, never settled.’ Tol added: ‘The 97% estimate is bandied about by basically everybody.  I had a close look at what this study really did. as far as I can see, The estimate just crumbles when you touch it. None of the statements in the papers are supported by the data that’s in the paper. The 97% is essentially pulled from thin air, it is not based on any credible research whatsoever.’ Dr. Roger Pielke Sr., professor emeritus in meteorology at Colorado State University: ‘The science is not settled, no.’ Climate Researcher Dr. Daniel Botkin: ‘I have spent my life looking at facts and analyzing facts…It’s the wrong point about how many people approve, that is not science.’ Related Links:  UN IPCC Lead Author Dr. Richard Tol Rips IPCC at Congressional Hearing: ‘The IPCC leadership has in the past been very adept at putting troublesome authors in positions where they cannot harm the cause. That practice must end’ Scientist Dr. Daniel Botkin Tells Congress why he reversed his belief in global warming to become a skeptic: ‘There are several lines of evidence suggesting that it (AGW) is a weaker case today, not a stronger case’ — Rips Obama climate report as ‘filled with misstatements contradicted by well-established and well-known scientific papers’ Congressional hearing: Scientists say UN IPCC puts politics before science, needs reform – IPCC Lead Author Tol: ‘Competent people are excluded because their views do not match those of their government’  

Retribution of the warmists!? Prof. Pielke Jr. asked to remove himself from journal board after ‘strong critique’ of ‘shoddy paper’ by Naomi Oreskes & UN IPCC’s Michael Oppenheimer!

Dr. Roger Pielke Jr., a Professor of Environmental Studies at the University of Colorado, has been formally asked to remove himself from the global warming journal Global Environmental Change, following his harsh critique of a study which appeared in the journal. Pielke Jr. is not a climate skeptic, but he has harshly critiqued many of his colleagues climate claims, particularly those on extreme weather. [Climate Depot note: More on Oppenheimer here and Oreskes here.] The following is Prof. Pielke’s explanation of the situation: “Welcome to the climate wars — retribution for stepping out of line? You be the judge.” – “Looks like a real tactical blunder by @NeilAdger , climate gatekeeping still in action.” # Interesting Timing to be Removed from GEC Editorial Board – By Roger Pielke Jr.: Five days ago I critiqued a shoddy paper by Brysse et al. 2013 which appeared in the journal Global Environmental Change. Today I received notice from the editor-in chief and executive editor that I have been asked to “step down from the journal.” They say that it is to “give other scientists the chance to gain experience of editorial duties.” Over the past 20 years I have served on the editorial boards of about a dozen or so academic journals. I have rolled off some when my term was up, and continued for many years with others. I have never received a mid-term request to step down from any journal. My 6 years with the GEC editorial board is not long in academia, and certainly much shorter than many other serving members. Are my critique and the request to step down related? I can’t say. It is interesting timing to be sure. Perhaps it is an odd coincidence. Perhaps not. I did reply by accepting their request and asking the following two questions which might help to clarify the terms of my release: Could you tell me which other members of the editorial board are being asked to step down at this time? And also, could you tell how many others have served on the board 6 years or longer and remain on the board? If I get a reply I will update this post. UPDATE: I just checked the GEC editorial board from 2005, the year before I was invited to join ($ here). There are 13 members of the 2005 board who continue through 2013 ($ here). If those 13 members (of 38 total in 2013) have not all be asked to “step down” at this time, then yes, I am getting “special” treatment. UPDATE 2: Neil Adger, editor of GEC, replies to explain, contrary to the earlier email, that I have been removed from the editorial board due to a perception of my “waning interest in the journal” citing my declining of 3 reviews last year (I’d guess overall that I declined 50 or more requests to review last year and took on about 12, welcome to academia;-). Of course, he could have asked about my interest before removing me from the Board. He did not comment on my critical blog post. I take his response to mean that I am indeed the only one who has been removed at this time. So there you have it, another climate ink blot. Coincidence? You be the judge. I am of course happy to make way for other scientists to “gain the experience of editorial duties.” However, if my critique of a GEC paper is in any way related to my removal from the editorial board, then the message being sent to those other scientists is pretty chilling. For my part, I value my academic freedom to offer critique as I see things far more than being allowed into certain clubs. — Posted by Roger Pielke, Jr. at 2/20/201 # The original Pielke Jr. post in question: ‘Science is the Shortcut’ Excerpt: There is a new paper out by Brysse et al. in Global Environmental Change (here $) which includes as co-authors Naomi Oreskes (author of Merchants of Doubt) and Michael Oppenheimer (long-time IPCC contributor and a contributing lead author for the AR5). The authors report a remarkable finding — they have identified a shortcut to divining the true state of knowledge of the science of climate change. As the authors’ explain: Evidence from recent analyses suggests that scientists, particularly acting in the context of large assessments, may have underestimated the magnitude and rate of expected impacts of anthropogenic climate change. We suggest that this underestimation reflects a systematic bias, which we label “erring on the side of least drama (ESLD)”. What ESLD therefore means is that when scientists make a claim about climate change, particularly via the IPCC and other assessments, the presence of a systematic bias indicates that the odds are that things are really much, much worse. ESLD therefore offers a short cut to anticipating where climate science is headed. An important reason for this bias, the authors assert, is of course none other than those evil skeptics: [O]ne possible reason why scientists may have underestimated the threat of anthropogenic warming is the fear that if they don’t, they will be accused by contrarians (as was Schneider) of being alarmist fear-mongers. That is to say, pressure from skeptics and contrarians and the risk of being accused of alarmism may have caused scientists to understate their results. Not only is the accusation of a systematic bias an insult to the integrity of practicing scientists, but the entire paper is built on an empirical foundation that does not touch the ground. Read Pielke Jr.’s full critique here. Related Links: Prof. Pielke Jr.: ‘US floods have not increased over a century or longer (same globally). — US hurricane landfall frequency or intensity have not increased (in US for over a century or longer)’ — ‘US intense hurricane landfalls are currently in longest drought (7 years+) ever documented — US tornadoes, especially strongest ones, have not increased since at least 1950. — US drought has decreased since middle of the past century. — US East Cost Winter Storms show no trends — Disaster losses normalized for societal changes show no residual trends (US, other regions or globally). — Trends in costs of disasters are not a proxy for trends in climate phenomena’ Pres. elect of American Meteorological Society slammed for ‘saying all sorts of things with little or no scientific basis’ at Senate hearing — AMS head claims his ‘spouse can see impacts of extremes’ — ‘Marshall Shepherd, professor of geography in the University of Georgia Franklin College of Arts and Sciences, has been voted president-elect of the American Meteorological Society’ UN IPCC’s Michael Oppenheimer: ‘An activist first — A scientist a distant second’ — Scientific work ’roundly trashed’ even by fellow warmists! — Oppenheimer’s climate immigration study ‘reeked the stench of scientific corruption’ — Scientist to the Hollywood Stars: Oppenheimer ‘was the holder of the ‘Barbra Streisand Chair of Environmental Studies’ at EDF Analysis: Warmist Naomi Oreskes, the Queen of Climate Smear, ignores the big money, has no evidence, throws names — ‘Oreskes’ work is based on a logical fallacy, inept research, and incompetent reasoning. What is remarkable is that so many “intellectuals” or journalists can’t or won’t see through her thin rhetoric’ Flashback 2008: Climate Skeptics Reveal ‘Horror Stories’ of Scientific Suppression

Scientist to the Hollywood Stars: UN IPCC’s Michael Oppenheimer ‘was the holder of the ‘Barbra Streisand Chair of Environmental Studies’ at Environmental Defense Fund’

Environmental Defense Fund hosted the Barbra Streisand Chair of Environmental Studies, the perch of scientist Michael Oppenheimer, who advocates buying up development rights in the Third World as a solution to global climate change. # Oppenheimer, a professor of geosciences and international affairs at Princeton, was also a paid partisan of the environmental pressure group Environmental Defense. Update: Michael Oppenheimer was the holder of the “Barbra Streisand Chair of Environmental Studies” at the Environmental Defense Fund. Streisand explained: “My Foundation started supporting climate change work in 1989, when I donated a quarter of a million dollars to support the work of environmental scientist Dr. Michael Oppenheimer at EDF. Since then, I, and others have spent countless millions on this issue.” Oppenheimer also proudly served as an advisor to former Vice President Al Gore on his 2006 film “An Inconvenient Truth” and he has consistently defended the accuracy’s of Gore’s film. “On balance, he did quite well — a credible and entertaining job on a difficult subject,” Oppenheimer said of Gore’s film in 2007. “For that, he (Gore) deserves a lot of credit,” Oppenheimer added.

For more results click below