Climate Debate - The Numbers Game
SEARCH BLOG: GLOBAL WARMING Washington DC: Fifty nine additional scientists from around the world have been added to the U.S. Senate Minority Report of dissenting scientists, pushing the total to over 700 skeptical international scientists – a dramatic increase from the original 650 scientists featured in the initial December 11, 2008 release. The 59 additional scientists added to the 255-page Senate Minority report since the initial release 13 ½ weeks ago represents an average of over four skeptical scientists a week. This updated report – which includes yet another former UN IPCC scientist – represents an additional 300 (and growing) scientists and climate researchers since the initial report’s release in December 2007. The over 700 dissenting scientists are now more than 13 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers. The 59 additional scientists hail from all over the world, including Japan, Italy, UK, Czech Republic, Canada, Netherlands, the U.S. and many are affiliated with prestigious institutions including, NASA, U.S. Navy, U.S. Defense Department, Energy Department, U.S. Air Force, the Philosophical Society of Washington (the oldest scientific society in Washington), Princeton University, Tulane University, American University, Oregon State University, U.S. Naval Academy and EPA. [read more]
Marc Morano, who is on Sen. Inhofe's staff, sent out an email the other day that contained the following:
Here is the issue: all that is really available for debate is an hypothesis. It is hypothesized that human-produced CO2 is the primary driver of climate change... specifically warming. There are computer models that attempt to simulate the mechanism that makes human-produced CO2 the primary driver of climate change... specifically warming.
The problem is quite simple: the computer models fail. So all that is left at this point are arguments for and against the position. That doesn't mean the arguments are without meaning or impact. Politicians have enthusiastically attached themselves to both sides of the argument. For politicians, the issue is not about the climate or science; the issue is all about establishing a voter base... voters who, by and large, have little understanding about the issue beyond a picture of a healthy polar bear on an ice floe.
So, it is a numbers game. We have more scientists who conjecture our way rather than your way. We have more voters who can be convinced by anecdotal incidents ... snow storms in Iraq or hurricanes in Europe... than you have. What are really missing are the numbers that verify the hypothesis.
Sure, there are plenty of data analyses. Hall Of Record has offered up the analysis of Extreme Temperatures in the U.S. It doesn't verify or disprove the hypothesis. It challenges some of the tenets posed in the hypothesis... and there certainly are many challenges that cast significant doubt.
... And then there are some scientists who simply say that the physics of a human-produced CO2 greenhouse are based on falsifications. That's not a challenge; that's an attack. Hey, they're Germans... what do you expect?
..
From 
