A constituent from Belle Plaine lead me to a 2005 letter from hurricane expert, Christopher Landsea, who had been a contributor to the 2nd and 3rd Assessment of the IPCC panel on Global Warming. Dr. Landsea was also asked to participate in the 4th Assessment by the IPCC, only to discover that the lead scientist held a press conference asserting that the increase in the number and intensity of hurricanes in the Atlantic was caused by Global Warming.
Dr. Landsea knew that this assertion was false. So he wrote an open letter resigning from further participation with the IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change). He concluded that the scientific process was politicized and conclusions predetermined.
A copy of Landsea’s letter is Linked Here.
The letter concluded with the following quote from Dr. Landsea:
” I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound. As the IPCC leadership has seen no wrong in Dr. Trenberth’s actions and have retained him as a Lead Author for the AR4, I have decided to no longer participate in the IPCC AR4.”
Other Articles about Landsea’s resignation from the IPCC and his work, are found Here, Here, and Here.
Many people claim that there is scientific “consensus” about Global Warming. However, some scientists not only disagree with the alleged scientific findings, but also question the integrity of the IPCC itself.
This blog amazes many of us. When you were on Carleton’s campus campaigning, you told the student body about your dedication to act on global warming issues. Now that you have been re-elected for another term, you must feel comfortable enough to admit that you were actually lying.
Nevertheless, though many of us feel betrayed, we still think that global warming is an issue that we must act on. If you would like to see some of the work that we are doing, please check out:
Carbon Neutral Carleton
The only campaigning I did at Carleton last year was to participate in a debate with my opponent, Jessica Peterson. There was no discussion about global warming during the debate. There was a generic question about environmental issues. I discussed my support for the 20% renewable energy standard, which I supported again this year. However, the comment above is in error to suggest that I was “dedicated to act on global warming issues”. I made no such commitment because, at that point, I had not researched the issue much.
ONCE AGAIN, THIS POST GETS IT Half Right AND MISSES THE POINT ENTIRELY:
Dr. Landsea gave an interview to clarify his position.
Dr. Landsea said “we certainly see substantial warming in the ocean and atmosphere over the last several decades on the order of a degree Fahrenheit, and I have no doubt a portion of that, at least, is due to greenhouse warming. The question is whether we’re seeing any real increases in the hurricane activity.”
Dr. Landsea did NOT object to the IPCC Report.
He DOES NOT deny global warming.
He DOES believe that there is no evidence to suggest that recent hurricane activity has been impacted by global climate change.
He DID object to a press conference held by one of his colleagues, that suggested that his research supported such a link between global warming and Hurricane Rita. (Read the text of his statement)
It’s rather frightening to see our lawmakers so blatantly ignoring the science. Mr Neuville, I ask that you carefully review the science by scientific community, not just by individual persons who stick out. Perhaps read the IPCC Summary for Policymakers. It’s rather straightforward and easy to read (and directed toward people such as yourself). Of course, the whole IPCC Fourth Assessment Report on Climate Change by the Working Group I is available, but it’s rather bulky and more scientifically jargoned. If you’re looking for a easier and fairly thorough discussion of climate change and our understanding, the folks at NewScientists have prepared an excellent overview that can be found at the following:
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462
In all, I ask that you review carefully all perspectives of the issue, not just those by skeptics, even if they do have a few valid points.
My regards,
Benjamin Seghers
Tom, I know this is an old blog entry, but I noticed a few problems:
You say articles on the resignation are to be found “here and here and here”:
The first two are links to a blog whose purpose is to promote the POV of the GW skeptic. This is not a fair and balanced source.
The third is a link to the Canada’s National Post/Financial Post, with a Financial Post piece that is anything but fair and balanced, starting off with the accusation that the IPCC is “junk science.”
And if you check the chart provided at the first “here” link, you’ll notice that
the blog post there on World Climate Report claims that hurricanes have been in decline from 1944-1993. Hmmm….
But it’s obvious from a quick glance at the graph that one’s conclusions about rise or decline in hurricanes depend a lot on where one starts reading the graph/data:
From the same graph, hurricanes are clearly increasing since 1961. It appears that the chart simply isn’t long enough to give better conclusions.