Sure, global warming has skeptics. But how many teach science at Mizzou?

Anthony Lupo is a well respected scientist who has done a very commendable job as researcher, teacher and IPCC reviewer and contributor. The IPCC does not have 2500 scientists as you erroneously suggest. The 2500 include economists, statesmen and policymakers. The view of the scientists even within the IPCC is not monolithic. The final summaries were written by a team of just 52 of those scientists and not all of them agreed. Outside the IPCC there is far more skepticism, in fact I believe the silent majority of the world’s scientists are skeptics. Your uncalled for attack ironically comes shortly after 500 scientists from around the world spoke out against the so called consensus and 500 met in New York City at the First ICCC to take a fresh look at the real climate story and discuss how to get the truth out. I was there as a PhD climatologist and one of the over 100 presenters. Tony was not there. He would have been welcome. For where the problem really lies just follow the money. The real people you should go after are those corrupted by the government grants at the universities (like UIL) and the national centers and the environmental groups that are perpetrating this hoax on the public. Your university should be proud to list Tony among your faculty. In the ‘show-me’ state, you should all be skeptical.

I could not agree more with the balanced comments about a disgracefully biased article which shows total ignorance of the real situation. It is this sort of attack on genuine scientists insisting on following scientific principles that make many reluctant to put their head above the parapet.

This article is biased. I was taught by this man and he is a great person and teacher. If you ask me, you should be writing an apology to Dr. Lupo because this article is a defamation to his character.

If you would like another Meteorologist view on this subject matter you can have mine I agree with Dr. Lupo's assessment. But let me rephrase it so that you understand it.

There is a naturally occurring phenomena called global warming. But, (and this is a big but) there are many skepticisms surrounding this phenomena. Like, how quickly is the warming occurring, how much does man play a role, and will this climatic trend reverse itself in the future.

Many colleagues of mine have this same view or something similar. The climate committee doesn't not accurately represent the majority of working scientist in the world.

I hold a B.S. degree in Atmospheric Science as well as a B.S. degree in Geology, and MIZZOU is my Ala Mater. I found this article disgusting and biased! How dare you call yourself a journalist? Dr. Lupo is one of the best professors I have ever had, and I am personally offended Mr. Martin wrote this article and "The Pitch" printed it. Dr. Lupo cares about science and his students. I know a thing or two about climate and since coming to college I have learned a great deal about politics and the media. This article is EXACTLY why more scientists are not speaking out! It seems the media and political figures across the world would rather burn a scientist at the stake rather that admit "the consensus" doesn't know what is going on. I also do not see the relevance in Dr. Lupo’s political affiliation. I am a Democrat and I am a skeptic. But everyone should know politics has NO place in the scientific community.

As a Masters student at the University of Missouri – Columbia in the Atmospheric Science program; I am proud to be taught by such great scientists such as Dr. Tony Lupo. Your article is nothing but an attack job on the character of a great scientist and professor. I agree that you should be writing an apology to Dr. Lupo, and I hope that more former and current Atmospheric Science students will leave comments telling you the same thing.
I want to reaffirm what others have said; there are more skeptics out there then you give credit. The question is not if the Earth is warming, the debate is how much of an impact does humanity have. That is the realm where Dr. Lupo and others want study; this is good science.
Science is studying to find the truth. Using science the goal is to understand why the Earth is warming and not blame the convenient. You attacked a man personally; and not all skeptics are republicans. I am a skeptic and am a proud liberal in my political views.
Politics do not matter though, this is science. If you want to debate the science that would be great; debate is how we come to a better scientific picture. You do not want to debate the science though as it appears from your article. I would encourage you to do more research and look at the facts before attacking someone else.

This is the worst kind of yellow journalism. William Randolph Hearst would have been proud. This reporter need to go back to school. Innuendo has no place in good reporting. I don’t know if the current period of global warming is human-induced or not, but from what I have read in books and magazines, we are making public policy based upon the “best evidence” available. Many of those same news magazines decry the fate of people who were imprisoned and executed based upon the “best evidence” available, and later found to be innocent. This professor’s views are his own, and his skepticism may be well-founded. To this writer’s knowledge, NO ONE has been able to put a number on anthropogenic warming: 1%, 5%, 10%, or otherwise. From what I can gather, atmospheric scientists JUST DON’T KNOW, and that’s the dirty little secret that is used to keep asking for ever more grant dollars. What if, after all of that inquiry, it turns out that the human contribution is only, say, 1%? What then? Will Dr. Lupo continue to be a “strange bird” or a wise old owl?

What a horrible piece of work this article is, what do you have against Dr. Lupo and the work that he has done, what do you base your comments on. It seems you want to be on the “popular side” of the argument rather than doing the research and coming to a decision on your own, but why would you want to do that, maybe it is because you would learn the truth and not be able to write such a scathing article? I am sure you got high fives all around the office for this article. Let me ask you a question do you have mirrors in your house, if so how are you able to look at yourself and feel good about an article like this?

Try writing the facts, wait I forgot that won’t sell your paper now will it.

I think you owe Dr. Lupo as well as the University of Missouri an apology for this disgusting piece of "journalism" !!!

Thank God there is someone with common sense at Missouri!

Evidence over the last decade is weighing reality towards global COOLING, not warming. Al Gore and the tens of thousands of people in this world making their money off the failed 'Global Warming' lie will soon be revealed to be the lying hypocrites that they are.

If curious, do a Google search on 'global cooling russia'. That is as good as any a place to start reading the truth, rather than blindly following those who make fools out of their congregations.

Shame on the author of this article. You owe Dr. Lupo and the University an apology.

The earth has been getting significantly cooler since 1998, as CO2 has skyrocketed. When AGW is finally exposed as the fraud those who have been following the actual science know it to be, will David Martin apologize, issue an extensive Mea Culpa and more importantly, will he _learn_ from his mistakes?

I sincerely doubt it. But I'd love to be proved wrong. I'd love to think I underestimated the guy's intelligence and character.

The first comment is correct in pointing out that the IPCC is compromised of more than just scientists. I should have said "hundreds" of scientists worked on the report.

It is foolish to assume that all scientists within a growing field are going to share the same opinion on an issue that is far from settled. Although there is consensus that the planet is indeed warming, the causes are less than certain. Climate model simulations frequently show an increase in global average temperature in correlation with increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases. However, this is the real Earth we are living in, not some model simulation. There are many factors, some of which are poorly represented by computer models, that influence the climate. The direct effect of increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would be a warming, due to the so-called "greenhouse effect." However, there are many other factors, including aerosols and cloud cover, that could limit the warming caused by greenhouse gases. There are also many other natural processes and oscillations ongoing that affect climate. The roles of some of these processes are uncertain as well.

For some scientists, the output of model simulations is enough to convince them that anthropogenic effects are a dominant cause of global warming. Others are convinced by the correlation between increasing greenhouse gases and global average temperatures along with a physical mechanism that could explain the anthropogenic link to warming. However, there are still scientists that understand the limitations of models and are not convinced that correlation is equivalent to causation. All of these are reasonable viewpoints that have a place in the scientific community.

Skeptics have a very important role in the scientific community. They are necessary to question conjecture and theory. These questions test conjecture and theory and, even if wrong, help to strengthen the claims of the theory. Criticising a scientist for holding an outspoken point of view and questioning popular reasoning shows an extreme ignorance for the processes by which science advances. It is not by agreeing with popular opinion but by asking questions of current reasoning that science advances.

As for discussing the effects of global warming, all points of view should be explored. Although it is very possible, if not likely, that some regions will be adversely affected by climate change, it is absurd to assume that everyone will be negatively affected. There is absolutely nothing wrong with noting that some regions may benefit from climate change. It is likely more accurate than to assume that the entire planet will be affected negatively by climate change.

This article isn't just an indictment against a professor at the University of Missouri. This article is an indictment against science and the processes by which science operates. Science advances because of people who ask questions of theories and explore all aspects of issues and ideas. Unfortunately this article attacks the very principles on which science operates in favor of groupthink and accepting popular thinking without question.

Thank you. Have a nice day.

As a current student of Dr. Anthony Lupo, I am highly offended by the article that has been written not only demeaning the character of this distinguished professor, but also defaming the University of Missouri. To write such a piece reflects very poorly on The Pitch not to mention the writer itself. Debates do occur within our department concerning this issue and many others for that matter. If this process fails to occur then science has failed itself and the professors teaching the scientific process have as well. Instead, the professors here, most notably Dr. Lupo, STRONGLY encourage debate within the faculty and student body, producing dynamic students who understand how science progresses. A healthy contingent of the students here share Dr. Lupo’s same opinion concerning this issue therefore the writer has not only slighted an accomplished professor, but also the students within the program.

To uphold an opinion that might not be as represented as another is more respectable than folding to political or monetary pressures as so many others have. I am proud to have been taught by Dr. Lupo and have gained invaluable knowledge that cannot be taught but can merely be acquired by observation of character. Never will I criticize someone for holding an opinion for fear of losing values of which science upholds. Now might I ask you as the writer, have you pushed your own prerogative in a futile attempt to make yourself more popular? Or have you merely degraded a professor that has accomplished more than you know and the students that already demonstrate less ignorance than yourself?

Hopefully I was mistaken and your article is an opinion piece. Either way it is misleading to the reader.

Dr. Lupo is an obviously highly reputable character, as mentioned in the several defensive arguments listed above. Do you believe describing Dr. Lupo as an “odd man” is fair and balanced? Or do you think all ethics go down the drain for online journalism? As a journalist as well, I believe there is a stricter scrutiny that you have violated. As you likely know (or maybe not), the public’s trust in the media is rapidly declining and therefore this article is a poor contribution to the journalism community, in my OPINION. If you were looking to bias an article, perhaps you should join the ENQUIRER as this piece does not seem to follow The Pitch’s mission statement of “sophisticated” or “in-depth journalism.” (If by in-depth you mean Google and calling Dr. Lupo on the phone, you are surely mistaken.)

Clearly the topic of Global Warming is a challenging and slippery slope. Are you a scientist? Stick to the journalism, you may need to spend more time proofreading before you try to knock down an entire world of an argument with a toothpick of a biased article. I am a bit defensive because as a meteorologist, I face the tension of politics and critics of global warming on a nearly day to day basis. As a journalist, I am disappointed to see a furthering of a dwindling credibility in the public eye. As a Missouri Alumni and past student of Dr. Lupo’s, I am furious that a person can so blindly morph a statement into a pure judgment of character.

I do applaud you for your reaction to his letters, as we all embrace the first amendment. However, this should have been done in a clearly-marked opinion column with an expanded logic behind labeling such a respected individual off as irrational. In the end, if I wrote this article, I would distance my own opinion from the matter as much as possible and dig into the reasoning behind each side’s logic.

But this seems to be just a ratings booster for your site and that’s a shame for the journalism community.

Mr. Martin,

This article is unfortunately grossly biased on a very ignorant level. Dr. Lupo is a brilliant professor and well known for his research and knowledge in his field. It’s funny that for such a scientific area of conflict, many non-scientists have such strong and “correct” opinions. This country has founded on proofs and fact, not on assumptions or what ifs’. However, media outlets such as yours are quick to jump on the bandwagon of bar graphs and charts that show increasing temperature and CO2 productions and assume those two things are the only factors of influence on the warming of the globe. If so, why was this winter the coldest in the last 7 years in North America? Anomaly? Does Mother Earth have a say in things? Could the general warming over the last 150 years be a small part of natural temperature cycle of warming and cooling of the earth that has been going on for millions of years? Possibly???? Makes sense, right? Not possible according to the biased scientific research and NON-SCIENTISTS who often seem to think they have an expert opinion on the matter that work in the media and produce articles like yours. WHY???? And what do POLITICS have to do with anything on this subject? Please do some research and have someone look at your writing before publishing crass, un-informational garbage like this in your so-called sophisticated, informational publication.

What a disgraceful article full of such transparent bias and ignorance.

Dr. Anthony Lupo is a brilliant scientist, respected professor, and an asset to the scientific and local community. He really is a moderate when it comes to Anthropogenic Global Warming THEORY. I never hear such character assasinations come from his mouth when he addresses those who disagree with his analysis, which is more than I can say about the author of this article. Why do you feel the need to attack him personally? Perhaps his position threatens your manufactured reality? Could it be that the facts do not support your desire to believe that man controls everything - including the climate? What foolish hubris.

Since you have failed at this attempt at "journalism," let me help you try and redeem yourself.

For starters, Take a look at these two websites. There are plenty of pictures and graphs to aid those who have difficulty with all those pesky words.

For the math on just how much CO2 contributes to the Greenhouse Effect
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

For a look at how urban sprawl and human error has contributed to the decline in the accuracy of temperature data
http://norcalblogs.com/watts/weather_stations/

If you want to pay carbon credits to Al Gore to apologize for your perceived contribution to the destruction of the planet, more power to you, but you may want to do a little research before you do so.

Try picking on someone your own intellectual size...Al Gore. Dr. Lupo is out of your league.

There. I hope that was on your level.

The inconvenient truth is that the climate is cooling. Global ice cover as of March 08 was about 5% above the mean for the last 20 years. If we get a couple more winters like 07-08, perhaps some of the blind sheep will begin asking for actual evidence from Al Gore and the other blowhard opportunists who are promoting man made global warming.