A Gathering of “Skeptics”

Posted by Dee Norris

Mark your calendars.

The 2009 International Conference on Climate Change returns to New York City on March 8th, 2009.

The 2009 International Conference on Climate Change will serve as a platform for scientists and policy analysts from around the world who question the theory of man-made climate change. This year’s theme, “Global Warming Crisis: Cancelled,” calls attention to new research findings that contradict the conclusions of the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report.

Last year’s conference was reported to be a great success and you can access the audio and video recordings of presentations made at the 2008 conference Web site.

Distinguished scholars from the U.S. and around the world have addressed these questions seriously and without institutional bias. Their findings suggest the Modern Warming is moderate and partly or even mostly a natural recovery from the Little Ice Age; that the consequences of moderate warming are positive for humanity and wildlife; that predictions of future warming are wildly unreliable; that the costs of trying to “stop global warming” exceed hypothetical benefits by a factor of 10 or more; and more.

Often, these scholars have been ignored, and often even censored and demonized. They have been labeled “skeptics” and even “global warming deniers,” a mean-spirited attempt to lump them together with Holocaust deniers. The truth of the matter is that these scholars dissent from a false “consensus” put forward by a small but politically powerful clique of government scientists and political allies.

Actual surveys of climate scientists and recent reviews of the scholarly literature both show the so-called “skeptics” may actually be in the majority of the climate science community. They do not lack scholarly credentials or scientific integrity, but a platform from which they can be heard. Their voices have been drowned out by publicity built upon the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, an entity with an agenda to build support for the theory of man-made catastrophic global warming.

This year promises double the attendance as in 2008 and the esteemed Anthony Watts is a confirmed speaker.

I plan on attending.  Do you?

Confirmed Speakers

Name Affiliation
Dennis Avery Hudson Institute
Joseph Bast The Heartland Institute
Robert Bradley Institute for Energy Research
Bob Carter James Cook University (Australia)
Frank Clemente Penn State University
John Coleman KUSI-TV – San Diego
Joseph D’Aleo International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project
David Douglass University of Rochester
Myron Ebell Competitive Enterprise Institute
Michelle Foss University of Texas – Center for Energy Economics
Fred Goldberg Royal School of Technology (Sweden)
Laurence Gould University of Hartford
William Gray Colorado State University
Chris Horner Competitive Enterprise Institute
Craig Idso Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change
David Legates University of Delaware
Jay Lehr The Heartland Institute
Marlo Lewis Competitive Enterprise Institute
Richard Lindzen Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Ross McKitrick University of Guelph
Christopher Monckton Science and Public Policy Institute
Jim O’Brien Florida State University
Tim Patterson Carleton University
Benny Peiser Liverpool John Moores University (United Kingdom)
Paul Reiter Institut Pasteur (France)
Arthur Robinson Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine
Joel Schwartz American Enterprise Institute
S. Fred Singer Science and Environmental Policy Project
Fred Smith Competitive Enterprise Institute
Willie Soon Science and Public Policy Project
Roy Spencer University of Alabama at Huntsville
James M. Taylor The Heartland Institute
Anthony Watts Surfacestations.org

Perhaps we can get Al Gore to speak so we are assured of cold weather.


Just an afterthought: As many of you know, Anthony does not receive funding for his work at www.surfacestations.org or here at WUWT.  The funds to attend this conference will most likely come out of his pocket.  Look to your right and you will see at little yellow Donate button under the SHAMELESS PLUG heading.  WUWT gets over 10,000 views a day and if just 0.5% of this traffic contributes ten dollars apiece, we can entirely fund Anthony’s conference expenses.   How about it?   Do we walk the walk or just talk?

About these ads
This entry was posted in Announcements, Climate_change, Education, Science, Sea ice, Solar and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

285 Responses to A Gathering of “Skeptics”

  1. Richard111 says:

    The question is why? The fact this conference seems to be the only platform where scientists can express their disagreement with IPCC claims is astounding.
    How does this situation come about? Why can’t it be corrected?

  2. Jeff Wiita says:

    Congratulation Anthony,
    I see your name on the list of speakers. You are among the name of many great speakers who will be treated favorably when history is written.

  3. Vincent Guerrini Jr says:

    If things keep going like they are (temps, ice ect) this meeting will probably be redundant by then… I’ve spoken to quite a few AGW’ers lately, their argument is that it is good for people to believe in it even it ain’t happening because of pollution, overpopulation ect.. I tend to agree. I think the whole C02 versus temps will just die out anyway…

  4. George M says:

    By March 8, 2009 under the new administration, CO2 will have been outlawed, other legislation will have been passed, and the attendees of this conference will all be arrested under the ‘improved’ Patriot Act. Mark my words.

  5. John-X says:

    I’m piggy-backing on the “Mark Your Calendars” subhead.

    Today is another “Black Friday.”

    Stock index futures markets are currently “Limit Down,” meaning that they have reached their price limits and have been halted. The limit for ‘pre-market’ trading (before the opening of the NYSE and NASDAQ) is 5%.

    When the NYSE and NASDAQ open, the limit becomes 10% The percentage limits are set at the beginning of each calendar quarter, so the 10% limit for the Dow is 1100 points. That could be reached in the first few minutes of trading. When the limit is hit, trading will be halted for 1 hour.

    Oil prices have also crashed, based on the expectation of economic slowdown and reduced demand, in spite of the fact that OPEC just approved a 1.5 million barrel-per-day “emergency” production cut.

  6. helvio says:

    One thing I suggest is publicity, a lot of publicity, at the level of that pulled by the Public Relations people in CERN. You all remember the huge promotion around turning on the LHC, last September 10th. Even Google made a special logo for this event, and most newspapers opened up with its coverage. Many slogans were repeated constantly, like “LHC is its own prototype”, “the biggest scientific event since Man was sent to the Moon”, and the like. In the end it was a great victory for the CERN direction: the world was moved, at least for a few days, towards that event. The public relations people of this event should try to trigger the global interest at that level, learn with CERN and push the right buttons to, at least, get the people to realize the alternative to the Gore dogma exists and is strong. Some mystery, mysticism, and other things that make people should be input to the promotion. The message would be more widespread than in the last conference. And if the media create resistance to pass the message, the internet can be a more fluid medium, as it was during the time preceding the LHC day.

  7. John-X says:

    I also want to note again my strong belief that the recession will be used by global warmers to “prove” man-made global warming.

    Cooler global temperatures are already occurring and will continue through (at least) this winter.

    Oil use will also decline, in readily verifiable numbers.

    Ipso facto, the decline in oil use caused the decline in temperatures.

    Obviously, recession is good for the planet, prosperity is bad.

    So if you’ve had your home foreclosed, and if you lose your job, THANK YOU for doing your part to stabilize the climate.

  8. Pingback: Global Warming » A Gathering of “Skeptics”

  9. Pingback: Global Warming Skeptics Gathering March 2009 | Skeptics Global Warming

  10. Pamela Gray says:

    I think it would be a good idea to install a windowed crying room like in the back of Catholic churches. The warmers could go back there and get all that grief out without disturbing others. You could have pillows and blankets available, and maybe snacks. Make sure you have an extra heater available. Those crying rooms are notoriously cold.

  11. Bruce Cobb says:

    Vincent: If things keep going like they are (temps, ice ect) this meeting will probably be redundant by then… I’ve spoken to quite a few AGW’ers lately, their argument is that it is good for people to believe in it even it ain’t happening because of pollution, overpopulation ect.. I tend to agree. I think the whole C02 versus temps will just die out anyway…
    It’s a huge mistake to think that the AGW/CC movement is in any way about truth or science. It is non-falsifiable, and therefore pseudo-science. It is never good for people to believe a lie, as lies are the foundation for fascism. The ends, whatever they may be, never justify the means.
    Hitler was right -“the great masses of the people . . . will more easily fall victim to a great lie than a small one’’.

  12. Pierre Gosselin says:

    “What if you held a conference and no (real) scientists came?”
    I wonder if SurrealClimte will run that again.

    I hope this conference will attract converts. One strategy should be to entice scientists who are sitting on the fence, or are retired AGWers to convert and join the sceptic side. I’m happy this conference has taken root, and I’m ready to make a contribution. Where can one contribute?

    Still, look for the Climate Czar in Obama’s Admin to throw serious sand into this conference. I wouldn’t be surprised if they went so far as to try to shut it down using lawsuits.

  13. Bob B says:

    It would be nice if Roger Pielke would present as well. Le’ts draft him. I would even think Lucia with her analysis rejecting IPCC AR4 models would be a good paper:

    http://rankexploits.com/musings/2008/santer-method-applied-since-jan-2001-average-trend-based-on-38-ippc-ar4-models-rejected/

  14. Pierre Gosselin says:

    Remember, CO2 is a pollutant, and soon to be regulated by the EPA.

  15. RC says:

    Vincent, I think you’re absolutely correct that this will be the tact that AGWers take. The first evolution was from Global Warming to Climate Change. Now it will be all about sustainability and what’s good for the earth. But what won’t change will be the concessions the AGWers want everyone else to make. I don’t know about anyone else, but I don’t want people telling me (or taxing me, based on) how much I water my lawn or how many pieces of toilet paper I should be using.

  16. Jeff Alberts says:

    If things keep going like they are (temps, ice ect)

    FYI, it’s “etc.” not “ect” ;) Pedantic, I know, but I figured people would want to use the right word.

  17. Patrick Henry says:

    I agree with George M. The US will look more like the USSR (United States Socialist Republic) next year. People who think that the world depends on everyone “believing what they believe” are irrational, and I don’t think there is any limit on the damage Obama/Gore/Pelosi/Reed can and will do to free speech.

    The courtship phase is almost over. Now we descend into the reality of some dark core beliefs.

  18. stephen richards says:

    Hey Anthony, why are the most important speakers at the bottom of the list :)

    I note one of the Mc’s is there but not the other, shame.

    Should be a great conference shame that the main media groups won’t be there, they never are for the realists/scientists.

    REPLY:
    Actually, NYT was there last year, as was ABC and CNN. I appeared live on CNN last year on the Glenn Beck show to show the surfacestations project. – Anthony

  19. BernardP says:

    This important conference will likely get zero coverage in mainstream media. All major news outlets that the general population accesses daily are tacitly or openly endorsing AGW as irrefutable fact. Even abnormally cold weather is attributed to global warming (“AGW makes the climate crazy”).

    Each major media outlet has at least one dedicated eco-journalist who regularly hammers the AGW message.

    The turnaround in public opinion can’t come until some of the general media first comes around. As it is now, it seems only a little less likely we will see CNN, Time or Newsweek say “SCIENTISTS ESTABLISH THERE IS NO MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING – IPCC DISCREDITED ” as you will see them say “THERE IS NO GOD”

  20. John-X says:

    BernardP (07:37:20) :

    ‘As it is now, it seems only a little less likely we will see CNN, Time or Newsweek say “SCIENTISTS ESTABLISH THERE IS NO MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING – IPCC DISCREDITED ” as you will see them say “THERE IS NO GOD”’

    COMMUNISM WINS COLD WAR IN SURPRISE REVERSAL – USSR ‘POSSUM’ STRATEGY SUCCESSFUL IN DEFEATING FREE ENTERPRISE

  21. Stefan says:

    It would be great if videos of the presentations were made available online.

    Preferably of high enough quality to be pleasant to watch.

  22. Here’s an idea to put out early… how can we compile a list of anonymous but verifiable scientists who would attend but cannot owing to discrimination against skeptics…

  23. Dodgy Geezer says:

    “THERE IS NO GOD”

    See: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7681914.stm

    As for “COMMUNISM WINS COLD WAR IN SURPRISE REVERSAL – USSR ‘POSSUM’ STRATEGY SUCCESSFUL IN DEFEATING FREE ENTERPRISE”

    see any current stock market feed….

  24. Cosmic Ray says:

    If the conference organizers plan on a video feed, they might want to consider including a Swarmplayer (streaming Bit Torrent) feed. Less bandwidth, and a big Swarmplayer test may attract the attention of the “early adopter” crowd.

    FYI, it’s “etc.” not “ect” ;) Pedantic, I know, but I figured people would want to use the right abbreviation. :-)

  25. Terry Ward says:

    Vincent Guerrini Jr (05:51:23) :

    “…. their argument is that it is good for people to believe in it even it ain’t happening because of pollution, overpopulation ect.. I tend to agree. I think the whole C02 versus temps will just die out anyway…”

    Surely your many visits to Anthony’s house have taught you one thing above all others.

    Most of what we are told is fact, settled or beyond question is exactly (and usually diametrically) the opposite.

    The big lie of “CO2 causes warming” has alerted me to other big lies and your post reminded me of at least two – overpopulation and, the often linked, lack of resources.

    There is plenty of room and resources for three times the number of sharing caring folk than that currently gracing the face of the Earth. Discounting technological advances.

    As it happens I think next year’s “Not the IPCC” meeting will garner a bit more publicity than this year’s for one reason. The coming bitterly cold NH winter. Go Heretics.

  26. Retired Engineer says:

    The MSM has already declared “There is no God” (other than our probable next president)

    By March, Congress or the EPA will rule CO2 is unacceptable and ban anything, especially non-approved conferences like this, that emit even the smallest amount of the toxin.

    If it does take place, the Climate Police will photograph and document anyone who dares to attend, for future investigation.

    Obviously paranoid, but we have just watched an entire world economy crash due to misguided social engineering. Loaning money to people who can’t pay it back, and then ‘solving’ the problem by making it worse, with increased government manipulation of the markets. If someone predicted this ten years ago, they would have been laughed at. Oh, wait, people did predict it. And they were laughed at.

    I’d say the odds of this conference taking place are about 50-50. Maybe a bit better, as it will still be early in the Obama regeime.

  27. Mike Kelley says:

    I don’t trust the liberal media, and I sure don’t put any faith in their opinion polling. I think the presidential race is much closer than they would have you think. They have a track record of always leaning to the left. McCain/Palin may well win this thing.

  28. Here’s another spark… Never heard of Joanne Nova in Australia before yesterday, but she has been writing a Skeptics’ Handbook which looks like a brilliant short, accurate, simple, much-needed resource. Have a look. I hope she might speak at this conference too – she is already a keynote-grade speaker and we need people who can speak out.

  29. Alan the Brit says:

    Bruce Cobb: Amen to that, Adolf Hitler was bang on there. I read about a German man who lived through it all telling the interviewer that nobody bothered about Hitler at the time, they thought he was a crank & wouldn’t last long, of course by the time they realised he would, it was too late! Joseph Goebbels must be turning in his grave wishing he had the political clout the AGW’s have achieved!

    And

    Stephen Richards: Sir, the BBC were there too don’t forget – with Dr Iain Stewart filming his incredulity of the foolish blind scientists who just laughed at his irrefutable evidence of something called a “Hockey-Stick Graph”. They didn’t publicise it of course & the event never took place on this side of the ocean. So I expect them to be there again filming something similar with a differnt Dr Stewart so get a film crew to film them filming, so that the reality can be seen by the rest of us, then post it onto Youtube.

    My sincere best wishes to all who manage to attend & or support it. I look forward to reading all about it with enthusiasm. Remember, the system to close this down is not to respond to any publicty too much, the way people do when facing controversey, they tend to just ignore & poo poo the opposition in the vain hope that having done so it will go away. Don’t let it happen! Make the publicity so loud as to deafen them all! The cash is on the way Anthony.

    I just adore the Met Office when they said recently that this cooling temperature is “perfectly within the limits of our understanding of climate change”, although they never predicted it in their state of the art models. It’s the classical heads I win tails you lose scenario. However I give the credit that when UK suffered a minor quake earlier this year a former Met Office weatherman did come on to say that despite some newspaper reports & comments from the more lunatic green fringe that it was nothing to do with Global Warming & we cannot go on blaming everything on it! Shame I had been getting used to doing just that especially when my car got a flat! My grape vine has had to be cut right back, next to no fruit, the same with my fruit trees, zilch!

  30. Don B says:

    Anthony, congratulations, again.

    Last evening I finished reading the 1997 “The Role of the Sun in Climate Change,” by Hoyt and Schatten. They noted many of the facts commenters here know, such as 1) the more active sun during the Medievel Warm Period, 2) few sunspots during The Little Ice Age, 3) the more active sun corresponding to the warming since the LIA, 4) the relationship between solar cycle length and temperature, and 5) a remarkable 400 year correlation between a composite of solar features and earth temperature.

    And yet, despite all of that, they refused to take a position, saying the math didn’t support the sun doing all the warming and so maybe AGW had something to do with it.

    We can hope that in March some speakers will have done enough math to convince the sun sceptics.

  31. evanjones says:

    your post reminded me of at least two – overpopulation and, the often linked, lack of resources.

    Hey! I’M supposed to be the official reminder of that! #B^1

    One will note that the one who shot down the resources question in flames (Herman Kahn) held no academic degree in either demographics or economics.

  32. The conference is sponsored by the Heartland Institute, which has been actively involved in debate over tobacco policy, opposing restrictions on smoking and criticizing science which documents the harms of secondhand smoke. The institute is funded by ultra-conservative foundations, individuals, and ‘Big Oil’.

    It is interesting to note that on Avery’s list of
    ‘500 Scientists Whose Research Contradicts Man-Made Global Warming Scares’ one finds a certain ‘Mann, Michael E., University of Massachusetts’ of Hockey Stick fame.

    Also stating as a ‘fact’ [as there are no qualifying weasel words]:
    “2) The sun’s varying radiance impacts the Earth’s climate as more or fewer cosmic rays create more or fewer of the low, wet clouds that act as the Earth’s thermostats, deflecting more or less solar heat out into space.”

    It seems to me that the Institute has its own political agenda and it is a bit sad that they can fool well-meaning people to do their bidding.

  33. Don B (09:15:21) :
    Last evening I finished reading the 1997 “The Role of the Sun in Climate Change,” by Hoyt and Schatten. They noted many of the facts commenters here know [...]
    And yet, despite all of that, they refused to take a position, saying the math didn’t support the sun doing all the warming

    Doug and Ken are just honest scientists.

    We can hope that in March some speakers will have done enough math to convince the sun skeptics.
    Judging from last years talks there seems to be little hope or prospects of that.

  34. Dave Dodd says:

    The terms “skeptics” and “deniers” are intentionally derisive, launched by the AGW types as an attack against those who place science ahead of Algorean scams. Why not instead us a term such as “purveyors of Truth?” That by implication forces the AGWers to defend the indefensible. How someone perceives themselves has more to do with their job performance than any labels attached by their enemies.

    Fight! Fight!! Fight!!!

  35. Keith says:

    I would love to be able to attend, just to hear all the great speakers who have committed to be there. Unfortunately, my budget wouldn’t cover the expense of the trip. Congrats, Anthony, on being part of this group.

    Now, what the rest of us need to do is make sure that this conference does come to the attention of the mainstream media. We’ve got the basic press release available from the post above. If this got sent to every newspaper and television station in your local area regularly from multiple people, than they might decide it was something that their audience was interested in hearing more of. We can be the Public Relations staff for this event, and make it something that the population as a whole does hear about.

  36. Actuator says:

    As one who used statistical analysis in a limited fashion in business and government, it became apparent that as variables increased results became much less certain for predicting outcomes. People who are supposed to be scientists use computer models that cannot possibly consider all the variables from the myriad of sources that impact the climate and claim with utter certainty long term outcomes for climate change. This is preposterous. I don’t suggest that scientists stick their heads in the sand and stop doing research, but at least be realistic. The cynic in me says that as with all living organisms, the pursuit of resources, research grants in the case of scientists, fuels the need for sensation and attention. Funds follow closely behind the publicity generated by claims of impending disaster. Then the politically astute jump in to take advantage to garner more resources and power for themselves based on their claims to “solve” a potentially (likely?) non-existent problem. The taxpayers then get to pay for it all.

  37. John-X says:

    Leif Svalgaard (09:33:13) :

    “The conference is sponsored by the Heartland Institute, which has been actively involved in debate over tobacco policy, opposing restrictions on smoking and criticizing science which documents the harms of secondhand smoke. The institute is funded by ultra-conservative foundations, individuals, and ‘Big Oil’.”

    Well then, Global Warming is true.

    “It seems to me that the Institute has its own political agenda and it is a bit sad that they can fool well-meaning people to do their bidding.”

    No political agenda involved in pushing man-made global warming, right, Doctor Svalgaard?

    No well-meaning people [think schoolchildren, Doctor] fooled into doing the bidding of politically-motivated politicians, ex-politicians, and assorted “activists,” right Doctor Svalgaard?

  38. John-X says:

    WHICH foundations are “ultra-conservative,” Leif?

    WHO from “Big Oil” is “funding” Heartland, Leif?

    Funding by ‘INDIVIDUALS,” Leif? That’s unacceptable to you? Or were you applying your “ultra-conservative” epithet to “individuals,” and not just foundations, Leif?

    If your aren’t going to name names and give us specifics, then we’ll know exactly what you’re up to here – guilt by [vague] association, meaningless and emotional, politically-motivated generalizations.

  39. MarkW says:

    1) There is no reliable science that demonstrates the harm of second hand smoke. The best are “studies” that use highly questionable methods and correlation numbers.

    2) Do you honestly believe that restrictions on smoking are only a “scientific” issue? There is no chance in the world that the issue of freedom is at stake?

    3) Regardings unspoken political agendas, you should know.

  40. John-X says:

    I hadn’t thought seriously of attending this conference, but the fact that Leif is twigged by the very EXISTENCE of Heartland, which has the “audacity” (to borrow a term) to “criticize science” (your words Leif AND your italics), encourages me to proudly and gratefully pony up my $625 registration fee, for a chance to hear people who prefer to THINK, rather than (bitterly) cling to their “consensus.”

  41. Robert Bateman says:

    The reason you are having this opportunity is that people like me have convinced the government that for too long people with monied interests have had the exclusive ear of Congress. Read Lobbyists of the Industries and Corps that make the profits off of your science. There is a great need for Scientists to have direct contact with Congress directly over things such as Renewable Energy, climate, pollution, food supply, transportation, etc..

    Whatever you do, don’t let the Big Institutes and Big Corps talk you out of direct access to the people who make the monetary decisions and write the laws.

    You are very likely in the near future to be offered projects to pilot and prove real-life applications such as clean-coal locomotives to carry the nation’s freight at scale. Good luck to you all.

  42. AnonyMoose says:

    Don’t know a lot about the carbon cycle: No-till farming can increase greenhouse gas effects.

    http://scienceblogs.com/islandofdoubt/2008/10/were_clueless_when_it_comes_to.php

  43. John Philip says:

    Actual surveys of climate scientists and recent reviews of the scholarly literature both show the so-called ‘skeptics’ may actually be in the majority of the climate science community.

    Anyone know where I can read such a survey or review?

    Will there be another ‘Manhattan Declaration’ this year? I notice that from the global community of people who were not at the conference last year but who ‘have training and/or backgrounds that afford them a good understanding of climate change science, technology, economics and/or policy.’ a grand total of 603 were willing to endorse the proposition that Climate Change is not a Global Crisis. and that these included people with expertise in string theory, audio signal processing, molecular genetics and Kinesiology (yeah, I had to look it up too).

  44. paminator says:

    Leif- you say “It seems to me that the Institute has its own political agenda and it is a bit sad that they can fool well-meaning people to do their bidding.”

    I agree. Its time to disband the IPCC.

  45. Basil says:

    Leif Svalgaard (09:37:56) :

    “Doug and Ken are just honest scientists?”

    Just curious, but may I presume you hold the same opinion of William Burroughs (alluding here to “Weather Cycles: Real or Imaginary?”)?

    Basil

  46. M White says:

    The Kayak man Lewis Gordon Pughs Polar defence website has suddenly come to life

    http://polardefenseproject.org/blog/

    ‘Climate change: faster, stronger, sooner’

    ‘UN cheif calls global warming “Defining issue”‘

    ‘Migrating Alaskan pollock creat potential for new dispute with Russia’

  47. Pet Rock says:

    So that’s the infamous link to the tobacco industry I keep hearing about!

    I’m sorry the scientific question of climate change was ever made public before there really was a scientific consensus on it. Because politics is the root of all evil.

    I get the strong feeling that the AGW crowd is left wing and the anti-AGW crowd is right wing. For whatever reason. But the real SCIENCE is neither right wing or left wing. We should resist the temptation to make political cheap shots.

    Everyone should support real science. We don’t need extremist zealots. I don’t see much difference between the extreme right (like Hitler) and the extreme left (like Stalin). Or between the actions of their zealot followers, whether Brown Shirts or Red Guard. They are not the right model to follow.

    The proper way for people to fight AGW, if that is their desire, is to criticize their science, not their politics.

    This constant claims of Big Oil funding or Tobacco Funding are really just distractions. Big Oil is going to make big money whether there is AGW or not. It’s interesting that tobacco is mentioned. Everybody knows tobacco is bad for them, but that didn’t stop them all from smoking. Smoking is a near-term “benefit”, and a risk of a long term “pain”. As a poison, tobacco is rather weak. It may not kill you, and it takes a long time before that starts to happen. It’s really only through science that we know it is bad for health. The tobacco industry tried to prevent that science, only wanting to show their “facts”. Sort of like how the AGW industry is behaving now. Where does the Big Environment money come from?

    The problem with having such sponsors is that the other side uses that as an attack point, even if all the scientists involved are pure and honest. But what else is there?

  48. bushy says:

    Anthony here is a piece of ludiabull you might like to post. http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/oct2008/2008-10-24-01.asp
    Ludiabull = ludicrous alarmist bullshite.

  49. Bobby Lane says:

    Long live the (Climate) Rebellion!

  50. George E. Smith says:

    “MarkW (10:08:19) :

    1) There is no reliable science that demonstrates the harm of second hand smoke. The best are “studies” that use highly questionable methods and correlation numbers. ”

    Well I don’t know about 2nd hand smoke, but I know a credible epidemiologist, recently retired for U of Miami, and long associated with the CDC; and at the Uof M he was in constant contact with doctors at the med school who certainly knew about direct firsat hand smoke; and my friend says the evidence linking smoking with lung cancer, is more convincing that the evidence linking sex with the occurrence of children.

    As for me being an asthmatic, I only have one problem with cigarettes; they simply don’t kill people quickly enough. If they made them more potent and allowed them to be sold to youn children; we might be spared another generation of idiots.

    One thing I have noticed, by watching European tourists, visiting other parts of the world, they can’t wait to get outside of a restaurant (here in the USA) to light up a fag. I once chaperoned my younger sister, and her smoker Irish husband on a whirlwind driving tour of the California gold country. Every time I stopped the car at a red traffic light, he would jump out of the car and light up a cigarette. Soon as the light turned green, he stubbed it out, and put it back in the packet, and hopped into the car on our way to the next red light.

    Yes he died of Lung Cancer.

    BUT, so long as the weed is legal to purchase, I would not lift a finger to support laws that impose undue burdens on those who choose to smoke (as in punitive taxes). But when I am out and about in the streets, it seems that every one of those junkies has to gravitate towards me, so I have to step out on the road to get around them.
    I’m told that smoking a single cigarette is enough to hook the next victim.

    In the USA, African Americans who smoke, are a smaller fraction of the African American population, than in the case of white smokers; yet they die of lung cancer at an extra ordinary high rate, compared to white smokers.

    Reason is simple, African Americans smoke Menthol cigarettes which are targetted in advertising, to that community. The menthol gives the smoke that coolness, which enables smokers to inhale the smoke deeply into their lungs so they get a much bigger dose of nicotine than non menthol smokers.
    Every African America smoker I encounter, I ask what brand (s)he smokes; and I have yet to meet the first one who wasn’t smoking menthols. Then I tell them they are being targeted with the deadliest of all cigarettes.

    And NO, I do not believe there is a conspiracy of “eradication”; it is just that marketing pros, have noticed their fetish for Menthols so they select Black magazines and locations/hangouts to put their menthol advertising. It’s just dollars to them, not a genocidal conspiracy.

    If you smoke; quit, and if you don’t smoke; don’t start.

  51. John-X (10:02:31) :
    I shall just give a few examples. You can easily find many more [I'll help if needed]:

    WHICH foundations are “ultra-conservative,” Leif?
    The Heartland Institute has received hundreds of thousands of dollars [to support 'general operations'] from the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, that has also has provided funding for the Project for a New American Century (PNAC). PNAC brought together prominent members of the (George W) Bush Administration (Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz) in the late 1990s to articulate their neoconservative foreign policy, including sending a letter to President Bill Clinton urging him to invade Iraq.

    WHO from “Big Oil” is “funding” Heartland, Leif?

    http://democrats.science.house.gov/Media/File/Commdocs/hearings/2007/oversight/28mar/mccarthy_testimony.pdf

    pahe 15:
    Heartland Institute $561,500 Nearly 40% of the total funds that the Heartland Institute has received from ExxonMobil since 1998 were specifically designated for climate change projects. ExxonMobil donated $119,000 in 2005, its biggest gift to Heartland since 1998.

    All the rest of your emotion laden stuff you can keep.

  52. Ellie In Belfast says:

    Re Lucy Skywalker (08:11:50) :

    “Here’s an idea to put out early… how can we compile a list of anonymous but verifiable scientists who would attend but cannot owing to discrimination against skeptics…”

    If some of the presentations (e.g Keynote speakers) were available as live webcasts for pre-registered log-in (free or very nominal cost), this probably wouldn’t affect attendance but would reach a wide audience, with some interesting stats from registrations or even just IP addresses.

    This could generate some interesting post-event publicity “world’s largest conference audience” etc.

    Some of the Information days for Research Programmes in the European Union are available in this way.

  53. Carl Wolk says:

    Leif wrote,
    “It seems to me that the Institute has its own political agenda and it is a bit sad that they can fool well-meaning people to do their bidding.”
    No one’s being fooled. “Their bidding” in this case is demonstrating that the IPCC is wrong. And hey! That’s exactly what the scientists and experts want to show as well. Which is why they form a conference at all. No one’s being taken advantage of here; guests would not agree to come if they did not want to. It really is irrelevant who hosts the event, because the seniorirty/expertise of the event is due to its guests, not its host. Even if 100% of the institute’s funding came straight from ExxonMobil, it wouldn’t make a difference because the authority of this conference does not lie with the host.

  54. Alexander says:

    Hallo Mr. Watts,

    thank you very much for your phantastic worc. Your blog is very important for me. Also why i have not so much money, i just gave 10 Dollars over paypal. Please do your best, thank you!

    Greetings from Munich (Germany)
    Alexander

  55. Allen63 says:

    Lief,

    Per your observation: “The conference is sponsored by the Heartland Institute…”

    In my opinion, the USA is politically polarized. Very unfortunately, even independents must (perhaps temporarily) align left or right to get something done on a large scale.

    So, I do not assign credibility based on sponsorship or the presumed ideology of the presenters. Rather, I assign it on the basis of the quality of arguments presented.

    Parenthetically, I am an independent who would solve some problems with far-left action, others with right-wing action, others in the middle. And, I do not think the USA is unique in its polarization.

  56. Pet Rock (10:58:01) :
    The proper way for people to fight AGW, if that is their desire, is to criticize their science, not their politics.
    And to do that in open debate. How many of the speakers are pro-AGW so we can hear their side of the story? IMHO the ‘pure and honest’ scientists are being used. Now, that may be OK with them as long as they get their message out. My fear is that that message will be distorted and filtered. But, hey, if someone wants to carry wood to an Anti-Environment, Big Business, etc fire, so be it, but give me the freedom to voice my opinion too, without heaping abuse on me. Or maybe that’s not allowed here?

  57. Bobby Lane says:

    Pet Rock,

    While I don’t agree with your Left-Right division entirely, because there are some of both in both camps, I think it still holds up for the most part. Here is why. Liberals today are Progressives, and like those of the 20s and 30s they are more open to extremism today. That is really the proper title for them. Progressives have a vision of a paradise they’d like to create. They think there is simply nothing stopping us except corporate greed from driving around in electric cars, operating homes of solar and wind-generated electricity, eating free-ranch meats, and shutting down Wal-Mart. Many of them have an idealistic vision such as this. The leaders, however, I do not believe are as ignorant. They know the costs of their plans, but they plan to profit from the changes while others suffer. Conservatives have been idealists in the past too, particularly socially, and there is nothing wrong with a healthy dose of idealism period. But most conservatives today are not interested in turning the clock back. We (I say that because I am one) only want freedom and prosperity for our fellow human beings, except of course for people like Putin, Ahmadinejad, and Kim Il-Jong. Those people can hang like Sadaam for all we care. And therein lies the difference.

    Conservatives want change too. They just want a different kind of change, one that is slower and gradual, and most importantly one that is in the right direction. Liberal progressives today want change for change’s sake. And they paint such grandiose visions with such fervor (sort of like some televangelists, oddly enough) that they convince a lot of people (e.g., the global warming movement). Similar to John McCain, conservatism is pretty sturdy but rather boring too. Most of life is filled with the mundane and the routine. There are of course deeply good things about it too, but nothing very flashy. Similar to Barack Obama, progressivism sounds great, particularly after something bad has happened that they can attribute to conservatism like the financial crisis. But when it is closely examined you see the costs of progressivism far outweigh the benefits, much like the New Deal or the Great Society, or Obama’s plan to raise corporate taxes among other things. The reason that progressive plans eventually fail is that they ignore fundamental truths about not only economics but also the human condition itself. The genius of our current system of government here in the United States is its ability to bind a disparate People into one nation while still allowing them their individuality and the associated freedoms. It’s not perfect, but it works pretty well and is better than the alternatives. Progressives are socialists. Co-operation, sacrifice for your fellow man, and things along those lines – while not bad things and in of themselves – are not left up to individuals but are incorporated into the philosophy and the laws of government by the State (i.e., the Federal government in our case). You do not have the right to dissent or refuse because if others followed it would destroy the plan. Progressives are very ordered, and that is a good thing too, but when the good of Order is taken to override the necessity of Freedom, that is when Society is in great danger. And that is where we stand now in the great Global Warming debate.

  58. Vincent Guerrini Jr says:

    RE Leif svaalgard’s statement above: That statement above is not his usual fare. I was surprised as it it usually is only solar science (strictly). In any case the sun’s minima is neing prolonued and yes temps are staying low and arctic and antarctic ice are increasing both nearing normal and probably going beyond… good luck. I think David archibald will be proved right at this rate,,, LOL

  59. Sean says:

    I honestly find it a bit disheartening that there are conferences for AGW proponents and separate conferences for AGW skeptics. That is a real tragedy. There’s much better chance for substantial progress in the science when these separate parties are in the same room arguing, so long as the arguements remain technical.

  60. Mikey says:

    I look forward to reading what the scientists and others say in their lectures, but the only chance of MSM coverage is if all the little Leifs of the scene turn up with their placards, chanting about Big Oil, and tobacco, preaching precautionary principle (their last real argument). Hope they’re there. Should make it fun.

  61. Bill in Vigo says:

    It was sad to have some one whose opinion I value lower himself to the point of using the old axiom, Big Oil, Big Tobacco, They are just extreme conservatives, Perhaps they will do the math, and considering last years speakers I see no prospect this year . Yep lets not look at the science lets look at the messenger. It has been my experience that if you pay some one to study green ants they will find green ants to study. If you pay them to find a blue and gold fish they will find a blue and gold fish to study. By the same token if you pay some on to study the prospects of global warming/climate change they will fine some to study. Then to continue funding they will find some compelling reason to continue the study. I just wonder what would happen if the big bucks would dry up what would be the findings from either position.

    I believe that before I discount the science presented I would at least wait for it to be presented and study it and try to falsify it.

    Bill Derryberry

  62. Joe Black says:

    Sorry, can’t attend. There will still be snow out West that others don’t want to pack down. It’s a tough and continuous job, but someone has to do it. A personal sacrifice for sure.

  63. Bob B says:

    John Phillip–it will be interesting to see the results of the new Von Storch survey:

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/09/a-new-survey-of-scientists/

    Sorry–got this from realclimate–I feel I must bathe now

  64. John Philip says:

    WHO from ‘Big Oil’ is ‘funding’ Heartland?

    $676,500 from ExxonMobil in the last decade since you ask. This is from Exxon’s own company reports and accounts, Heartland themselves keep their benefactors a closely guarded secret. Doesn’t make them bad people of course, but it would surely be better if such potential conflicts of interest were voluntarily disclosed.

    REPLY: John that’s no longer an issue. So please don’t keep repeating that. Heartland did at one time, take some research money from Exxon but does no longer. I asked the same questions last year as a condition of my attendance. Nothing from this conference (nor last years) is funded by oil companies or tobacco. Though many people like yourself seem to enjoy making those connections, even if they aren’t true. My parents both died of smoking related illnesses, and if I felt Heartland was advocating smoking, I would not be involved nor would I attend.- Anthony

  65. Don B says:

    Leif (9:37:56) I thought someone might say that Svensmark has already done the math, and shown that there is not much room for AGW, as in “The Chilling Stars,” or here:

    http://www.space.dtu.dk/upload/institutter/space/research/sun-climate/full_text_publications/svensmark_2007cosmoclimatology.pdf

  66. AEGeneral says:

    For the love of God, will you folks at the Heartland Institute please spell “canceled” correctly?

    You go to all this trouble, come up with a nice theme, probably hire a marketing company to do the logo & web design, make it all look professional — and then you misspell one of the words in the theme for all to see. Do you know what “due diligence” means?

    And you do all of this knowing the media is going to look for any reason they can find to discount what this conference is about. Well now you’ve already given them an angle: a group of skeptical scientists who can’t spell.

    That’s just embarrassing.

  67. Roger says:

    It seems that Lewis Gordon Pugh is still talking Pollocks.

  68. stephen richards says:

    Don’t jump on Lief. Read his words carefully. He alludes to the very important problem that all non- establishment scientists face.
    If you are not part of a consensus or not part of a recognised government sponsored institute then you must be either not qualified to speak or sponsored by a private, vested interest. Afterall, where is your money coming from if not. You will not receive money from a non-interest/invested party, will you?

    Now, don’t jump and rage. Think about what I’ve said and come up with a solution; Even sites like climateaudit, whatsup and co2science are sponsored by vested interests, you and me mostly, but we don’t do out of philanthropic love, or do we.

    To Alan the BRit.

    Yes I think the BBC were there but not to report it. As we now know it was that half wit stewart could pursue his private interests

  69. kagiso says:

    Apologies for the off topic, but it appears that the Denmark Strait (between Greenland and Iceland) is freezing up:

    A brief scan through peak ice limits on cryosphere today suggests this hasn’t happened since records started in 1979 (though I certainly didn’t check every page).

    Does anybody know when was the last time you could walk from Iceland to Greenland?

    Interesting times……..

  70. Harold Ambler says:

    MarkW (10:08:19) :
    1) There is no reliable science that demonstrates the harm of second hand smoke. The best are “studies” that use highly questionable methods and correlation numbers.

    As a performing songwriter, I can tell you that playing in smoky clubs was not a joyful, or inexpensive, experience. It meant damage to sinuses, vocal cords, and, of course, lungs. Musicians were an important part of the political coalition that got smoking outlawed in clubs in Rhode Island, where I lived at the time.

    On the level of nuisance, coming home smelling like other people’s favorite toxin wasn’t fun or relaxing.

    You can, if you choose, fund a study to disprove my experience, but you will never convince me that secondhand smoke is harmless.

    I don’t think that the political right will “own” the anti-AGW movement, nor should it. Bad science is bad for everyone.

  71. Robert Wood says:

    Funding by Big Gore and Big Sierra Club and Big transnational corporations such as WWF are OK, though?

  72. Dan McCune says:

    It appears the word may be getting out.

    Europe’s climate revolt
    Posted: October 20, 2008, 10:28 PM by NP Editor
    Climate change, Benny Peiser
    In the wake of the financial crisis, some EU member states are reassesing the union’s carbon dioxide reduction goals

    http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2008/10/20/europe-s-climate-revolt.aspx

    I especially like the quote by Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, who threatened to veto the whole package on economic grounds: “We do not think that now is the time to be playing the role of Don Quixote, when the big producers of CO2, such as the United States or China, are totally against adherence to our targets.”

    Per Wiki Don Quixote is a country gentleman who descends into fantasy thinking he is a knight. Does this suggest that AGW is fantasy – are they jousting with windmills after all? Quixotic has entered the English language meaning “foolishly impractical especially in the pursuit of ideals.” Is this the AGW omission we have all been expecting or, could the Italian PM have used a better choice of words?

  73. Jeff Alberts says:

    I get the strong feeling that the AGW crowd is left wing and the anti-AGW crowd is right wing. For whatever reason. But the real SCIENCE is neither right wing or left wing. We should resist the temptation to make political cheap shots.

    Personally I have no political affiliation, but I get lumped in with right-wing nutjobs all the time. I can’t stand the polemics from both extremes of the argument, and just wish scientists would practice science and not activism.

  74. Leon Brozyna says:

    Moving a bit OT, it looks like APS is acting like it got burned with their “debate” in the July issue of Physics and Society Forum. They’ve got a couple of letters in the October issue (one pro, one con) and a single article from, where else, realclimate.org. Why am I not surprised?

    http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200810/index.cfm

  75. Tim Clark says:

    M White (10:48:11) :

    ‘Migrating Alaskan pollock creat potential for new dispute with Russia’

    Folks, I think we have a winner. Unscientific associations between AGW and cooking, typhoons, or sex have hurdled over infinite, other trivial possibilities to the inevitable, penultimate relationship.

    AGW LEADS TO NUCLEAR WAR!!!

    I can’t take it anymore. I must convert.

  76. Ed Scott says:

    Pet Rock (10:58:01) :

    “I get the strong feeling that the AGW crowd is left wing and the anti-AGW crowd is right wing. For whatever reason. But the real SCIENCE is neither right wing or left wing. We should resist the temptation to make political cheap shots.”

    AGW has always been about politics using faux science as a an instrument to take advantage of public emotion and public scientific ignorance. Why does it surprise you that a political movement conceived and executed by the left-wing would be opposed by real SCIENCE? A better desciption of the involvement of SCIENCE, in the controversy, is that the left-wing (liberal) SCIENCE is false and political and the real SCIENCE is true and factual

    “Everyone should support real science.”

    “The proper way for people to fight AGW, if that is their desire, is to criticize their science, not their politics.”

    That is precisely the mission of real SCIENCE. Provide an example when this has not been true and their desire is to unequivocally criticize the faux science and to fight their politics.

    “I don’t see much difference between the extreme right (like Hitler) and the extreme left (like Stalin).”

    ” We should resist the temptation to make political cheap shots.”

    Apparently, you do not follow your own suggestions. While the extreme left has Stalinist tendencies, there is no extremism in the real SCIENCE as pursued by real scientists.

    “But what else is there?”

    A better understanding of the AGW controversy in terms of REAL SCIENCE opposing faux politicized SCIENCE and not in terms of political left and right wings?

  77. CodeTech says:

    Meh – well meaning to pretend there are not politics involved, but the fact is the ENTIRE THING is politically motivated. The alGoreans are absolutely in love with using the club of AGW to beat the average person senseless… and take their money.

    Either way, there are many things we “assume” are true that are quite simply not true. One of them involves second hand smoke. As repulsive as smelling tobacco smoke is to a non-smoker, using fabricated data to “prove” a danger where none exists is 100% wrong. The WHO’s gigantic study showed ONLY ONE statistically valid correlation: children of smokers actually had BETTER lung health than children of non-smokers.

    I still hear people hold up that report and claim that it “says” things that it simply does not. They tried very hard to find scientific evidence that second hand smoke is harmful, but they failed to do so. So the fallback tactic worked perfectly – they hold up the report and TELL US WHAT IT SAYS. Nobody reads it. Nobody studies or checks results. People tend to be stupid that way and give an unreasonable amount of trust to the UN and “science”.

    This exact same principle works fine for AGW, too. Can’t find real world evidence of AGW? Fabricate it! Can’t correlate that theorized heat signature at the tropics? No problem, do some number-fudging and make pretty graphs! Weather not cooperating and planet cooling? No problem, change the averaging method on your charts! Then just lie about the whole thing. Unprecedented! Worse than feared! Panic! Doom! Send Money!

    Again: the big lies of my time include: global cooling. global warming. DDT destroys eagle eggs. secondhand smoke proven harmful. Freon destroys the ozone layer. Population explosion! California will slide into the ocean “soon”.

    Doing the right thing for the wrong reason…. is wrong.

  78. Dan McCune says:

    Wouldn’t this provide an excellent opportunity to actually debate the issues. Be sure to invite Jim, Al and their cohorts.

    REPLY: They did last year, and I extended an invitation to Jim Hansen, only blocks away at Columbia…he declined, as did Gore – Anthony

  79. Lucia says:

    New York… sigh….

    Isn’t Heartland centered in Chicago? If this were lcoal, I’d hop on the Metra, and try to meet Anthony for coffee and donuts!

  80. David S says:

    Fantastic new! Hooray Anthony!!

  81. Smokey says:

    Leif:

    Why do you only mention funding of a conference by an energy company, while neglecting any mention of James Hansen’s receipt of $720,000 from George Soros, and Hansen’s acceptance of hundreds of thousands of dollars more from various other left-wing outfits — while he is on the public payroll? Wouldn’t that lead straight to corruption of science?

    Just wondering where you’re coming from, that’s all…

  82. JimB says:

    They still believe it’s important “…because of pollution, overpopulation etc.. ”

    Which is just as problematic, and is nothing but a propagation of the same lack of (or bad) science we’re already experiencing with global warming.

    If C02 isn’t causing global warming, and it’s basically plant food, how can it be called a polutant?…and why do these people look upon it as such?
    From what I’ve been able to understand while reading up on climate studies and GHG on this site and others, the amount of C02 we release into the atmosphere relative to what’s “natural”, and relative to GHGs on whole, it’s roughly the same as claiming that I’m raising the salinity of the ocean when I take a ….well…you get the idea.

    And how convenient and subtle a shift, eh?…”Well…yeah…darn it…we were a LITTLE off on that whole AGW thing…but hey…it’s STILL a polutant, so thank goodness we brought it everyone’s attention, cuz we STILL need to pass legislation control it, or else we’ll…or…..ummmm…..or….shit.”

    Jim

  83. Ed Scott says:

    Leif Svalgaard (09:33:13) :

    “The conference is sponsored by the Heartland Institute, which has been actively involved in debate over tobacco policy, opposing restrictions on smoking and criticizing science which documents the harms of secondhand smoke. The institute is funded by ultra-conservative foundations, individuals, and ‘Big Oil’.”

    Leif, the most outstanding feature of the American culture has been its emphasis on individual freedom, although now severely limited when compared to the halcyon days of my youth. Tobacco products are still a legal product. If the Heartland Institute is an advocate for the rights of tobacco users, what is their crime? If a citizen wants to use tobacco, he has every right to do so. I am a non-tobacco user, by the way.

    “Heartland campaigns against what it refers to as “junk-science”; supports “common-sense environmentalism”, such as opposition to the the Kyoto protocol aimed at countering global warming…”

    “It seems to me that the Institute has its own political agenda and it is a bit sad that they can fool well-meaning people to do their bidding.”

    Heartland sponsors real science in refuting the AGW hoax. How were scientists fooled by the stated mission of Heartland? Why do you display a contempt for well-meaning people?

    “The institute is funded by ultra-conservative foundations, individuals, and ‘Big Oil.’”

    Are you saying that this disqualifies Heartland from sponsoring The 2009 International Conference on Climate Change?

  84. RBerteig says:

    AEGeneral (12:14:54) :

    For the love of God, will you folks at the Heartland Institute please spell “canceled” correctly?

    According to my favorite dictionary applet (WordWeb, http://wordweb.info/) the spelling they used is correct US usage. Your spelling is accepted as correct to our North and on the other side of the pond. This is a US conference, after all…. ;-)

    As for the larger (and more serious) issue of needing to have a separate conference of skeptical views, this wouldn’t have come about if the “other side” weren’t so persistent in their attempt to deny that it is reasonable to doubt their alarmist claims. In any case, it is certainly normal for scientists who want to approach a problem from a common viewpoint to gather, and if you get more than three to agree on a time and place it is normal to call that a conference.

    Any shame should land mostly on the journals like Nature that have taken an editorial stand that one side is “true” rather than acting in their proper role.

    I’m glad to see Anthony is speaking, and hope (entirely without nagging, mind you) that preparing for his trip will result in an update the surface stations survey results.

  85. Mike Borgelt says:

    I haven’t actually been reading many of Leif’s posts here. That will go to zero now.

  86. Ed Scott says:

    JimB (13:51:32)

    “If C02 isn’t causing global warming, and it’s basically plant food, how can it be called a polutant?…and why do these people look upon it as such?”

    The Supreme Court of the United States decided in

    SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

    Syllabus

    MASSACHUSETTS ET AL. v. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ET AL.

    CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

    No. 05–1120. Argued November 29, 2006—Decided April 2, 2007

    that CO2 is a pollutant. End of story.

  87. Fernando says:

    Global Warming Crisis: Canceled
    Absolute lack of credit (not have money …).
    Where will a scientist AGW unemployed?
    Certainly: The arrogance …..lose impact.
    I will continue … 10 U.S. dollars
    Sir Anthony Watts … good luck

  88. Kunoichi says:

    It always gives me a chuckle when I hear/read people accusing “skeptics” and “deniers” of being funded by “Big Oil.”

    I have a friend who is an AGW “skeptic,” like myself. Her sister, on the other hand, is an AGW “believer”, extraordinaire. She works for a department in the Canadian government, but is currently ‘on loan’ to an organization that promotes Climate Change dogma (this happens a lot). Their conversations get pretty interesting sometimes! Anyhow, my friend sent me a link to the website for this organization. A quick look at the sponsors pages had several logos for oil, gas and automotive companies prominently displayed. This is true of many “green” organizations.

    So we have a government employee (she’s still on the government payroll, even though she’s working with a private organization), loaned out to a company that’s lobbying the government on behalf of “climate change,” that’s largely sponsored by Big Oil and other Big Industry companies.

    As for the claim that second hand “cigarette smoke” causes cancer, etc., the more accurate statement would be that second hand “smoke” causes cancer, etc. Chemically, there’s little difference between wood smoke and cigarette smoke. That’s why respiratory illnesses are such a huge problem in third world countries where they have no choice but to cook over smoky fires indoors. Worse, they’re often having to burn green wood or dung, which burns much more inefficiently than seasoned firewood. Breathing smoke of any kind is bad for our lungs, whether it’s wood smoke, cigarette smoke, incense, whatever.

    As for the addictive qualities of cigarettes and actively inhaling it, that’s a whole ‘nother issue.

  89. GP says:

    It is so very interesting how the tobacco card can be incredibly divisive, even between two people (let alone groups of people) who otherwise seem to agree almost 100% about everything else.

    If we look to recent support for AGW proposed control mechanisms we would probably find most of it in the financial trading marketplace – the impetus and funding for carbon tariffs and related trading had clear support amongst the investment banking majors before they imploded.

    I wonder why?

    In the case of smoking and a few other activities it became possible for scientific observation and analytic methods correctly applied to prove the potential for harm, for many but interestingly not all, outweighed any measurable potential benefit (theoretical or otherwise) by a degree that could not be disputed reliably.

    Since those points were reached many pressure groups with their own reasons for making a statement have endeavoured to spread the effect of the original agreement about risk into peripheral areas where definitive ‘proof’ was much less likely to be scientifically available even if there was indeed some strained connection.

    This we see people drifting into acceptance of the ‘precautionary principle’, though strangely not for some evidently ‘dangerous’ activities. for example based on fatality rates by percentage of participants and the costs of making rescue facilities available it is extremely difficult to understand why, by way of an example, climbing mountains is not a proscribed activity.

    Or to look at it another way, the average life expectancy in some countries is less than (or little greater than) the age at which, in the developed countries, disease related to smoking (or whatever) are diagnosed. This makes it somewhat difficult in a purely scientific sense to define the point at which a negative health outcome becomes ‘early’ rather than naturally timed.

    In the case of the banking industry I guess it will be a while before we begin to fully understand the underlying motivations that resulted in such an unstable situation and to the bankers being so keen about moving in on the ‘green’ arena.

    Ultimately we will, individually or collectively, believe what we want to believe.

    For example consensus suggests that exercise is a ‘good thing’ and that one way of getting useful exercise is to use a bicycle.

    To some extent that is indeed true and one can feel fitter and more energetic through such exercise. However the accident and injury rate (both on and off road) for bicycle riders is quite high compared to other methods of transport. That factor is not so good when one tries to combine exercise and, say, commuting to work.

    The only serious injury I have suffered in my life (so far) was the result of an inadvertent and rather minor low speed tumble from a bicycle as a result of riding into some unidentified mud. In real terms a complete non-event in a very low risk situation but one that created a measurable cost to society and a significant personal cost to me in both the short and longer term.

    Quite why people propose that everyone should take to two wheels is, to me, mystifying. But they do, even at the same time that workplace Health and Safety laws are introduced banning the use of 3-step ladders without having been suitably trained.

    In summary the most dangerous assumption that we can make these days is that as humanity, en masse, we make sensible, reliable and justifiable decisions about our lives and the world around us. By extension of that thought any attempt to introduce new ‘rules’ about the way we live should always be considered in their specific context then questioned, questioned and then questioned some more, continuing until they are no longer found wanting or they fade from view.

    If second hand smoke is truly such a danger can I sue California for not preventing so many fires this past few years? So much smoke, irrespective of its source, must have damaged my health, even from several thousand miles away.

  90. Vincent Guerrini Jr says:

    Leif, because you are a expert in solar science ect you will be picked on especially in a blog. I’m amazed you can hack it. but your views are highly respected.

  91. edcon says:

    Unfortunately this conference will get little or no coverage by the ‘Pravda’ like news media as it walks in lockstep with the AGW crowd. Academia no longer produces journalists but basically produces social change activists that engage in propaganda style “news” to promote their political dogma. This is quite apparent with the current election and AGW coverage. The Fourth Estate is dead!

  92. Basil says:

    Mike Borgelt (14:46:14) :

    “I haven’t actually been reading many of Leif’s posts here. That will go to zero now.”

    I doubt that he will lose sleep over that.

    I think Leif’s mistake is to think that just because it is sponsored by the Heartland Institute that this means that anything presented there is immediately suspect. He’s just committing a fallacy of irrelevance (guilt by association).

    Choosing not to read anything of Leif’s because of this one remark is itself a kind of fallacy of irrelevance.

    Both Leif, and his critics, need to let everything stand or fall on its own merits.

  93. F Rasmin says:

    If the Northern Hemisphere winter is really cold, then oil use will rapidly increase. The global warmer brigade cannot then say (logically) that global warming had had the effect of a reduction in oil use!

  94. Smokey (13:51:08) :
    Why do you only mention funding of a conference by an energy company, while neglecting any mention of James Hansen’s receipt of $720,000 from George Soros, and Hansen’s acceptance of hundreds of thousands of dollars more from various other left-wing outfits — while he is on the public payroll? Wouldn’t that lead straight to corruption of science?
    I think in his case it has, or would you disagree?

    Just wondering where you’re coming from, that’s all…
    I have the finest of credentials: I’m banned permanently from Tamino’s blog because of my criticism of AGW. That’s where I come from.

    Ed Scott (14:35:57) :
    Are you saying that this disqualifies Heartland from sponsoring The 2009 International Conference on Climate Change?
    No, just that politics and agendas color everything and that the color should be kept in mind. A small case in point is that several people on the Heartland’s list of 500 scientists [...] do not want to be on that list and have asked to be removed, which Heartland has refused, that is using people against their will. Also that for Heartland the ‘science is settled: it is cosmic rays, stupid’ which is just as bad as when Al Gore says it.
    That they let Archibald speak last year is just an example of how uneven the quality of the presentations was, but it doesn’t matter to the Institute as long as the agenda is supported. Perhaps Anthony can redress the balance this year. I have donated $100 US.

  95. F Rasmin says:

    Dr Svalgaard. Every time I read a post under your name, it is full of sarcasm and scorn bordering on utter contemp for anybody who dares to refute you. Now that I see your opinion concerning this forthcoming conference, it has suddenly dawned on me that you could be an enemy in the camp slipped in by the global warmers. A legitimate refuter would never let their emotions be revealed; they would just present their science arguments. I shall ring up Mr Gore and inform him that next time he should send someone who has more self control!

  96. Bill P says:

    Does anyone know if the Monckton powerpoint, “Quantification of Climate Sensitivity” is available somewhere online? The 2007 conference video version shows only the speaker, not his slides.

  97. Nick says:

    I have to say that Leif Svalgaard’s post is illogical.

    From wherever sponsorship emanates is irrelevant. What the speakers at the conference say is either scientifically right or wrong.

    By inference, Mr Svalgaard is implying that the source of finance will affect the validity of the science discussed. If that is so, then why hasn’t any speaker at the 2008 Conference been exposed as a scientific liar, bought off by conservative industrialists?

    I’d rather hear the truth from a smoking drunk than a lie from a sober preacher.

  98. Derek says:

    The 2008 NY Climate Change conference changed the map in the AGW “debate”.
    In my humble opinion it created interest and enthusiasm to get the message “out there”.
    It succeeded, massively.

    Regardless of the mainstream media ignoring the conference as much as it could get away with. So much material, and names previously almost unheard of have become so much more well known, to the wider websites / blogs / general public and most importantly, each other. I have seen several “names” now frequently “linked” that previously were not.
    In any respect apart from outright “victory” (too much to ask) the 2008 conference was a massive success.
    For example Miskolczi.
    I hope the 2009 conference builds from this sucessful base.

    Anthony was there last time, I hope he is there this time, and
    I ain’t argueing with him,
    I’ve seen him, he dwarfs me, and I’m 6’4″. Scary.

  99. Derek says:

    Lief,
    err, not exactly your best thread this one.
    Your true colours springs to mind.

  100. Nick (16:02:26) :
    why hasn’t any speaker at the 2008 Conference been exposed as a scientific liar, bought off by conservative industrialists?
    There are just some ‘papers’ that are so bad that they are not worth exposing.

  101. Tom in Texas says:

    2 greenhouse gases on the rise worry scientists

    “WASHINGTON – Carbon dioxide isn’t the only greenhouse gas that worries climate scientists. Airborne levels of two other potent gases — one from ancient plants, the other from flat-panel screen technology — are on the rise, too. And that’s got scientists concerned about accelerated global warming.”

    “The gases are methane and nitrogen trifluoride. Both pale in comparison to the global warming effects of carbon dioxide, produced by the burning of coal, oil and other fossil fuels. In the past couple of years, however, these other two gases have been on the rise, according to two new studies. The increase is not accounted for in predictions for future global warming and comes as a nasty surprise to climate watchers.”

    “accelerated global warming.” Damn, Gore & Hansen underestimated the problem and the end is closer than they predicted.

  102. Basil (15:31:10) :
    I think Leif’s mistake is to think that just because it is sponsored by the Heartland Institute that this means that anything presented there is immediately suspect.
    That was not what I meant. I was concerned about quite the opposite, namely that the good presentations [of which there will be some] will be used as support for the political agenda. I’m against science being used in this way. Now, I realize from the many negative reactions that these people may not share that view. But let me have it, please.

  103. Derek says:

    BTW – Al Gore was invited to attend last time, but would not.
    I imagine he will be invited to attend this time, but will not AGAIN.

    He will hide behind the same excuse however, his exorbitant costs and expenses, but last time the Heartland Institute was willing to pay them, just to get him on stage, (much applause)
    I never did hear why he did not make it last March.
    I wonder if we’ll ever hear why he will NOT make it to the conference in March 2009.
    Oooops, there I go, predicting AGAIN.

  104. Derek says:

    (much applause) – for The Heartland Institute obviously.

    And, was I above, “predicting AGAIN” or projecting……….LOL.

  105. AEGeneral says:

    RBerteig (14:44:56) :

    According to my favorite dictionary applet (WordWeb, http://wordweb.info/) the spelling they used is correct US usage. Your spelling is accepted as correct to our North and on the other side of the pond. This is a US conference, after all…. ;-)

    The “New Millenium Effect” strikes again. If the majority thinks the new millenium starts 1/1/2000, change the rules. If they spell “canceled” with two “L’s,” change the rules. I missed both of those back in 6th grade, the latter costing me a shot at 1st place in the school spelling bee. Now somebody’s changed the spelling and there’s one less trophy gathering dust in my attic.

    Now the majority thinks CO2 causes global warming, and so we change the rules for the uneducated once again. It’s a wonder I can keep up with everything that was once right and now has been proclaimed wrong by a majority vote.

  106. BobS says:

    Those of you who think a mere reversal of temperature can stop them, abandon all hope. As Tom in Texas quotes: AGW is a Hydra that will not die:

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081024/ap_on_sc/sci_greenhouse_gases_3

    (Sorry I don’t know how to use the tags to create a link.)

  107. Pingback: Top Posts « WordPress.com

  108. Janet Rocha says:

    F. Rasmin. My thoughts exactly!

  109. Nick says:

    why hasn’t any speaker at the 2008 Conference been exposed as a scientific liar, bought off by conservative industrialists?
    There are just some ‘papers’ that are so bad that they are not worth exposing.

    Thanks for responding, Leif, but you dodged my point. Are you suggesting a that the fact that these papers you cited as “bad” were in some way connected with the financial sources of the Heartland Institute? If so, I feel you need to legitimize your assertion.

  110. Tom in Texas says:

    AEG: According to MS XP dictionary, it’s spelled with one “l”.

  111. JamesG says:

    I lament the left-right split on this issue too. I’d like to see more left-leaning scientists take a closer look at the actual science and see those holes that are so easily found but they won’t even bother while the realist side is dominated by obvious right wing politicos. It needs to be about truth, not dogma. I’m quite sure the Tamino’s of this world believe they are actually green heroes daily combating the evil of big oil and I’m not sure how to redirect them towards actually using their brain but realists surely need to stick to the facts and not turn it into a battle of ideologies. You might be sure of your political convictions but too often you are merely following your herd instinct just like your opponents do.

    Of course most academics in earth sciences are left-leaning. It goes with the territory, just like economists are usually right wing. But they are left-wing because they believe in societies more than in individualism. It’s just a basic difference of opinion. Nobody’s trying to take away your freedoms – they only want to stop you crapping on someone else’s freedoms – like not blowing smoke in someone else’s face for example. The guy above who says that most conservatives “only want freedom and prosperity for our fellow human beings” should be reassured that most progressives want exactly the same. The difference is in the way of achieving it. Most of you of course only see the failures of the other side because you belong to your own herd. You might want to look for the failings of your ideology and the successes of the other from time to time. Oh yes they are both easily found when you dare to look and it’s an eye-opener.

    Leif is dead right that it would be better that it wasn’t a right-wing think-tank hosting this event. Unfortunately there’s nobody else going to do it. That’s a triumph for dogma and a failure of science.

  112. John Finn says:

    Don B (09:15:21) :

    Anthony, congratulations, again.

    Last evening I finished reading the 1997 “The Role of the Sun in Climate Change,” by Hoyt and Schatten. ………….And yet, despite all of that, they refused to take a position, saying the math didn’t support the sun doing all the warming and so maybe AGW had something to do with it.

    So Doug Hoyt and Ken Schatten can’t find a convincing link between the sun and global warming. Leif Svalgaard has, so far, failed to establish a link. If I were you, Don, I’d accept the fact (for now anyway) that solar activity cannot explain most of the climate change we have seen in the past ~250 years.

  113. Les Francis says:

    Has not Exxon Mobil ceased giving out grants to “non” AGW organisations after the accusations from the Green left mob?

    I fail to understand why the AGW mob do not accuse Big Oil etcetera of profiteering from the incoming emissions legislation – after all they stand to do very well from subsidised alternative energies.

    (Note the etcetera- not ECT)

  114. Ed Scott says:

    Leif Svalgaard (15:46:06) :

    Leif, I have been blissfully unaware of Tamino, thankfully so. I am sorry if you are losing sleep due to the affront to your science. It is my belief that it is a gain on your part to be excluded from a site referred to as OPEN MIND, an oxymoron, in that you will not be tempted to waste your time to correct obvious errors and devote the time to the WUWT forum where you will always be welcome but not always agreed with.

    The opening paragraph on the “open mind” website describes the AGW acolytes accurately: “A lot of people have spread a lot of misinformation about global warming. Some of it is deliberately deceptive,…Some of it is so ridiculous, it’s hard to fathom how people can believe such things.”

  115. iceFree says:

    Leif Svalgaard (15:46:06) :

    A small case in point is that several people on the Heartland’s list of 500 scientists [...] do not want to be on that list and have asked to be removed, which Heartland has refused, that is using people against their will.

    I have heard that many did people did not want their names on the IPCC reports
    either. It cut’s both ways.

  116. Richard Patton says:

    Leif said:
    I have the finest of credentials: I’m banned permanently from Tamino’s blog because of my criticism of AGW. That’s where I come from.

    Wow. That just says volumes about where Tamino is coming from. Personally I have not seen another person more committed to the facts and data than you Leif. I guess I didn’t realize Tamino was so far gone into the polemics of this whole thing although maybe I should have.

    I do struggle a bit with how you characterize the Heartland Institute. I guess my most charitable reading would be that you see them more committed to polemics than science. And if I think about whether there is any evidence for that it seems that there may be in the form of their strong advocacy for “it’s the sun stupid” when there is precious little evidence in that direction. Your point about them not taking names off their list when asked is also pretty good evidence for it being a bit too much about polemics.

    On the other hand though, it seems that this global warming thing has escalated into a full-fledged war of deep ideology about how we should organize society. It seems like the utopian hydra rearing its ugly head again. And it sure seems difficult to try and counter it with “it’s LTP stupid”.

  117. Mike McMillan says:

    AEGeneral (12:14:54) :
    For the love of God, will you folks at the Heartland Institute please spell “canceled” correctly?
    You go to all this trouble, come up with a nice theme, probably hire a marketing company to do the logo & web design, make it all look professional — and then you misspell one of the words in the theme for all to see. Do you know what “due diligence” means?
    And you do all of this knowing the media is going to look for any reason they can find to discount what this conference is about. Well now you’ve already given them an angle: a group of skeptical scientists who can’t spell.

    This is a good example of ‘Muphry’s Law’.

    Cancelled is correct in Great Britain and Canada, and probably all those other countries that misspell ‘skeptic’ as ‘sceptic.’ It used to be the accepted spelling in the U.S., where the double-L makes the preceding e short instead of long.

    And we already know that scientists aren’t great speelers.

  118. Pet Rock says:

    Leif sure has an ability to provoke debate! I am surprised at the reactions though (in many threads). My own reaction to Leif’s comments when they disagree with my own thinking is that I have to rethink my opinions, since Leif comes pretty close to always being right.

    So how do we get a fair and open debate about AGW? Is that even possible in a politicized climate?

    As far as funding goes, the way to make the AGW case stronger is to fund more researchers to try to poke holes in it. If that is done and they can’t, that strengthens the case for AGW. If they repress all attempts to rebut AGW, that leaves AGW untested and with unknown flaws.

    It’s sad that a large part of the public doesn’t even realize that there is a case against AGW.

  119. Steve Hempell says:

    John Finn

    “solar activity cannot explain most of the climate change we have seen in the past ~250 years.”

    Well It sure hasn’t been CO2 either for 250 years. So what might you suggest it is?

    The sun is the only significant source of energy which the earth, atmosphere, ocean etc, etc, etc system plays with in a multitude of ways (most of which mankind has no clue). If I were a betting man I would bet on the sun (despite Leif) – a gambler bets on the best odds and that doesn’t have to be 100%)

  120. paminator says:

    Leif- you say “There are just some ‘papers’ that are so bad that they are not worth exposing.”

    I’ve attended and presented papers at conferences organized/sponsored by IEEE, OSA, AIP, MRS, SPIE, NSF, and in all cases there are always some atrocious papers, many average papers and a few excellent papers. I suspect the same holds for any climate conference as well. I plan to attend in March, 2009.

  121. Smokey says:

    Les Francis:

    Unfortunately, business [especially big business] is proving itself to be afraid to put up a fight. This is nothing new; see Supreme Court justice Lewis Powell’s memo from the early ’70’s. The chickens have come home to roost, because big business [with a few notable exceptions] has consistently failed to stand up for for freedom, and against socialism.

    [Oh, and iceFree, here's a handy tool: clicky]

  122. Richard Patton says:

    Pet Rock says:
    I don’t see much difference between the extreme right (like Hitler) and the extreme left (like Stalin).

    Actually both Hitler and Stalin were leftists. Hitler was National Socialist and Stalin was International Socialist. For both of them it was all about the all-powerful State. I think the far right is more about free-minds and free-markets – Friedman, Hayek – libertarian sort of stuff – a long long way from Hitler. The left tends to be about the state and thus this AGW stuff provides a nice cover for expanding state power. The right tends to be about the individual and so this AGW stuff is anathema because it is empowering the left to gain more state control.

  123. Vincent Guerrini Jr says:

    I find this a very compeling graphical demonstration that indeed the sun is responsible for earth climate change(s)

    from no other source that wikipedia which is totally AGW biased.
    Its not the ups and downs its their frequency over time and thats why the mean so closely follows the temp graph. Sun heats oceans decadal effect, oceans release heat decadal effect.

  124. kim says:

    The trouble with this particular sponsor is that it just feeds into Naomi Oreskes’ deep misunderstanding of the nature of skepticism over the paradigm CO2=AGW. Still, there is a need for such a conference, and no one else has stepped up to the plate. The fact is that this conference has attracted a diverse group of truth-seekers, and if the truth of climate regulation ends up not being cosmic rays, or the sun, then that’ll just be that, no matter what the opinions of the sponsor.

    More facts that are; you are already participating in an effective truth seeking convention, fortunately moderated by the skeptics’ skeptic, and in this case I do not mean Anthony, or even the impressive Dee.
    ===========================================
    ==========================================

  125. Fernando says:

    Rebellion against Leif…??????
    opsss. Great scientist … the best on-line
    I LOVE LEIF

  126. iceFree says:

    Smokey (18:25:33:

    Thanks for link Smokey, I do my best. Its funny I can read anything but spelling and grammar is not my forte. As most of you have noticed.

  127. Richard Patton says:

    Steve Hempell says
    Well It sure hasn’t been CO2 either for 250 years. So what might you suggest it is?

    I would suggest natural variation. New data strongly suggests that the LIA was not caused by the sun. Likewise, the first part of the 20th century warming was not caused by the sun. And then there was the MWP and the Roman Warming and so on.

    It seems to me that the most obvious explanation is natural variation.

    What I don’t get is why everyone wants to believe there must be some specific mechanical causation. Why think that climate works mechanically?

    It seems to me that the evidence is pretty strong that climate like weather behaves “chaotically.” Or rather – it is scale-free – it exhibits Long Term Persistence because of self-similar processes.

    This alone leads to natural variation in its mean behavior just like we see.

    Now, I would agree that there are also mechanical aspects operating that can drive climate into one regime or another – like the milankovich cycles perhaps. And, yes, perhaps CO2 and solar cycles can have some minor effect. But the bigger effects (absent something like major orbital changes) are simply going to be natural oscillations.

    Unfortunately, we are all caught up in the “mechanical metaphor” and it is very hard to see things this way. We want a specific mechanical causal explanation. And we say such things like, “well, it must be CO2 because we can’t explain it any other way.” What is left out of that statement is…”’cause we can’t explain it any other way… mechanically.”

    Now, don’t get me wrong. The “mechanical metaphor” is a powerful metaphor that has given us great prosperity and much learning. Our entire technology base comes from this. But it is simply a metaphor. It is a map, it is not reality. Reality is a bit more complicated.

  128. JamesG says:

    There’s always that 3rd alternative… It’s not the sun, it’s something else out there affecting the sun and the earth at the same time. I believe there is someone with a plausible argument of how – on one of these conservative think-tank sites. Will he ever publish it?

  129. Pingback: STAY WARM, WORLD… Roger Carr « Stay Warm, World…

  130. JamesG says:

    Patton
    State-controlling dictators have come from both left and right but please don’t descend into the Hitler analogy. Fascism was neither left nor right – Franco being more to the right and Mussolini being more to the left. Hitler’s party was actually opposed by the official Socialist party and the Communist party who were both encouraged by Trotsky to join forces to defeat him. And real socialists were among the first to be murdered by the Nazis. It’s not really too hard to find a statist, right-wing dictator. There have after all been dozens of them. But if you really want to use another big-name dictator who murdered purely out of flawed lefty ideology, I recommend Pol-Pot.

  131. John Andrews says:

    OK, Anthony, $10 it is. Have a good trip (others helping, too, of course.)

  132. Ray Reynolds says:

    VOTE ! this election is not a done deal, and…if for no other reason than to clear your consience in a few years.

    What an interesting time be be alive.

  133. Tom in Texas says:

    And $10 from the Lone Star State.
    How come neither candidate has campaigned here?

  134. Dee Norris says:

    @Richard Patton (18:34:22):

    Hitler was a Statist and his particular brand of Statism was Facism, not Socialism regardless of the use of National Socialism to appease the German Worker. Stalin was also a Statist, but his brand was State Capitalism disguised as the Communism of Lenin which in turn was a forced maturation of the Socialism of Marx (Lenin believed one could force Joe Six-pack to jump directly into Communism without an intervening period of Socialism to empower the worker).

    A ‘Statist’ is an individual supports the power of the State over the rights of the Individual. Facism, Socialism, Communism, State Capitalism are all forms of Statism – control by the State over the free association of Individuals to pursue one’s own economic best interests.

    Libertarianism is the anti-thesis of Statism in that Libertarians believe in the smallest State possible to maintain society. The State’s powers should be limited to External Defense, Domestic Security and Judicial – basically, Military, Police and Courts. The Anti-Federalists of U.S. Constitutional Debates would undoubtedly have considered themselves Libertarians had the concept existed. More at http://www.lp.org.

    Who is John Galt, anyhow?

  135. Ric Werme says:

    AEGeneral (16:55:12) :

    The “New Millenium Effect” strikes again. If the majority thinks the new millenium starts 1/1/2000, change the rules. If they spell “canceled” with two “L’s,‘ change the rules. I missed both of those back in 6th grade, the latter costing me a shot at 1st place in the school spelling bee. Now somebody’s changed the spelling and there’s one less trophy gathering dust in my attic.

    Now the majority thinks CO2 causes global warming, and so we change the rules for the uneducated once again. It’s a wonder I can keep up with everything that was once right and now has been proclaimed wrong by a majority vote.

    Near as I can figure without actually bothering to look up the rules,

    Cancelled would have a soft ‘e’ and the accent on the second syllable.

    Canceled would either have the accent on the first syllable and a soft ‘e’ (i.e., the accepted US spelling and pronounciation) or the accent on the second syllable and a long ‘e’.

    Hence, “transferring” has the accent on the second syllable.

    Also, it’s millennium, as millenium (like selenium) has a long ‘e’ in the second syllable.

    And, while I’ve joined the pedants, etc. is short for et cetera, not etcetera.
    And so on.

  136. Dee Norris says:

    Either ‘canceled’ or ‘cancelled’ is correct.

    can⋅cel
       /ˈkænsəl/ [kan-suhl]
    verb, -celed, -cel⋅ing or (especially British) -celled, -cel⋅ling, noun

    Origin:
    1350–1400; ME cancellen < ML cancellāre to cross out, L: to make like a lattice, deriv. of cancellī grating, pl. of cancellus; see cancellus

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cancelled

  137. Richard Patton says:

    Dee Norris – very interesting – I like that. How would you characterize the american progressives of the 1920’s and 30’s? Were they Statists? And if so – what sort?

  138. Jeff Alberts says:

    I’m told that smoking a single cigarette is enough to hook the next victim.

    Nah. Well, maybe if you’re prone to addiction. I tired it a couple times when I was young (both parent smoked for a long time, and my Sister smoked until recently). Never figured out what the appeal was. Of course I never figured out what the appeal of drugs and alcohol was either, and yes I tried some of both, long ago.

  139. evanjones says:

    Either ‘canceled’ or ‘cancelled’ is correct.

    Yes. There are quite a number of alternate spellings of various words in English. In practical terms, Spellcheck is narrowing it down, however!

    E.g., Seperate/Separate. Partly thanks to Spellcheck, the latter is now heavily preferred. In the case of “canceled”, Spellcheck likes a single “l”.

    Also, many compound words are now being “split”, thanks to Spellcheck.

  140. Bill P says:

    Other than the fact that it’s conservative, and has a role sponsoring these conferences on climate change, I know very little about the Heartland Institute. This editorial by its president, Joseph Bast, on Paulsen’s meeting with bankers on October 15, is informative

    It’s entitled: “At Moment of Truth, Where Was Dagny Taggart?”

    http://www.heartland.org/article.html?articleid=23982

  141. evanjones says:

    Why load it on Dagny? It was Midas Mulligan’s turf, wasn’t it?

  142. Richard Patton says:

    The Heartland Institute must be a bit libertarian leaning to invoke Ayn Rand.

    Maybe John Galt works for them.

  143. evanjones says:

    How come neither candidate has campaigned here?

    No sense in it. Far more bank for the buck in the swing states.

  144. Dee Norris says:

    @Richard Patton (22:01:01):

    During the Progressive era, one of the single largest leaps forward in the growth of the American State was the 17th Amendment to the Constitution – The enabling of the federal government to directly tax the citizens. Many progressives were socialists, such at Upton Sinclair. Others like John D. Rockefeller, Jr. are harder to pigeon hole. Henry Ford certainly tried to run the lives of his workers both on the clock and off. If any word summed up the Progressives, it would be Paternalism. It was the State’s responsibility to be the parent to the citizen.

    By the end of the Progressive era In the 1920s and especially into the 1930s, there was a growing sense that capitalism had failed. FDR, contrary to some popular theories, did not usher in socialism to American society. FDR was a believer in Paternalism and left the US with a legacy of paternalistic programs such as Social Security. When today we speak of the United States as having a mixed economy, I see it as Capitalism/Paternalism (the Nanny State) rather than Socialism.

    During the 30s in Weimar Germany, not only was there the belief that capitalism had failed, this was coupled with a notion that democracy was also a failure (in Europe, democracy was a still new thing with some notable prior failures). Out of this social demoralization arose the NAZI party promising to be a middle ground between Capitalism and Communism and it explains the willing acceptance of the German people to Hitler’s dictatorship.

    Statism, in any form, should always be resisted as it is the natural tendency of the State to grow in power at the expense of the rights of the Individual.

    I know this nice Gulch if any one cares to join me.

  145. Ross Berteig says:

    Re: “canceled” vs. “cancelled”. I’m either having trouble reading today, or my tools are lying to me. WordWeb here at home is now claiming that two Ls is the British spelling, and one L is the US spelling. I’d swear that at the office, WordWeb was claiming exactly the opposite. I either have two different versions installed and there was an error, or I simply misread the entry earlier.

    Either way, I was wrong. (And there’s proof I’m a skeptic… I have yet to hear any of the AGW cultists use that phrase.)

    I would agree that a US conference should prefer the US spelling… but it is also a tempest in a teapot, and I should probably not have stirred it…

    At least no one is trying to bring up any of the wildly silly attempts to regularize the spelling of English that have been popular(ish) from time to time!

  146. Vincent Guerrini Jr (18:40:16) :
    I find this a very compeling graphical demonstration that indeed the sun is responsible for earth climate change(s)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Sunspot_Numbers.png

    The black line is not the temperature curve, but simply the smoothed sunspot number curve. Note that solar activity was pretty much the same during the following four intervals:
    1610s, 1760-1795, 1830-1870, 1970-present. Yet, there seems to be general consensus [apart from hysterical hockey stick fans] that the temperatures were very different during those times. This does not seem to be compelling evidence, to me at least, that the Sun is the primary driver. It takes considerably more than that.

    John Philip (11:59:23) :
    REPLY: Heartland did at one time, take some research money from Exxon but does no longer. I asked the same questions last year as a condition of my attendance.[...]- Anthony
    I take this as a strong indication that my assertion that funding sources and motives are important. I would personally have asked the same question and possibly been even more strict in my conditions.

    Pet Rock (18:20:52) :
    Leif sure has an ability to provoke debate!
    I’m just trying to run up the web stats for the blog. :-)

    iceFree (17:50:48) :
    I have heard that many did people did not want their names on the IPCC reports either. It cut’s both ways.
    I can give some names, can you?

    Fernando (18:54:33) :
    I LOVE LEIF
    Ssshhhh. don’t tell my wife…

    Ed Scott (17:35:04) :
    the WUWT forum where you will always be welcome but not always agreed with.
    And I don’t ask to be agreed with. I will debate what I from my point [and with my specific knowledge] perceive as misconceptions or errors. Not for the benefit [or whatever] to the ‘debatee’ [who will seldom change his tune, no matter what I say] but to benefit the wider readership, should they care to listen to me.

    Derek (16:10:33) :
    err, not exactly your best thread this one.
    Your true colours springs to mind.

    Quick, go tell Tamino that. Maybe he’ll let me in again.

  147. pkatt says:

    I have to side with Leif here but not for the same reasons. What you will get is this, the Climate change folks bringing up exactly the same point Leif made earlier. If there is any hint of big oil in the picture you open the door for the the entire thing to be discounted solely on the point that its hosted by someone who get money from big oil. In the minds of the Climate change folks you might as well as been sponsored by the devil.

    A lot of excellent science has been entirely discounted by them in this same manner. It will become the point of contention, not anything you say or do at the conference. In other words your message will be lost behind protests that you are just another tool of big oil to stall the movement so they can squeeze their last dollar out of us.

    I have heard of The Heartland Institute. So has Greenpeace apparently they link to this http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=41

    But by the time the conference happens I bet the its not really happening faction will have grown big and strong:0

  148. Leon Brozyna says:

    @Ross Berteig (01:37:34)

    Don’t sweat the small stuff. I learned long ago not to rely on spell checkers or on-line dictionaries too much. When writing things other than quickie comments, I use the computerized services for a first draft. But when I do a final proof read {which often takes much more time than the original writing} I use a couple of very big, hardcover American dictionaries. As for the spelling of the past tense of cancel, it is shown as -celed or celled.

  149. Pierre Gosselin says:

    Ross Berteig
    British English spelling differs from American in the following ways, to name a few:
    1. BrE: -ise; Ex.: organise
    AmE: -ize; Ex.: organize
    2. BrE: -our; Ex.: honour
    AmE: -or; Ex.: honor
    3. BrE: -amme; Ex.: programme
    AmE: -am; Ex.: program
    4. BrE: -ogue; Ex.: catalogue
    AmE: -og; Ex.: catalog
    5. BrE: -yse; Ex.: analyse
    AmE: -yze; Ex.: analyze
    6. BrE: -re; Ex.: centre, metre
    AmE: -er; Ex.: center, meter
    7. BrE: -ence; Ex. defence
    AmE: -ense; Ex. defense

    The British also write “sceptic”.
    Then you have different vocabulary:
    BrE: loo; AmE: bathroom
    tin / can
    boot / trunk
    hood / bonnet
    tap / faucet
    maths / math
    cooker / stove
    queue / line
    bloke / guy
    etc.

    It doesn’t really bloody matter how you write it. Choose one ot the other.
    The trend is that the Brits are adopting more and more US English, and not the other way around…thanks to all the US TV sitcoms, movies and music and flooding the UK. I think our British chaps in this forum here may have some comments on this.

  150. Pierre Gosselin says:

    Cancelled with one L is American English…

    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/cancel

    For a comprehensive, highly interesting list of British slang:

    http://www.peevish.co.uk/slang/

    One quickly observes that the Brits have no shortage of expressions when it comes to dirty words.

  151. John Philip says:

    My previous post was in response to a direct question. For the record, I very much endorse the view that we should in general let arguments stand or fall on their own merits and steer clear of ad hominem ‘guilt by association’ or ‘follow the money’ attacks. This applies equally to ‘grant-hungry researchers’ or ‘tools of the oil-industry’.

    I should just gives the facts about the $720K that James Hansen allegedly received from George Soros. It never happened. This amount was the total annual funding for the parent organisation of Soros’s Open Society Institute, a philanthropic organisation. Part of the OSI’s budget goes to the Government Accountability Project (surely something libertarians would support?) and part of this group’s activities was a programme to defend whistle blowers and under that programme, Dr Hansen enquired about his legal rights to freedom of speech (after all people have been known to call for his resignation when he branches out into political advocacy) and was offered and accepted some pro bono legal help which amounted to the drafting of one lawyer’s letter. (I know American lawyers can be expensive but …:-).

    Hansen received no money from George Soros. Regardless of your opinion of the participants, I don’t think propagating a lie advances the debate one iota.

    Hansen’s account and the text of the letter are here and the Soros Foundation annual report is here (see page 123. Warning: large pdf).

  152. anna v says:

    I think this smearing according to money resources is nasty and anti science, but one has to be a realist and regret that such a highly colored politically institute is sonsoring what I consider correct science.

    Anthony, you have a very large readership, many people do not speak up here, but I am curious whether there are enough of us skeptics out there that we could sponsor a conference without the help of any politically colored institute. I have organized working groups in Greece of over 100 people with the help of a travel agency without too much effort, with just the money from the participants: hotels and a bit extra for organization. Whys is a big institute necessary to organize a good climate conference?

    Let me though give you this link http://www.hyperionpowergeneration.com/

    where global warming is bread and meat in selling nuclear energy. The law of unexpected consequences.

    REPLY: Anna, we could probably arrange a conference, but we might do better as a force for enlightenment. You’ve given me an idea, and I’ll advise shortly – Anthony

  153. Bruce Cobb says:

    I see Leif isn’t on the list of speakers. That is too bad, and perhaps partly explains his attitude. Sour grapes. I must say, Leif, your true colors have really shown through on this thread, unfortunately.

    Warning: Lets all stop baiting Leif, please. – Dee Norris

  154. Alan the Brit says:

    WOW. This site is certainly lively & varied today! Hope I haven’t contributed to any of the volatiliy of it.

    FTR. I think Hilter was as found by many of the time, to be very charming, very witty, very intelligent, – & completely mad, becoming criminally insane as his power grew! Hope the site doesn’t veer off track too far to the point of absurdity.

    As for the 2nd hand smoking, I believe as John Brignell has stated, the 1st rule of toxicology is that the poison is in the dosage! British entertainer & musician the late Roy Castle died after a long struggle with cancer, from playing in all those smoke filled clubs for years. I think smoking is pretty disgusting on some ways but I believe people have a right to smoke, but not inflict the unpleasantness on others. However, the issue of 2nd hand smoke was the way the “science” was presented, with a fair amount of duplicity & falsehoods, but for IMHO a worthy cause although I cannot sanction the methods used, that’s why activists took up the colours as they are not restrained by professional considerations. I believe it should have been handled very differently. I personally hate the smell cigarette smoke on by clothes, hair, etc. but love the smell of a good cigar or a pipe. That’s the way I am!

    It begs the question, when does a scientist allow his/her personal feelings & belief systems to adjust the science because the cause is apparently noble, anyone spring to mind????? If the scientific facts demonstrate the opposite viewpoint, then this must be right & honesty should & must prevail. As a professional engineer, I cannot lie to a client or his/her neighbour (UK spelling folks), that’s why lawyers are brought in (only when necessary hopefully) to determine who should speak to whom & when if at all.

    (BTW the Numberwatch definition of a Lawyer = a magician who can conjour up money from nowhere! Best I’ve ever heard!):):):) I was only joking please don’t sue me I can’t afford it.

    Also, unlike the Al Gores & James Hansens of this world, we are mere human beings, & mistakes can be made, so can we all show a little moor tolorence on speling unles it is a grows errer as I understand this is an internashnal sight, & that spelchekker is only partly usfull!

    Go NIPCC!

    PS: I am now very self-conscious about my spelling!

    Oh Pierre Gosselin, being a proud Brit & an Englishman to boot (surely there is no other worthy existence in life?) I don’t mind who spells what to whom, as long as it can be justified by what is right for them, we are after all different from country to country. The only reason the spelling is different is largely due to computerisation & Microsoft, & for simplification in America with a truly international community population, although I am sure there was an element of “we’re not going to do it that way” after that slight misunderstanding between our two countries in the last quarter of the 18th century!. I maintain to this day that we should never have lost the Virginian Colonies! Seriously, I know what is right in the UK, & I traditionally prefer the UK “ized” to the USA “ised”, although a good dictionary should allow both as correct. I have to hand my 2nd hand 1925 Pocket Oxford Dictionary that I have used for 20 years to write letters, reports, assessments, etc, & it possesses the most wonerful words & origins of them, that are lost on todays younger generation, sadly IMHO, but that’s progress they tell me. I discovered in it the most glorious expression, “Splenlow & Jorkins” from a Dicken’s novel, & it means to attribute one’s hard or unfair dealings (Spenlow) to one’s partner (Jorkins) so as to appear innocent! Fabulous stuff!

  155. iceFree says:

    Leif Svalgaard (02:08:13) :

    I have heard that many did people did not want their names on the IPCC reports either. It cut’s both ways.
    I can give some names, can you?

    Paul Reiter is one

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Reiter

  156. Bruce Cobb (05:13:02) :
    I see Leif isn’t on the list of speakers. That is too bad, and perhaps partly explains his attitude. Sour grapes. I must say, Leif,

    Nonsense

    your true colors have really shown through on this thread, unfortunately.
    If so, explain what they are, so I can see if you have grasped the situation.

    Warning: Lets all stop baiting Leif, please. – Dee Norris
    Dee, I can handle him.

    Reply: I know you can handle them, but we all need to steer clear of ad hominem attacks or baiting. That is part of what separates WUWT from, er, Open Minds. – Dee

  157. Leif Svalgaard (05:53:52) :
    Bruce Cobb (05:13:02) :
    Reply: I know you can handle them, but we all need to steer clear of ad hominem attacks or baiting. That is part of what separates WUWT from, er, Open Minds. – Dee
    Well, it will be interesting to see if the culprits heed the warning.

  158. Ed Scott says:

    Dee Norris (23:55:58) :

    @Richard Patton (22:01:01):

    An email friend, a retired constitutional lawyer, has become so frustrated with the current political prospects for America that he sent an email to his correspondents informing us that he and his wife were taking up residence in Galt’s Gulch.

    A pure democracy always fails and that is the reason the Founding Fathers formed our Constitutional Republic, limiting government and emphasizing inalienable individual rights, which would otherwise be taken by a democratic majority.

    I remember very little of the history of the United States from my high school days, a time when history was a history and not an indoctrination, but I do remember the history teacher saying that the power to tax was the power to destroy.

    The current classification of CO2 as a pollutant by the SCOTUS, provides the government with a powerful incentive to tax our very existence. Here is an example from the EU which may well portend the future for the US:

    Europe Forcing Airlines to Buy Emissions Permits

    BRUSSELS — European Union governments gave formal approval Friday to a potentially costly system of capping greenhouse gases from any airline flying into or out of the trade bloc — just as the airline industry reported new evidence of the impact of a worsening economy.

    European justice ministers meeting in Luxembourg approved the greenhouse gas measures, which oblige airlines, regardless of nationality, that land or take off from an airport in the European Union to join the emissions trading system starting on Jan. 1, 2012.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/25/business/worldbusiness/25emissions.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

    The choices seem to be: Fight, or flight to Galt’s Gulch.

  159. I guess those AGW folks will have to go out and get a real job….oh wait, they’ve lived off government grants to spew their dribble…no wonder they are so focused on trying to get us all to believe it…they don’t want to lose their gravy train! :)

    http://www.cookevilleweatherguy.com

  160. Joseph Murphy says:

    Dee…

    Paternalism in the U.S. compared to socialism always seemed to me to be a distinction in origin rather than application. I would also say that distinguishing facism as far right and socialism as far left is an oversimplification mixed with a misunderstanding of facism and the right. On the other hand it is hard to defend the far left against what they seem to openly embrace.

    With a degree in political science and a degree in philosophy, we are finally moving onto a topic I can discuss! Although waaaaay OT! ;)

  161. Ed Scott says:

    Reply: “…That is part of what separates WUWT from, er, Open Minds. – Dee

    I would have said Vacant Minds, but that may have been construed to be an ad hominem attack on the mentally handicapped.

  162. wattsupwiththat says:

    I’m a bit late to this party, I’m traveling yesterday and today and have only occasional Internet. Thanks to everyone who dropped some help (and more) into the tip jar, you’ll each get a personal thank you when I’m able to get some serious Internet time.

    – Anthony

  163. iceFree says:

    I simply and honestly wanted to reply to Leif about my earlier post about the IPCC

    He asked me to name a scientist who wanted his name removed from the IPCC
    report. The one that comes to my mind first is Paul Reiter is a professor of medical entomology at the Pasteur Institute.

    He objected to the IPCC claim that global warming would lead to the spread of
    tropical Diseases like malaria to northern climates. Malaria is not an exclusively tropical disease.

    http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldeconaf/12/12we21.htm

  164. Alan the Brit says:

    Just typical isn’t it! I’ve gone & made few typos noew, what a twit Brit!

    Ed Scott:
    That’s the EU for you, we’re riddled with a mix of environmental activists & bureaucrats in Europe. I think if the truth be known, many within the Union disagree with its all encompassing state interference all in the name of our own well being, it’s rather like the Doctor giving you medicine you didn’t ask for & didn’t want! Never question the EU mantrs of knowing what’s best for us all.

    Watch out USA, be on your guard at all times, I am neither left nor right, but we over here are ruled by an unelected, undemocratic, unaccountable, & more importantly, unsackable, & corrupt intellectual elite – government appointed Commissioners with absolute power (unelected) ex-party leaders/primeministers et al etc with their noses well & truly embedded into the gravey train of taxpayers money! Watch the taxpayer funded organisations grow exponentially in time. All the current political admistration does is pass laws to reduce & restrict freedom of choice, thought, & deed, but then again that’s the whole point. Don’t get me wrong, I am very proud of our NHS & some other organisations, but it’s the Politically Correct institutions that you have to be aware of, they seem to hold inexhausible power & authority! Some of us look to you over there for an example of hope.

    Look what happaned to mercury. The EU band it, well in liquid form (I may have said this before so forgive me), so traditional clock & barometer makers & repairers went out of business, (yes I’m a clock nut!) thank goodness for the Channel Islands – the EU hates them with a vengence because they exert little or no control over them. However, we are being forced to give up ordinary light bulbs in favour of low-energy ones which contain mercury vapour, the nasty stuff of Mad Hatter fame. Interestingly local authorities seem to have little idea on how to dispose of these items, & they’re band from landfills. Just one of many examples of badly drafted legislation from the EU! The ONLY reason I use these new bulbs is that they do save energy, & last longer, & that’s all!

    I’ve given up checking for typos!

  165. Pierre Gosselin says:

    Concerning the idea floated by Anna,
    Sure it’d be nice to have a conference that is not sponsored by a political organisation. But beggars can’t be choosers, now can they? You have to pick your allies where you can.
    You’ve got a multitude of political organisations, politicans, Hollywood, big business, Big Media and a huge powerful swath of major US and international government agencies lined up behind a very scientifically dubious position, and we want to take them on without the help a a few lone political organisations?!?!

    Good luck!

    Sadly, science alone is not going to overcome the widespread brainwashing that has taken place. Science is going to need some voices and public relations. Be happy we have what we have. If it weren’t for them, we wouldn’t be on the radar!

    Sure, science will evenually prevail. But I’d prefer if it does so in my lifetime, or the next, and not in 500 years. I’d be very careful about spurning the few allies we have. United we stand, divided we fall.

  166. Pamela Gray says:

    Wow. That took some time to read through. I also have seen very bad science, very bad scientific methods, and even worse, changing data points to better match the desired trend. The “pristine” results were published in a major journal. Although the hypothesis was in a field other than climate, if it can happen in one Ivory Tower, it can happen in others. So here is what I think: This kind of garbage happens, and gets printed, on BOTH sides of the climate debate. And now it is time to go fishing.

  167. Dee Norris says:

    @Joseph Murphy (07:07:28) :

    Since this is seriously off topic as you pointed out, I have rehashed and posted my original comments to my blog under Just what the heck is a ‘Statist’ anyhow?

    Anyone wishing to further discuss the earlier ‘isms or Ayn Rand, Tallyrand or the Rand Corporation is welcome to stop in for some coffee and pastries and eco-political theory.

  168. Perry Debell says:

    Dee Norris (21:15:21) :

    Nice.

    Dee Norris (23:55:58) :

    Even nicer

    $10 sent to Anthony.

    My thanks and best wishes,

    Perry

  169. Perry Debell says:

    Pierre Gosselin (03:22:14) :

    With nearly one million words in the English language it’s not surprising we have a great many words relating to carnal issues. We’ve got lots of words to suit all sorts of bloody interesting situations. I get my coat, shall I?

    http://www.slate.com/id/2139611/

    Perry

  170. Perry Debell says:

    Correction.

    I shall get my coat and just leave.

    Perry

  171. Tom in Texas says:

    Alan: band = Beatles, Rolling Stones, Pink Floyd, Moody Blues, etc.

  172. Alan the Brit says:

    For band read banned!

    I am a self-taught typist but then so are most of you guys but I sometimes type too fast with odd fingers! Apolgies made. No excuses I always own up to my mistakes. Thanks for pointing them out, I ‘must try harder’ 6/10! See me later!

    See, I am human.

  173. pyromancer76 says:

    It seems to me that the reason that AGW (aka Climate Change/”Sustainability”) is canceled is because THERE IS NO SCIENCE TO SUPPORT THE CLAIM and this conference is about the science, not presenting varying positions as in a political debate. And Anthony’s integrity, respectful views, and keeping everyone on topic — the science — is what makes this blog one of the very best. I appreciate his investigation into the funding for the conference before he would take part.

    Pet Rock
    “Everyone should support real science. We don’t need extremist zealots. I don’t see much difference between the extreme right (like Hitler) and the extreme left (like Stalin). Or between the actions of their zealot followers, whether Brown Shirts or Red Guard. They are not the right model to follow.”

    Please check your history. Hitler started out as a “National Socialist”. Check out the neocons of the Bush administration and you will find that they all began as “leftists”. (HT Jon Cifre, Savage Politics blog)

    Lucy Skywalker has an excellent idea.
    “If some of the presentations (e.g Keynote speakers) were available as live webcasts for pre-registered log-in (free or very nominal cost), this probably wouldn’t affect attendance but would reach a wide audience, with some interesting stats from registrations or even just IP addresses.”

    For someone like myself who cannot travel to attend (and who cannot afford the conference fee), free or nominal cost live webcasts of some of the papers would be a magnificent opportunity.

  174. Bill P says:

    Re: Paulson’s moment of truth with bankers:

    “It was Midas Mulligan’s turf, wasn’t it?”

    I was thinking more along the lines of Br’er Rabbit. As in, “Please, Massah Paulson, please don’ thow me in that there briar patch. Please!”

    This is the way the world ends. Not with a whim, but a banker.

  175. Les Johnson says:

    My donation is in. And I’ll double it if Anthony takes Leif…..

  176. iceFree (07:41:29) :
    He asked me to name a scientist who wanted his name removed from the IPCC report. The one that comes to my mind first is Paul Reiter
    Reiter was allegedly a reviewer of the report. Is he trying to claim that he was not a reviewer? Reviewers are not necessarily [ideally should not be, perhaps] ardent supporters of what they review. I don’t know if in fact he was a reviewer. If he was not, he should not be on the list. Maybe you can tell us if he was actually a reviewer or not?

  177. Mikael H says:

    @Leif Svalgaard (09:33:13) :

    “The conference is sponsored by the Heartland Institute, which has been actively involved in debate over tobacco policy, opposing restrictions on smoking and criticizing science which documents the harms of secondhand smoke.”

    … And so does the danish musician Kim Larsen. I guess his music and everyone he’s involved with, is not worth listening to, then?

    Regards, MH

  178. sunsettommy says:

    I see that some people are questioning about a gathering of CO2 skeptics.

    Because of some fallacious reasoning.That somehow anything that is produced from the conference.Will be tainted by “oil” money or other “undersirable” funding sources.

    I remember last year.The conference went well with a lot of people coming from diverse backgrounds.From a few countries.Speaking from a skeptical position.Showing clearly that a lot of people are not influenced by “big oil” money.

    The Manhattan Declaration was a big success.It has become the second most read article in history of my forum.Surely people are hungry for diverse viewpoints on this topic.

    I consider it irrational for people to whine about funding sources.But gloss over the science presentations.It reeks of political baloney.

    I went round and run in a forum about a post that was 100% ad hominem.I call him on it and showed him was a fallacy is.I even referred to a good sourse that explains all about how fallacious writings are worthless.

    He continues to stand by his fallacies and ignore the actual writing of the people he personally attacked.Thus not providing any actual counterpoint to what the writer of the petition project paper wrote about.Just attack him for some alleged tainted funding.Or that he was canned by Linus Pauling.Proving that anything he writes will be no good.And so on.

    It is garbage!

    It needs to stop!

    How I long to see climate science go back to work and publish papers free from such uneeded political influences and funding innuendos.

    Where even rival groups can freely exchange data and refer to each others papers.

    I value this blog.Because it provides an outlet for climate information that will not otherwise be readily available.I post some of the articles at my forum from here to widen the availability of reading a different way of seeing the climate.

    Really I care less who funds it.It is efficacy of the argument between opposing views.Is all I care about.

    It is the increased availability of a skeptical view.That enhances the learning curve.I read Liefs Svalgaards postings.Who provides some refreshing counterpoints.That creates thinking.He might be wrong in some things.But golly it is a priviledge to read what a solar scientist has to say!

    Please lets drop the fallacies and go on.

  179. Mikael H (12:08:19) :
    … And so does the danish musician Kim Larsen. I guess his music and everyone he’s involved with, is not worth listening to, then?
    Don’t know the critter. Does he smoke?

  180. Les Johnson (11:45:26) :
    And I’ll double it if Anthony takes Leif…..
    To quote Groucho Marx: “I don’t know if I would belong to a club that would accept me as a member” :-)

  181. iceFree says:

    Leif Svalgaard (12:03:20) :

    Its my understanding that he resigned from the IPCC project. But had his name used in reports he did not believe were based on sound principles. And only after strongly
    protesting did he manage to get it removed.

    So was he a reviewer? I guess if he had his name removed no.

  182. kim says:

    Intellectually and polemically, the sponsor and source of funding probably make no difference. The funding source is at least open, as opposed to Gore’s $300,000,000, probably engaged in illegal electioneering as we speak. It’s a joke that he claims his money is from ‘anonymous and internet donors’. I hope at least some of them care enough about their investment to send the very best. Lehman sends condolences. Oh, wait a minute.
    ================================================

  183. iceFree (13:49:10) :
    Its my understanding that he resigned from the IPCC project. But had his name used in reports he did not believe were based on sound principles. And only after strongly protesting did he manage to get it removed.
    So was he a reviewer? I guess if he had his name removed no.

    He was once [before they removed his name]. And there is the crucial difference: IPCC abided with his wish [as they well should].

  184. Kohl Piersen says:

    I have a beef with respect to the last conference. At the time I tried to find the papers, or a video of the presentations etc and could not.
    Was it ever made available on the net?

  185. Les Johnson says:

    As long as we are quoting the mustachioed one.

    Tamino, to me, while I look at a thermometer:

    “So who are you going to believe? Me or your own eyes?”

  186. GP says:

    From what I have observed in the past year I would estimate that the funding from any source for skeptic leaning organisation is pitifully small compared that available to warmist outfits. In fact I would guess that the Oil industry in general funds far more AGW supporting groups, directly or indirectly, than it does non-warmists. Think about it – it is in their interests to see higher oil prices accepted based on public fear forcings in order to have a means to gain acceptance of increase margins and so provide money for increased exploration and R&D investment. They are, after all, subject to a 2 pronged attack based on the CO2 argument and the Peak Oil concept.

    However it seems even clearer that big business in general has come to the conclusion that it can run rings around politicians (or, as the mainstream media refer to them these days, lawmakers, giving them far more inference of importance than they earn by their actions) and use that ability for their own purposes.

    I first saw the light on that [pun intended] when the whole ‘ban incandescent light bulbs’ think blew up. Now there is a great example of how to introduce a rapid and wholesale change to a long established market and technology by statist (pretty much global statist at that) enforcement by government. Other than greasing the lawmaker’s cogs to make that happen the marketing costs are pretty low for what has been achieved making a rapid change which is not entirely without negative aspects. (If it were entirely without negative aspects there would be no argument from me.)

    And then there are the financial Institutions who have for a year or so been very actively seeking a place at the tax funded trough provided filled by the state. All of them seemed (or seem for those who have so far survived) to want a piece of the carbon trading action. I assume they new their time was up with the existing ways and desperately wanted to have a chance to balance the books using legal mandates and tax dollars from their political friends. Things just didn’t move quickly enough for them this year but now some of the decks are clear, the toxic containers having washed overboard, and ready for delivery of state money from several sources. All it took was for them to believe that Carbon Trading was likely to become a reality. Bankers and financial institutions know very well how to create a self benefiting market and, as we have seen recently, their ability to trade in intangibles and line their pockets is proven.

    So, compared to Exxon’s alleged funding of skeptic organisations which seems at best to have been at a very low level in recent years – perhaps even non-existent, how much financial support have the AGW proponents received from Big Banking, Big Insurance and all the others who are looking to claim a slice of the new tax take pie? How much do people love the bankers these days? Is Exxon a worse company than Lehman Bros? How do businesses like Goldman Sachs manage to work both sides of the fence at the same time and earn their managers huge amounts in the process?

    Indeed from this side of the pond I have to say that if the reports about the funds available to Obama are accurate and given that the amounts seem so much greater than McCain has managed to obtain, one has to wonder just what is going on in the world of political influence. And why.

    Perhaps ‘the science’ is these days merely a side show to distract the punters whilst the new tax extraction laws are put into place and people jostle for positions of influence in the sphere of operation of an over arching world government which exerts control through fiscal mechanisms based on all encompassing carbon taxation. Other than water, which has the disadvantage that it can be seen and measured, carbon/energy would seem to be the perfect means of obtaining direct control over every aspect of out lives – if we let that happen.

    The grandchildren will surely love that and thank us for saving them from … well, perhaps nothing.

  187. CodeTech says:

    sunsettommy:

    Examining funding is important, I won’t deny that. For example, I am not too interested in reading a study showing why socialism is a superior form of government if it was written by the KGB, with input from neoNazi organizations. I’m not interested in reading a large treatise against Chrysler products that was financed by Ford.

    The problem here, as with most things lately, is that the AGW crowd have for some time been misdirecting, successfully identifying “big oil” with “unreasoning denial”. This has been a major propaganda accomplishment. From where I sit (close to Big Oil), the guys jumping up and down with glee about AGW are…. BIG OIL.

    Imagine if you owned a business, and someone came along with a way to triple your profits while halving your production. It’s perfect!

    I discount many things that are financed by big money of questionable origin. Unfortunately, the opponents have done a good job of smearing the organizations that I happen to agree with. Heartland is one. And yet, we rarely have the same venomous response to someone like, for example, Pembina. http://www.pembina.org

    Either way, there are a lot of problems with the PR around this ICCC. I agree with Leif’s original post in this thread, in that the problems are with PERCEPTION, not necessarily with the Heartland Institute itself. Many of those I regularly talk with are programmed like little robots to despise certain organizations and people, for reasons that are usually ridiculous.

    The original intent was to counter the “Intergovernmental Panel” with a “Non-governmental” one, where the goal was not to prove that humanity is destroying the planet (environmentalist agenda), but to determine if there actually is a problem, and if so, what is causing it and how to deal with it.

    As with, I assume, the majority here, I have no problem identifying that there have been some climate changes. I do have a problem with claims that there is anything unusual at all, or that trends continue unabated, or any of the utter sci-fi BS about “tipping points” and having ten years to dismantle our entire civilization. Yes, we as humans alter our local environment. That is how we stay alive, especially since we are not furred animals equipped to live in anything other than ideal equatorial climate.

    Personally, I think the best way to deal with Global Warming would be to resite most of the temperature recording equipment. Then again, hey, I live in a northern city known to reach -40C from time to time. I’ll sign up for any global warming I can get.

  188. Derek says:

    Surely the overall concern here is climate science.
    Who funds it may just indicate the paper/s are or maybe biased, (Mann springs to mind) but usually (and Mann is a really good warning…) if a paper is bad it becomes obvious, unfortunately occasionally only with time.

    I have a “left” background and natural disposition, don’t we all really,
    it’s just the method used that is different…

    I realised that the only “side” that was allowing science was the “Right”.
    That is not political support, it is a means to an end.
    I’ll repeat that, it is a means to an end, the end being better climate science for all.

    I may have misunderstood Leif, and one or two others,
    (obviuosly not Tamino..and maybe not Leif.)
    but I think that is probably the case here with many.

    To discount last years conference in part or whole because the organization behind it previously supported tobacco,
    really is missing the most important point.
    Good science is good science, and bad science is bad science
    regardless of who funded it.

    Really should not scientists be THE ones to rise above such (funding) pettiness..

  189. Brendan H says:

    Dee: “I know this nice Gulch if any one cares to join me.”

    Why not kill two birds with one stone and have a sceptics conference in Gult’s Gulch?

    A Gult’s Gulch venue would have two major advantages: 1) the model of rational discussion already exists, if only in theory; 2) no pesky dissension.

    The occasion could also provide spiritual and intellectual solace for a wounded soul whose worldview has apparently collapsed in the aftermath of the financial meltdown.

    BTW, what is the technical term for a gathering of sceptics: a reservation? a doubt? a reluctance? a misgiving? I like qualm, myself.

  190. Dee Norris says:

    @Brendan H (16:17:38) :

    Hmmm… How about a brain trust of skeptics?

    Anyhow, I am not sure a conference in the Gulch would be well received. Someone would accuse it of being funded by Wyatt Oil or Rearden Steel. Then Dr. Floyd Ferris and Wesley Mooch would just call for Ellis and Hank to be arrested for high crimes against humanity.

  191. iceFree says:

    The Heartland institute was just against the science that the EPA used
    to prove second hand smoke was harmful.

    http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results.html?artid=13833

    Its history to me but I do believe that the EPA was fudging
    the numbers to appease the anti smoking Zealots.

    Again I may get attacked for my stance but I don’t think second hand smoke
    Is a big deal. I quit smoking a few years ago. My choice.

  192. John Philip says:

    Lucy S.

    Never heard of Joanne Nova in Australia before yesterday, but she has been writing a Skeptics’ Handbook which looks like a brilliant short, accurate, simple, much-needed resource

    Thanks for this. I have left a comment discussing Joanne’s ‘4 simple points’ and she has said she will respond, which I look forward to.

    But when do you think you will be able to respond to my question? If you remember I asked you where you found the information on the Gallup poll of AGU and AMS members that indicated that only 17% of them believed that mankind was influencing the climate. Prominently displayed on your online primer

    Not a hard question, I would have thought.

    JP.

  193. John Philip says:

    Dee

    At 05:13 you posted but we all need to steer clear of ad hominem attacks or baiting.

    after which we had to wait just under nine hours before the next unsubstantiated ad hominem attack on Al Gore

    The funding source is at least open, as opposed to Gore’s $300,000,000, probably engaged in illegal electioneering as we speak.

    Is this a record?

    Reply: We have covered this before with Brenden (no H), John. Gore is a public figure and not participating on this forum. – Dee Norris

  194. Jeff Alberts says:

    Again I may get attacked for my stance but I don’t think second hand smoke
    Is a big deal. I quit smoking a few years ago. My choice.

    I think it’s probably a non-issue too. I just don’t like people smoking around me, and stinking up my clothes. That’s enough to ban it from public places if you ask me. The premise that you shouldn’t be able to force others to partake in your habit is a good one. It’s tantamount to forcing a non-drinker to take one drink for every 5 you take.

  195. MarkW says:

    MarkW (10:08:19) :

    1) There is no reliable science that demonstrates the harm of second hand smoke. The best are “studies” that use highly questionable methods and correlation numbers. ”

    Well I don’t know about 2nd hand smoke, but I know a credible epidemiologist, recently retired for U of Miami, and long associated with the CDC; and at the Uof M he was in constant contact with doctors at the med school who certainly knew about direct firsat hand smoke; and my friend says the evidence linking smoking with lung cancer, is more convincing that the evidence linking sex with the occurrence of children.

    ——————-

    Why don’t you argue the point I made, instead of the one you want.

    I never denied that smoking causes cancer. I stated that there is no evidence that second hand smoking is harmfull.

    You are aware that danger goes down dramatically as doseage goes down. This is a well known phenomena. It holds true for all manner of poison and carcinogen.

  196. MarkW says:

    WHO from “Big Oil” is “funding” Heartland, Leif?

    http://democrats.science.house.gov/Media/File/Commdocs/hearings/2007/oversight/28mar/mccarthy_testimony.pdf

    pahe 15:
    Heartland Institute $561,500 Nearly 40% of the total funds that the Heartland Institute has received from ExxonMobil since 1998 were specifically designated for climate change projects. ExxonMobil donated $119,000 in 2005, its biggest gift to Heartland since 1998.

    All the rest of your emotion laden stuff you can keep.

    Man Leif, and to think people keep calling you a respectable scientist.

    Why don’t you attack the science produced, instead of attacking the funding behind it.

    Reputable scientists deal with the facts. Those that whom the facts don’t support, attack the messanger.

  197. MarkW says:

    I notice that Leif is declaring that this conference is illegitimage because there are no pro-AGW speakers.

    Somehow Leif’s dander never gets aroused over the refusal of pro-AGW conferences, journals, etc to permit any anti-AGW speakers, papers, etc.

    Oh yea, the source of funding corrupts science. Unless it is science that he agrees with.

  198. MarkW says:

    Harold Ambler (12:43:21) :

    And just who forced you to play in smoke filled clubs?

    If you didn’t want to, then don’t.

    Why do you presume that your desire to have only smoke free environments must trump everyone else’s desire.

    If you want to play in a smoke free pub, feel free to buy one, and make it smoke free. Do not presume to tell everyone else what they can and can’t do with their property. Down that path is tyranny.

  199. MarkW says:

    “I don’t see much difference between the extreme right (like Hitler) and the extreme left (like Stalin).”

    Hitler was a socialist. So he’s a creature of the left, not the right.

  200. MarkW says:

    Leif Svalgaard (16:14:51) :

    Nick (16:02:26) :
    why hasn’t any speaker at the 2008 Conference been exposed as a scientific liar, bought off by conservative industrialists?
    There are just some ‘papers’ that are so bad that they are not worth exposing.

    ———————–

    Translation: I disagree with them. I can’t disprove them. So I’ll pretend that they are so bad they don’t need disproving.

  201. MarkW says:

    Hitler was a Statist and his particular brand of Statism was Facism, not Socialism

    ————–

    Fascism is nothing more than socialism with a strong dose of nationalism thrown in.

  202. MarkW says:

    I think it’s probably a non-issue too. I just don’t like people smoking around me, and stinking up my clothes.

    ——

    If you don’t like being around people who smoke, then I suggest that don’t.

    It’s the height of arrogance to assume that you have the right to dictate how other people lead their lives, in order to maximize your pleasure.

  203. marek says:

    MarkW

    Calm down. Not always a non smoker can escape the second hand smoke.
    In some unavoidable situations it might be imposed on him against his will.
    Whether this will result in a cancer might be debatable.

  204. John Philip But when do you think you will be able to respond to my question? If you remember I asked you where you found the information on the Gallup poll of AGU and AMS members that indicated that only 17% of them believed that mankind was influencing the climate.

    I don’t remember because I never saw your request. I don’t read every thread here. I hope this is not the way rumours start! And if you want an answer, how about emailing me or posting on our forum? Please, if you want an answer now, contact me. I’m not going to lengthen this thread even more.

    However, the question is fair, and I have to admit I cannot remember but will look for it. Occasionally in my excitement I forget to source such material. Almost always in the past, I’ve found the source later, so I trusted the same would happen here I guess, when I put it up.

  205. JP, got it. Gallup Poll of the Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Society. Of course it may not be “correct”. I put it in, at that point, where I am “starting to doubt”, as an example of evidence that starts to make one doubt. It doesn’t have to be totally correct so long as it seems like a smoke signal one should at least take seriously. After that comes all the sifting and checking.

  206. jeez says:

    Lucy, it is outdated information from 1991 which is still circulating. Here is an email thread I sent to Junk Science back in 2000 to get it removed from being cited.

    From: Barry Hearn
    To: Charles xxxxxx
    Date: Oct 04 2000 – 6:59pm

    Thanks, I’ll post a supplemental note today.

    b++

    ; —–Original Message—–
    ; From: Charles xxxxx [mailto:]
    ; Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2000 11:37 AM
    ; To: Barry Hearn
    ; Subject: RE: citation
    ;
    ;
    ; From USA today.
    ;
    ; One conservative group criticized the news media for accepting claims that
    ; there is widespread scientific agreement on global warming. The Media
    ; Research Center cited “a recent Gallup poll” that said only 19% of the
    ; members of the American Meteorological Society and the American
    ; Geophysical
    ; Union think that a warmer climate has been the result of greenhouse gas
    ; emissions.
    ;
    ; The Gallup organization said the poll was taken in October of
    ; 1991. It noted
    ; that some people, opposed to claims that human-induced global warming is
    ; occurring, “have used the study to support their position.”
    ;
    ; “These writers have taken survey results out of context that
    ; appear to show
    ; scientists do not believe that human-induced global warming is occurring.”
    ;
    ; The statement from Gallup noted that when asked if they thought
    ; human-induced global warming was occurring, 66% of the scientists surveyed
    ; said yes.
    ;
    ;
    ; http://www.usatoday.com/weather/clisci/wclis28c.htm
    ;
    ; I agree with the positions of EVAG, but I think it is important to cite
    ; information that supports the case, rather than information which
    ; is easily
    ; refuted or out of date.

  207. John Philip says:

    Gore is a public figure and not participating on this forum …

    Ah well, if that is this site’s criteria for permitting ad hominem remarks then these must be legitimate observations about the above list of speakers ….

    Skipping over CEI and AEI employees, Dennis Avery is an agricultural analyst and food supply specialist, John Coleman is a TV weather forecaster who failed to follow through on his threat to sue Al Gore for fraud, Joe D’Aleo runs the unreliable Icecap website, Laurence Gould is a Physics professor who needs to improve his teaching, Ross McKitrick is an economist who confuses degrees with radians, Christopher Monckton claims that spotting a typo in an IPCC summary report endows him with the status of Nobel Peace Laureate, Benny Peiser is a social anthropologist who claimed to have discredited Naomi Oreskes analysis that found no peer reviewed paper contradicting the concensus, but later conceded that he had found only one, non-reviewed paper in the report of an oil industry journal, Arthur Robinson is a biochemist who authored the bogus ‘scientific paper’ that was mailed out with the Petition Project, S Fred Singer posts lies on his website supported by non-existent papers. His own ‘paper’ for last year’s conference was shown by ABC to climate scientists from NASA, from Stanford University and from Princeton. They dismissed it as “fabricated nonsense.”. Willie Soon coauthored a paper on past temperatures that was so poor it precipitated the resignation of half the board at the journal that was unwise enough to publish it.

    I pass.

  208. JP, the poll seems to be about 10 years old. It was straightforward to google. Since then, sides have hardened, and a lot of scientists now have to be seen to toe the line… however, there are also signs of prominent scientists doing U-turns, one at a time… and stories of attempts to prevent free speech are emerging (see Lindzen’s recent paper; see http://www.climateofdenial.net/?q=node/5).

    So overall thanks. The details nailed here seem to confirm its rightness at that point in my script. A piece of evidence that one should take seriously… but may also have flaws and qualifications… so in the end, proves to be well representative of the difficulty facing those trying to get “the truth”. I’ll add a couple of words to this effect, to the primer.

    Sorry about the length of all this folks, but it’s good to see the scientific process at work and I do want my primer acceptable to enough people, to help people through all the confusion.

  209. Jeez and JP, alteration to Primer done, hope you find it ok now!

  210. Smokey says:

    Nice try with that lame link trying to discredit Icecap, John Philip, but you fail. As one commenter points out: “I suggest you critique that report (or even Al Gore’s movie) in the same vein as you do to icecap. Otherwise you are just another partisan blog masquerading as science.

    Exactly.

    And the kissy-face behavior between the censorship prone Tamino and your blogger tells us all we need to know about their partisan climate propaganda. Two peas in a pod.

    Warning: Alright everyone, let’s simmer down. I think each person’s biases are self-evident from their posts and can stand or fall without outside assistance. – Dee Norris

  211. Pierre Gosselin says:

    This forum gets so off topic with banal chatter at times that it resembles a group of blabbing housewives high on sugar.

    Concerning the conference, focus on the science presented and not the funding sources. Take the funding where you can.

    I’d like to see more constructive ideas and suggestions on how to expand on last year’s conference, and less useless chatter and noise. My suggestions is:
    1. Seek recent AGW alarmists who have converted to the sceptic position.
    2. Press releases with convincing graphics.

    Maybe others can add to the list?

  212. John Philip says:

    Lucy (and Jeez)

    Like it! Thanks for clearing that up.

    I commented on the Lindzen piece here (16:20:15). Climate modeller Michael Tobis has a few thoughts here.

    Smokey – Grumbine deals with your point ( to my satisfaction at least ), in the comments and followup post.

  213. Pierre Gosselin says:

    And Holy Moly!
    2 non-Anglo speakers! Hooo-doggy!
    – Fred Goldberg Royal School of Technology (Sweden)
    – Paul Reiter Pasteur Institute (France)

    Suggestion No 3: More global representation.

    There are others from other countries, you really ought to know.
    Or maybe we should rename it: The Heartland Conference of Cowboys. This conference ought to be more than just a clique of western libertarians.

  214. kim says:

    John Philip (02:57:50) John gives up all pretense at objectivity in this slanted post about skeptics. What a laugh.

    So, John, doesn’t it bother you that Gore’s source for his $300,000,000 is concealed from the public? Why would his donors not want to have their names attached to his effort to ‘save the world’?
    ===============================================

  215. Pierre GosselinI’d like to see more constructive ideas and suggestions on how to expand on last year’s conference, and less useless chatter and noise. My suggestions is:
    1. Seek recent AGW alarmists who have converted to the sceptic position.
    2. Press releases with convincing graphics.

    Maybe others can add to the list?

    Though we’ve already started a “conference” thread on my forum, I think yours is a good idea for a thread of its own that I can “sticky” to keep it visible – so I’ve done it. Please feel free to repost your ideas here.

  216. pyromancer76 says:

    A conference on climate science and all its contemporary manifestations, it seems, should involve those scientists who are engaged in research, or are analyzing research, on climate issues. For example, an agricultural analyst and food supply specialist might have the best understanding re how additional CO2 is enhancing life in many different ways — droubt tolerance, greater growth, more reproductive success, etc. Perhaps John Philip does not want the world to know all the scientific facts? I read him as a grouch.

    Just make the conference the best of the current science. And if it is possible, make it available around the world, some of it in real time.

    Sorry Mark W. Just because you cannot find a second-hand smoke study of which you approve — second-hand smoke is very harmful to everyone forced to endure it. My father died a five-year excruciating death from a life-time of heavy smoking. No one else in the family smokes, but during his lifetime everyone endured hell because he was too selfish to go outside and smoke. If you were forced to live through hours and years of meetings and plane rides and restaurant meals in an atmosphere filled with smoke (because people like you demanded to perpetrate their selfishness on others), then you might appreciate one of the truths of this country — freedom. One of its other truths is freedom for the truth and that clearly involves a science that is science rather than propaganda — like secondary smoke never hurt anyone.

  217. John Philip says:

    Pyro – I don’t know whether Avery will present on food policy or the scientific concensus. I do know that he authored the Heartland list of scientists whose work, he claimed, contradicted the reality of AGW. Here are just some of the responses to that document …

    “I am horrified to find my name on such a list. I have spent the last 20 years arguing the opposite.”
    Dr. David Sugden. Professor of Geography, University of Edinburgh

    “I have NO doubts ..the recent changes in global climate ARE man-induced. I insist that you immediately remove my name from this list since I did not give you permission to put it there.”
    Dr. Gregory Cutter, Professor, Department of Ocean, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Old Dominion University

    “I don’t believe any of my work can be used to support any of the statements listed in the article.”
    Dr. Robert Whittaker, Professor of Biogeography, University of Oxford

    “Please remove my name. What you have done is totally unethical!!”
    Dr. Svante Bjorck, Geo Biosphere Science Centre, Lund University

    “I’m outraged that they’ve included me as an “author” of this report. I do not share the views expressed in the summary.”
    Dr. John Clague, Shrum Research Professor, Department of Earth Sciences, Simon Fraser University

    “I am very shocked to see my name in the list of “500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares”. Because none of my research publications has ever indicated that the global warming is not as a consequence of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, I view that the inclusion of my name in such list without my permission or consensus has damaged my professional reputation as an atmospheric scientist.”
    Dr. Ming Cai, Associate Professor, Department of Meteorology, Florida State University.

    “Just because you document natural climate variability doesn’t mean anthropogenic global warming is not a threat. In fact I would venture that most on that list believe a natural cycle and anthropogenic change combined represent a greater threat.”
    Peter F. Almasi, PhD Candidate in Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Columbia University

    “Why can’t people spend their time trying to identify and evaluate the facts concerning climate change rather than trying to obscure them?”
    Dr. James P. Berry, Senior Scientist, Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute

    “They have taken our ice core research in Wyoming and twisted it to meet their own agenda. This is not science.”
    Dr. Paul F. Schuster, Hydrologist, US Geological Survey

    “Please remove my name IMMEDIATELY from the following article and from the list which misrepresents my research.”
    Dr. Mary Alice Coffroth, Department of Geology, State University of New York at Buffalo

    Heartland refuses to remove any names from its report. Is this science or more like propaganda?

  218. Pierre Gosselin says:

    Hi Lucy:
    Other (unappreciated) ideas I’ve had:
    1. Photo gallery: Liftestyles of the Rich and Alarmist
    Photos of homes of the eco-warriers like Gore, DiCaprio, Madonna
    John Edwards, Travolta, etc.
    2. Charlatan Hall of Fame
    Atart with Gore. And Who is the Korean scientist who said he had mapped the entire human genome.
    3. Cancel your newspaper subscription -Save the planet and trees!
    The liberal media will love that campaign!
    4. Global cooling exhiibit in the major cities.
    5. Leading Climatic Indicators.

  219. pkatt says:

    A lot of news going around right now about Heat or Eat. More news like that might be able to break Climate Change from the inside out. At least the Carbon credit part of the deal.

    Also did you check out that new post from Hansen I linked above? Seems like being nutty might just turn off a few people too.

  220. MarkW (19:56:44) :
    Man Leif, and to think people keep calling you a respectable scientist.
    Maybe there is a lesson for you there…

  221. Jeff Alberts says:

    If you don’t like being around people who smoke, then I suggest that don’t.

    It’s the height of arrogance to assume that you have the right to dictate how other people lead their lives, in order to maximize your pleasure.

    You’re acting like I actively seek them out. So what you’re saying is if someone lights up when I’m somewhere public, I should just leave, even though I’m not adversely affecting anyone else by my habits? Again, no one has the right to force their habits on someone else.

    I suppose you’d tell people who are injured/killed by drink drivers that they shouldn’t have been driving when drunk drivers were about.

  222. Jeff Alberts says:

    John Philip, It’s pretty irrelevant whether those scientists views don’t agree with skepticism, but if any of there work shows that AGW might not be man-made then their names should be on the list. I care about the scientific results, not the personal opinions of a scientist.

  223. Jeff Alberts (14:13:41) :
    JIt’s pretty irrelevant whether those scientists views don’t agree with skepticism, but if any of there work shows that AGW might not be man-made then their names should be on the list

    Even if the scientists themselves believe that their papers support AGW? As several of them have said.

  224. Jeff Alberts says:

    Leif Svalgaard (15:06:40) : “Even if the scientists themselves believe that their papers support AGW? As several of them have said.”

    I some cases, probably so. Like the Hockey Stick and any supporting papers which “validated” it using the same poor data and statistical methods. These caused some properly skeptical folks to re-confirm that there actually was an MWP and LIA (maybe they weren’t “global”, but neither has any perceived warming in the last 30 years been global). So MBH98 indirectly invalidates AGW, IMHO.

  225. Jeff Alberts (15:45:19) :
    So MBH98 indirectly invalidates AGW, IMHO.

    That must be why Michael Mann is on the list…

  226. John Philip says:

    if any of there work shows that AGW might not be man-made then their names should be on the list

    I think the scientists concerned are best positioned to decide whether their work has been misrepresented, surely?

    Let us speak plainly, there is next to nothing in the scientific literature that contradicts the proposition that manmade greenhouse gases are warming the planet. Avery’s rather desparate manouverings and misrepresentations just serve to underline this simple fact. Of at least 20,000 practicing climate scientists, apparently only around 8 are willing to attend a conference disputing this concensus. Of these, at least one, Singer, is a demonstrable liar.

    Much is made of the refusal of Gore or Hansen to attend or debate. But what would be the point? When was the last time a scientific question was decided in a televised debate? How would non-scientist Gore debating non-scientist Monckton advance understanding? A rather more apposite challenge was thrown out by Gavin Schmidt:

    the fact that the community overwhelmingly supports the consensus is evidenced by picking up any copy of Journal of Climate or similar, any scientific program at the AGU or EGU meetings, or simply going to talk to scientists (not the famous ones, the ones at your local university or federal lab). I challenge you, if you think there is some un-reported division, show me the hundreds of abstracts at the Fall meeting . [of the AGU] (the biggest conference in the US on this topic) that support your view – you won’t be able to. You can argue whether the consensus is correct, or what it really implies, but you can’t credibly argue it doesn’t exist

    So, this conference is not about advancing or even explaining the science, on behalf of those vested interests who believe they have something to lose, it is designed to raise doubts in the media and the public consciousness about the existence of a scientific concensus. One wishes them more success in that forum than they enjoyed than last year.

    JP

  227. Neil Crafter says:

    John Philip
    “Let us speak plainly”

    Who is the “us” John?
    You seem awfully sure of things in your world.

  228. Frank. Lansner says:

    MartingGatkins

    The writer of that article

    http://www.ajeuk.org/papers/2008_09_12%20AJE%20Alex%20Lockwood.pdf

    Seems scared about the effect of blogs.

    Good.

    No doubt we all make a difference. I also get the feeling that the writer would wish i could totally silence the bloggers?

    The thing is:
    If the sceptic blog-message is wrong, the alarmists are “SOO MANY” and has “SUCH A GOOD CASE” in defending their CO2 hypothesis, that it should be no problem at all for them to quickly just join the blogs and come up with some real PRO CO2 – arguments if they existed.

    But fact is: If the Alarmists (of scientists etc) where so many, and their arguments so good, then they needed not worry about blogs.

    So we can conclude that THE ALARMISTS SCIENTISTS ar not that many and/or their arguments are not that strong.

    Long live freedom to speak.

  229. MarkW says:

    marek (21:42:38) :

    Calm down. Not always a non smoker can escape the second hand smoke.

    ————–

    Someone has you tied down and is blowing smoke in your face?
    Of course, second hand smoke is always avoidable. The problem is that to avoid it sometimes involves choices that you would rather not make. So you turn to govt to force someone else to make those undesireable choices, rather than yourself.

  230. Bruce Cobb says:

    JP: So, this conference is not about advancing or even explaining the science, on behalf of those vested interests who believe they have something to lose, it is designed to raise doubts in the media and the public consciousness about the existence of a scientific concensus. One wishes them more success in that forum than they enjoyed than last year.
    Yeah, nice try there, John. It is primarily about advancing and explaining the science. True science doesn’t need to hide behind some “concensus”, whether real or mythical. Gavin Schmuck knows this, and is simply being political in your above quote.
    There are countless so-called “scientists” suckling at the AGW teat. Follow the money, John. You seem hooked on your AGW pseudoscientific ideology. Perhaps you feel comfortable with that, and would be more comfortable with the pablum over at RC instead.

  231. Ric Werme says:

    MartinGAtkins (00:50:41) :

    Some of you might find this of interest.

    http://www.ajeuk.org/papers/2008_09_12%20AJE%20Alex%20Lockwood.pdf

    Please include a a small description instead of just posting a link without context. E.g. these quotes:

    Seeding doubt: how sceptics use new media to delay action on climate change
    Alex Lockwood, University of Sunderland

    Paper delivered to the Association for Journalism Education (AJE) annual conference, New Media, New Democracy. Sheffield University, 12th September 2008

    Keywords: climate change, scepticism, new media, democracy, blogging

    This paper explores the ways in which new media is used to derail action on climate change. Climate change can be a gloomy subject; but in the spirit of this conference I’ll attempt to map out some productive coordinates for what is an increasingly urgent question. First I provide a (very) brief summary of the scientific consensus, and examples of where this is undermined online. Then I explore whether this phenomena is of substantive enough importance for our attention. Finally, I address its implications for new media and democratic renewal.

    On Wikio, four of the top 20 science blogs are sceptics. The most successful, WattsUpWiththat.com, the US-based blog of sceptic and former weatherman Anthony Watts, in July this year posted 646,024 page views (2.8m since launch). It is in the top four of 3.4m blogs using the free online blog authoring tool, WordPressxv. Using the latest Nielsen Net Ratings data, even the most conservative estimate would give it over 300,000 monthly visits and a readership of over 31,000 users. Compare that to the New Statesman’s 12.7% year-on-year decline, to headline sales of just over 26,000.

  232. Smokey says:

    John Philip (18:32:24) :

    if any of there [sic] work shows that AGW might not be man-made then their names should be on the list

    Your literally incredible claim of ‘consensus’ deliberately avoids the co-signing by over 31,000 physical scientists [in the U.S. alone] of the OISM petition, stating that an increase in carbon dioxide is not harmful, but is, in fact, very beneficial. The eminent scientist Freeman Dyson was one of the early signers.

    Compare that with your 2,500 signers of the UN’s IPCC propaganda [many of whom have degrees, not in the physical sciences, but in subjects such as English Lit and Sociology]. And most of the IPCC’s signers are in reality government agents, whose job it is to provide taxpayer feed for the public trough.

    And to claim that ” there is next to nothing in the scientific literature that contradicts the proposition that manmade greenhouse gases are warming the planet” is disingenuous. Scientists generally agree that CO2 has a very *slight* effect on temperatures. But the effect is so minuscule that just about every other forcing drowns out that extremely minor effect.

    But the global warming alarmists still cling to the repeatedly falsified hypothesis that increases in CO2 will shortly lead to runaway global warming and climate catastrophe. As we have seen, however, the planet is cooling, not warming.

    Where is your god now?

  233. JP
    It should be possible to build a list of reputable research papers that, each by itself, tends to refute AGW – even if the authors personally believe in AGW – and describe the compilation in a way that causes no offence. As your statement stands, it sounds pretty awful – as if Heartland have behaved badly. However, I would never just accept your version without also hearing Heartland’s own take on what you report – scientists upset to be on their list. I shall try to check this one out since you’ve raised what could be a fair issue.

    However, also remember that in the current situation, people who are skeptical of AGW are, whether you like this or not, almost always endangering their professional positions if they are seen to be openly supporting AGW. This much comes across loud and clear from the words of the very scientists you quote. Scientists today may even write papers that are intentional evidence for skepticism, but may have to present them as “supporting AGW” in order to get them published. I’ve seen such double-takes but I don’t want to name names and cause people problems. Such is the sorry state of lack of openness in the debate.

  234. “seen to be openly supporting skeptics” I mean!

  235. MartinGAtkins says:

    Ric Werme (05:22:54)

    “Please include a a small description instead of just posting a link without context. E.g. these quotes:”

    Nup!

    It was a small PDF I thought of interest to WUWT users. If you can’t move and click the mouse by yourself I’m not gonna do it for you.

    How do I quote from a PDF without wasting time reformating it?

  236. John Philip says:

    Your literally incredible claim of ‘consensus’ deliberately avoids the co-signing by over 31,000 physical scientists [in the U.S. alone] of the OISM petition,

    The ‘Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine’ is in fact run out of a barn in Cave Junction. I do not need to ‘avoid’ their petition as it does not damage the concensus in any way whatsoever…

    1. It is not restricted to physical scientists, as you state. The majority of signatories actually hold engineering degrees, and it also includes medical doctors, dentists, even veterinarians. Taken in that context 31,000 is a pitifully small fraction of the potential signatories; there are over 2 million engineers in the US. Perhaps you could name just 10 of the 31,000 who have published in climate science? Or indeed 10 peer reviewed papers that challenge the concensus?

    2. Why did the organisers include a ‘review paper’ with the mailing, in the font and layout of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, but written by Arthur Robinson (who is attending the conference), who has never worked in climate science?. The paper is not peer-reviewed, full of misleading errors and false conclusions, but may have fooled the odd chiropractor or veterinarian. It obliged the real NAS to issue a press release NAS Council would like to make it clear that this petition has nothing to do with the National Academy of Sciences and that the manuscript was not published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences or in any other peer-reviewed journal. The petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy.

    No reputable polling organisation would attempt to mislead in this way.

    3. When Scientific American magazine contacted some of the signatories with climate-related qualifications, it found a significant fraction had never heard of the petition, which kinda damages its credibility.

    Whereas on the concensus side, in addition to the IPCC we have the National Science Academies of the G8 + 3, plus position statements from the AGU, AMS and every other relevant professional body.

    Scientists generally agree that CO2 has a very *slight* effect on temperatures. But the effect is so minuscule that just about every other forcing drowns out that extremely minor effect.
    That is simply false. CO2 is the largest single external forcing by a large margin, and the effect of a doubling in concentrations is estimated to be an increase in equilibrium temperature of around 3C.

    I am an aethiest, however the scientific concensus seems to me to be highly robust.

  237. MartinGAtkins (10:37:16) :
    How do I quote from a PDF without wasting time reformating it?
    Highlight by dragging the mouse the text you want to quote, then copy and paste. You may have to hunt a bit for the copy function [depending on version], but once you figure out where it is, you can place it on the PDF-reader’s toolbar.

  238. Joel Shore says:

    Lucy Skywalker says:

    However, also remember that in the current situation, people who are skeptical of AGW are, whether you like this or not, almost always endangering their professional positions if they are seen to be openly supporting AGW. This much comes across loud and clear from the words of the very scientists you quote.

    Hogwash!! What comes across from the quotes is that scientists don’t like their names and research being abused by people spreading propaganda! The point is that Avery has taken such a wide view of what constitutes evidence disputing AGW that he even includes in his list two or three of the scientists who run RealClimate (including Michael Mann, as I recall). For example, if you publish a paper that suggests that the sun had any important influence on climate change in the past then you are on the list even though this is in the context of showing the high sensitivity of the climate to radiative forcings, such as the known forcing due to CO2.

    Scientists today may even write papers that are intentional evidence for skepticism, but may have to present them as “supporting AGW” in order to get them published.

    This is just an excuse to not take scientists at their word but instead to grossly misinterpret and twist their work to fit your own agenda and beliefs.

  239. John Philip says:

    Lucy

    The original Heartland list is here It is a list of studies that Avery claims support his and Fred Singer’s thesis of a natural climatic cycle being responsible for GW. No explanation of quite how they support the claim is provided and at least 45 of those named objected to their research being used in this way. How many did not bother because they regard the musings of an agriculturalist on the Heartland website as a complete irrelevance is not recorded.

    Joseph Bast explains why Heartland continues to cite the scientists against their wishes here

    Unedifying.

    REPLY:
    John your complaint is baseless, a list of publications aka bibliography appear in many scientific works, many of these same works are cited elsewhere. and these same researchers don’t ask for it to be removed.

    When a publication is made, ANYONE can cite it anyway they choose, as long as the citations are done correctly, they have no quarrel. They particularly have no quarrel when public finds are used to make these papers.

    I’m not going to get into another one of your multipaged long winded discussions. Just stop blowing smoke, pick another topic.

    Anthony Watts

  240. John Philip says:

    It is not just my complaint. But I will respect your wishes, and sign off this one,

  241. JP
    Your Heartland reference showed me they were not refusing to alter something they could have altered, as you claimed. It was just as Anthony has said, a reference list at the end of a book, about which no scientist can object, so long as we have freedom of speech. The only issue about which the scientists could complain was the title given to the separate publication of that list.

    In response to the complaints, The Heartland Institute has changed the headlines that its PR department had chosen for some of the documents related to the lists, from “500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares” to “500 Scientists Whose Research Contradicts Man-Made Global Warming Scares.”

    You’ve done what you rightly took me to task for – using outdated information that is misleading…

  242. kim says:

    Joel Shore (11:29:14) Propaganda, hah. Hey what about the propaganda Gore is spreading with $300,000,000 of secretive money? The CO2=AGW exaggeration being spread by the alarmists is the biggest bunch of disinformation and propaganda out there. Why is the globe cooling, while CO2 rises?
    ======================================

  243. kim says:

    John (12:48:50) Yah, really you are just illustrating how warped peer review and review in general is in such a politicized arena of science.
    ==================================

  244. John Philip says:

    Lucy,

    Anthony has requested we discontinue this so I’ll be brief then sign off. Reread my post: my point was that in the original release of the document Avery ascribed opinions to scientists who in fact held the opposing view, causing outrage. This is a million miles from the usual scientific citation process. Only after the receipt of complaints and the threat of legal action did Heartland retitle the document as a ‘bibliography’.

  245. Dee Norris says:

    I think Lief’s very much misunderstood comment regarding Heartland best reflects the real problem here.

    Lief pointed out how sad it was that science is being used in the service of politics. In some cases, questionable and out-right pseudo-science it being accepted an established and proven research simply because it supports a political position.

    Like it or not, this applies to BOTH sides of the AGW debate. The debate has become so politicized that some scientists are afraid of career repercussions no matter which side they support in the debate.

    For us skeptics, the Heartland conference is the best we have at the moment. Maybe someday we can all fly to Bali using grant money thrown at us by NGOs and governments.

    In the meantime, all should lament the loss to objective science research by the politics that have been introduced into the methodology.

  246. Ric Werme says:

    MartinGAtkins (10:37:16) :

    It was a small PDF I thought of interest to WUWT users. If you can’t move and click the mouse by yourself I’m not gonna do it for you.

    How do I quote from a PDF without wasting time reformating it?

    In general, I do that by “move and click the mouse by [my]self”. I’m using Acroread V7 on Linux, click select, highlight the text, and paste it in. There were a few annoying non-7-bit-ascii characters and a little editing to delete hard returns (emacs has a search and replace function).

    Given that there are hundreds of readers of WUTW, I think they all deserve a little extra effort to make wading through the current volume of posting tolerable. That’s why I took the time to do help out.

    If you consider helping out your fellow reader “wasting time” I’ll ignore your future posts. We have enough posters already anyway….

  247. Smokey says:

    John Philip [04:26:09] falsely claims that James Hansen never received $720,000 from George Soros’ foundation.

    However, Investor’s Business Daily reported that Hansen was, in fact, funded by Soros. Furthermore, when Hansen claimed the story wasn’t true, IBD refused to retract their published report.

    If Hansen was telling the truth, he certainly would have a pretty airtight civil case against IBD. Conclusion: it is Hansen who is lying. QED.

    In addition, James Hansen has been showered with payoffs by other far-left organizations, in addition to the $720,000 he got from George Soros.

    The [Teresa] Heinz Foundation paid James Hansen $250,000 for his “work on global warming.” [Who is Hansen now beholden to? The taxpayers who pay his salary? Or Soros, Heinz and others?]

    Hansen pocketed another $500,000 from the way-left Dan David foundation, again to promote global warming propaganda.

    Hansen also received payola from the Gorebot himself. And those payoffs are only the ones that have come to light.

    James Hansen is bought and paid for by a cabal of shady anti-science, anti-American groups. Hansen does their bidding. As do the people who defend his corruption.

  248. Quoting the legal case cited above (to show that CO2 is a pollutant) …

    “The Supreme Court of the United States decided in

    SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

    Syllabus

    MASSACHUSETTS ET AL. v. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ET AL.

    CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

    No. 05–1120. Argued November 29, 2006—Decided April 2, 2007

    that CO2 is a pollutant. End of story.

    No, no true. The US Supreme Court is a bunch of lawyers who decide what the “law” is – according to how THEY decide THEY want to “read” the “law” in question on that particular day. With respect to a legal standing, to taxes, and to how much control Core and Hansen and John Phillips want to have over the rest of humanity, they are relevant. Their decision about CO2 (like their decision to approve of slavery) is wrong. Like their decision about slavery, it was both politically motivated, and dead wrong scientifically.

    But CO2 is a fertilizer, a trace gas in the atmosphere, and is NOT a pollutant. Unless you want to tax it.

    CO2 cannot be shown to have influenced global temperatures – particularly since CO2 has increased steadily since 1950, and for most of that time, temperatures have either decreased or remained steady. It is only that short 25 year period from 1973 – 1998 that both CO2 and tempertures have increased. And technically, since during the 13 year period from 1995 through 2008 CO2 was increasing while temperatures remained static, JP has even a smaller trend line to base his assumption on.

    I would also remind JP and Leif that – at no time in history – has the “consensus” of “reputable science” EVER been correct. In each case, “scientific consensus” has been proved WRONG when challenged by “amateurs” and real data. Malaria and mosquitos, cholera’s link to water supply, yellow fever, magnetism and latitude, chronometers and longitude, Einstein’s theory being challenged by political pressure, movement of the continents, the nucleus of the atom, …. All the way back to Copernicus, Kepler, and Newton.

    Scientific “conventional wisdom” – Your precious “consensus” has been wrong. Every time.

    And the MORE that heavily funded IPCC “scientists” with their eyes on a convenient (and politically motivated “ignoble” prize strive for recognition and papers by their “peers” criticize/criticise those who have evidence to refute their politics, the more I distrust the financially-motivations (er, politically-motivated, promotions, and politically-well-funded) “conventional wisdom” of Hansen and his crew.

  249. pkatt says:

    Yah for everything but La Nina?

    Oh Oh .. can i come too?

    I do try and use the tags.. but to date I am too ninny to figure that out:)

  250. John Philip says:

    As shown in the accounts of the Soros Foundation, the total budget of the parent organisation of the parent organisation of the parent organisation of the GAP project which is alleged to have bribed Jim Hansen was the $720K he his alleged to have received. Please explain.

    Personally I am pleased that Dr Hansen does not waste his time correcting every smear against him that appears in the conservative media, now that would be a waste of taxpayers’ money.
    Applying your standard of logic Hansen is accusing the IBD of lying and they have not sued him, therefore Hansen’s version is corect. QED. He did indeed win the 7th Heinz award for the Environment category and here is the citation:

    Dr. James Hansen receives the Heinz Award in the Environment for his exemplary leadership in the critical and often-contentious debate over the threat of global climate change. The theory that industrial pollution continues to create an atmospheric “greenhouse effect” or warming has pitted scientist against scientist and politician against politician. In the eye of the storm that swirls around this issue is Dr. Hansen. He calmly pursues his research while scrupulously maintaining his scientific credibility and modifying his views as new data and techniques have become available, all the while acting as a messenger from the esoteric world of computer climate models to the public and policymakers alike.

  251. Bruce Cobb says:

    I think Lief’s very much misunderstood comment regarding Heartland best reflects the real problem here.
    Lief pointed out how sad it was that science is being used in the service of politics. In some cases, questionable and out-right pseudo-science it being accepted an established and proven research simply because it supports a political position.

    No, Dee, he didn’t. If he had, there would have been no backlash whatsoever. What he did was to smear both Heartland and the upcoming conference, saying it was “a bit sad that they can fool well-meaning people to do their bidding.” So, according to Leif those who attend the conference have simply been duped. They are fools to even attend, as the whole thing is just a sham.

  252. Dee Norris says:

    Bruce Cobb (06:28:53) :

    Well, he has a point. Heartland is a political creature and while the conference is all we have, there is a risk that questionable science will be readily accepted in the name of politics.

    Lest we become as distorted at the AGW believers and risk letting a cooling cycle be used to accomplish the same objectives of increasing global statism, we need to be vigilante to keep the quality of the science high.

    I agree with Leif’s biggest point philosophically has been that we need to avoid adopting iffy theories simply because they fit our expectations. This is the same behavior of many of the AGW supporters – Cherry Picking.

    A good skeptic has to doubt/examine all the data, especially the material that appears to support their own opinions.

    “Skeptic – Not just a label, its a way of life.”

  253. Dee Norris (06:40:18) :
    Well, he has a point. Heartland is a political creature and while the conference is all we have, there is a risk that questionable science will be readily accepted in the name of politics.
    A case in point is

    http://www.heartland.org/bin/media/newyork08/PowerPoint/Monday/archibald.ppt

  254. Joel Shore says:

    I would also remind JP and Leif that – at no time in history – has the “consensus” of “reputable science” EVER been correct. In each case, “scientific consensus” has been proved WRONG when challenged by “amateurs” and real data. Malaria and mosquitos, cholera’s link to water supply, yellow fever, magnetism and latitude, chronometers and longitude, Einstein’s theory being challenged by political pressure, movement of the continents, the nucleus of the atom, …. All the way back to Copernicus, Kepler, and Newton.

    Scientific “conventional wisdom” – Your precious “consensus” has been wrong. Every time.

    This is truly a bizarre claim. So, what implications would your statement, if true, have for using science to inform public policy? Do you want to say that what we should do is just ignore the scientific community and listen to amateurs? (I imagine what you will say is that one has to go with the real data. However, this is a cop-out because then the question becomes who judges what data is “real”? Clearly, you do not want it to be the scientific community, e.g., the IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences or the analogous bodies in the 12 other G8+5 nations, AAAS, the councils of the AGU, the APS, or the AMS, the editors of Science and Nature, etc., etc. because these bodies have all come to conclusions at odds with yours.)

    Of course, your claim is not true…It is in fact ridiculous. Even assuming your examples are truly examples of a scientific consensus being wrong (and history of science tends to be widely distorted in these sorts of claims), you know of these examples precisely because they are cases where the scientific view underwent a strong change, i.e., a paradigm shift. For every one of these people who challenged the scientific consensus successfully, there are probably 1000 who did so unsuccessfully who you haven’t heard about. A few examples include cold fusion, intelligent design, and some lunatic who mass-mailed his “theory of everything” to physics department faculty and grad students while I was a grad student.

  255. Jeff Alberts says:

    Dr. James Hansen receives the Heinz Award in the Environment for his exemplary leadership in the critical and often-contentious debate over the threat of global climate change

    I thought there was no debate…

  256. Bruce Cobb says:

    Dee Norris: Well, he has a point. Heartland is a political creature and while the conference is all we have, there is a risk that questionable science will be readily accepted in the name of politics.
    Again, Dee, you are misrepresenting what he said. He said nothing about being concerned about that supposed risk. He simply smeared Heartland, and implied that attendees were fools who were simply being used. We all know what he said. All you are doing is putting your own spin on it. Leif deserved every bit of criticism he got, and more.

  257. Dee Norris says:

    @Bruce Cobb (11:55:23) :

    If you scroll up about 4 days to this comment, Leif clarified his previous remarks:

    That was not what I meant. I was concerned about quite the opposite, namely that the good presentations [of which there will be some] will be used as support for the political agenda. I’m against science being used in this way. Now, I realize from the many negative reactions that these people may not share that view. But let me have it, please.

    I got the impression that many people ignored/missed his clarification by the continued criticism of the original remark. I apologize for not referencing it in my earlier comment.

  258. Bruce Cobb says:

    Leif: A case in point is

    http://www.heartland.org/bin/media/newyork08/PowerPoint/Monday/archibald.ppt

    Quick, someone notify Heartland. Only Leif-approved science should be offered, none other.

  259. Bruce Cobb (12:31:56) :
    Monday/archibald.ppt
    Quick, someone notify Heartland. Only Leif-approved science should be offered, none other.

    That paper was not science by any measure, as simple as that.

  260. Dee Norris says:

    @ Leif Svalgaard (12:54:31) :

    Archibald’s presentation was aimed at policy makers, not scientists. The conference is for scientists and policy makers. It is unfair to judge it as one would judge a presentation as the annual Lunar and Planetary Sciences Conference at NASA/Houston or some other science conference.

    I didn’t find it particularly compelling at a policy presentation either. There was no hook to grab the viewer and keep their interest. I would have moved the CO2 material upfront and then used a clean slide with a single question:

    If not Carbon Dioxide, then what?

    Followed by a overview of alternate causes of the late 20th Warm Period.

  261. Dee Norris (13:45:50) :
    Archibald’s presentation was aimed at policy makers, not scientists.
    All the more reason to be good science. Any scientist seeing the paper would instantly see it is bunk, but the policy makers cannot, so for them it is mandatory that the science be as good as we can make it.

  262. Bruce Cobb (12:31:56) :
    Quick, someone notify Heartland. Only Leif-approved science should be offered, none other.
    I don’t think Heartland give a hoot, as long as the paper serves their purpose.

  263. Smokey says:

    Joel Shore, as usual, misrepresents the situation.

    Even assuming your examples are truly examples of a scientific consensus being wrong…

    It’s a shame this type of propaganda has to be constantly corrected, but the fact of the matter is that the long-term consensus is that the climate naturally fluctuates, and is currently well within its normal parameters. The climate has been significantly warmer, and much, much colder in the past irrespective of carbon dioxide levels.

    Recently, however, the [repeatedly falsified] hypothesis of catastrophic runaway global warming has been put forth, challenging the consensus held for well over a century.

    As stated, the runaway global warming hypothesis is false. Furthermore, the peer review process regarding climate studies within the scientific establishment has been thoroughly corrupted, as is made crystal clear by the Wegman Report to Congress and by Prof. Richard Lindzen, each of whom is feared and loathed by those feeding at the public trough and their partisan supporters.

    Climate alarmism is now a rent-seeking industry, in which a very limited number of researchers mutually scratch each others’ backs by rubber stamping each others’ papers in the peer review process.

    This is done in order to achieve ever greater financial grants. NASA, for example, will receive more than $10 million more next year over last year’s budget, to study why their climate models are all failures. About $5 billion taxpayer dollars are currently budgeted annually for “climate” studies and research — and that number keeps climbing.

    The next time a globaloney propagandist tries to blur the line between true consensus and Al Gore’s version of “consensus” ['the science is settled'], read the Wegman Report, and Dr. Lindzen’s recent paper. Those individuals are internationally respected scientists, and deserve to be listened to more than all the political scientists pushing the failed global warming hypothesis.

    As a wise man once said, “Follow the money.”

  264. Ellie In Belfast says:

    Leif Svalgaard (14:14:20) :
    “Any scientist seeing the paper would instantly see it is bunk, but the policy makers cannot, so for them it is mandatory that the science be as good as we can make it.”

    Well said!

    If I might also add though that we need not just good science but good communicators to make the science straightforward so that others can understand it.

    I found this site in February (08) – a haven from the AGW mainstream media. I also quickly realised it was much less extreme than many ‘skeptic sites’ and it has been great to see scientific issues discussed. I have learned a lot, particularly in the last few weeks, spending far too much time reading comments and argument threads. I’d been looking for definitive arguments, causes, things to throw at AGW but I’ve had my own epiphany.

    1. It is not CO2 (I knew that); it is not the sun; it is not even warming (now); it is complicated. It is impossible to prove what it is – we have theories at best.
    2. I had become so frustrated with AGW that I was starting look for causative factors (to debunk AGW, or proove cooling) without taking a balanced view. I was in danger of being drawn into the ‘cult of skeptic extremism’.
    3. It will take years to change anything (but that won’t stop me enjoying the weather reports in the meantime!)

    So thank you for your good science and idealism. I will enjoy continuing to learn about the sun and climate but you have reminded me to think like a scientist first and foremost.

  265. Jeff Alberts says:

    As stated, the runaway global warming hypothesis is false. Furthermore, the peer review process regarding climate studies within the scientific establishment has been thoroughly corrupted, as is made crystal clear by the Wegman Report to Congress and by Prof. Richard Lindzen, each of whom is feared and loathed by those feeding at the public trough and their partisan supporters.

    And by the fact that the Hockey Stick goes unchallenged by supposedly unbiased scientists, even though serious flaws have been exposed. In fact, multiple studies using the same flawed data and methodologies all passed the vaunted “peer review”. But once passed, such things seem written in stone, regardless of the flaws, or outright fraud.

  266. Ellie In Belfast says:

    Re Ric Werme (05:22:54), Frank. Lansner (03:43:48) and MartinGAtkins (00:50:41) thread on Alex Lockwood’s presentation (Seeding doubt: how sceptics use new media to delay action on climate change). This is scary, and I’ve met this attitude many times in the UK.

    There is some research modeling how extreme opinions spread, which I found interesting (insofar as I understand it).

    http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/9/1/11.html

    (McKeown and Sheehy (2006) Mass Media and Polarisation Processes in the Bounded Confidence Model of Opinion Dynamics. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation vol. 9, no. 1)

    This is heavy going, but if I’ve understood it correctly they have modelled though simulated interactions how opinions can become polarised or reach concensus. Two types of interations: social and mass media, which can be extremist – “since the invention of the Gutenberg press it has become possible to convey opinion in a more efficient and one sided manner.”

    Thi final conclusion is interesting:
    “The model implies that extreme and divided societies [...] are likely to be found in circumstances in which individuals show little willingness to communicate outside of the point of view favoured by the community [...] and where there are strong attempts by the broadcast media to convince people to move towards extreme positions.”

    I extrapolate several things from this, suggesting AGW believers/skeptics as an example of a divided community. The current conference scenario, including the discussion about the Heartland one above keeps the division. Mainstream media and many blogs are extreme. Websites such as this that encourage debate are are seen as a threat because they are more likely to inform and aid concensus. Keep up the good work Anthony.

  267. Dee Norris says:

    @John Philip:

    I have embargoed your recent comment on this thread for review by Anthony who is traveling today.

    However, I want to take the time to explain why I embargoed it. I have received no specific guidance from Anthony in regard to you. The opinions expressed below are solely my own.

    One of the great strengths of WUWT is that Anthony welcomes all points of view for discussion. WUWT’s strength lays in that the conversations, debates, arguments are civil and generally free of personal attacks toward one another.

    In your recent comment, the points you made about the background of the person in question are important and should be discussed, but the little dig at the end of the post was unnecessary.

    Contrarian positions from knowledgeable people such as yourself are especially needed and welcome at WUWT. Knowledge only expands when challenged, debated and discussed. Without opinions like yours, WUWT risks becoming another insular group of people who blindly accept the anti-AGW position. WUWT’s readers deserve to read both sides of the debate and I encourage you to continue to defend AGW.

    So then why do so many people have difficulty with your comments?

    Along with your knowledge, your comments usually have a great deal of totally unnecessary self-righteous, smug and generally antagonistic asides whose sole purpose appears to be to inflame the conversation.

    As Anthony pointed out to Counters when he was banned, this is his house and such behavior is unwelcome. He has recently warned you about this sort of behavior. Therefore I am leaving your recent post for him to review.

    Should you eventually get banned (and that is solely Anthony’s decision in which I am not making any recommendations), understand it will NOT be because of your arguments in support of AGW – those are welcome, but because of the condescending manner in which you thrust them upon the readers here.

  268. evanjones says:

    The choices seem to be: Fight, or flight to Galt’s Gulch.

    I’ll stick around and duke it out. Back to back with Eddie Willers. They can’t have it. If they want it, they have to go through me, first. But my side may win out.

    “boots-boots-boots-boots-movin’ up an’ down again,
    An’ there’s no discharge in the war!”

  269. evanjones says:

    Monckton claims that spotting a typo in an IPCC summary report endows him with the status of Nobel Peace Laureate,

    Monckton is already so endowed merely by being an official IPCC reviewer. That he alone spotted the “typo” (nothing much–just a massive spurious increase in sea level) is the reason he actually has earned his piece of the prize.

  270. Fernando (in Brazil) says:

    Ayn Rand,,,,Great,,,(or Big..???)….evanjones…well put

  271. John Philip says:

    Evan

    In point of fact, to earn the status of IPCC Expert Reviewer all one has to do is submit a review comment and agree to abide by the Terms and Conditions of the IPCC. The comment does not have to be accepted. You or I could become an IPCC Expert Reviewer.

    And the Viscount was not the only, nor even the first person to spot the error, others did so with rather less fuss. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/02/the-ipcc-fourth-assessment-summary-for-policy-makers/#comment-24730

    cheers

  272. kim says:

    John Philip (02:51:12) I guess this means I shouldn’t be snotty to you either. I’ll try to keep that in mind.
    ===============================================

  273. Paul Maynard says:

    RE FOREIGN ATTENDANCE AT THE 2009 CONFERENCE

    Dee
    Why not set up a separate fund for donations to enable people that can contribute to the conference but can’t afford to attend. I would be willing to donate provided we could find someone to audit the cash and so on.

    This message could be spread through all the interested sites to get the widest response.

    Regards

    Paul

  274. Joel Shore:

    Read the following, where Santor (from Lawrence Livermore,

    http://esi-topics.com/nhp/2007/january-07-BenjaminDSanter.html)

    uses “consensus” and agreements between AGW-funded/biased theories and AGW-funded/biased computer models (more theory with even more approximations!) to throw out the measaurements of the real world.

    “We found rather puzzling amplification results for the UAH lower tropospheric temperatures (TLT). For “fast” (month-to-month and year-to-year) fluctuations in tropical temperatures, UAH TLT anomalies were 1.3 to 1.4 times larger than surface temperature anomalies, consistent with models, theory, and other observational datasets. But for “slow” (decade-to-decade) temperature changes, the UAH TLT trends were noticeably smaller than surface trends.

    In contrast, amplification results from nearly two dozen computer models were consistent with theory across all timescales considered, despite large differences in model structure, physics, and climate forcings.

    We also saw tropospheric amplification of surface temperature changes in a second observational TLT dataset developed by the Remote Sensing Systems group (RSS) in California. Although RSS and UAH scientists relied on the same raw MSU data, they made different decisions on how to adjust that data for the effects of drifts in satellite orbits and for instrument calibration problems.

    One possible explanation for our results is that the UAH data are reliable, and that different physical mechanisms control the response of the tropical atmosphere to “fast” and “slow” surface temperature fluctuations. If so, all models must have common errors that prevent them from capturing these different physical mechanisms, which have yet to be identified.

    A second explanation is that significant inhomogeneities remain in the UAH tropospheric temperature records, leading to residual cooling biases in the UAH long-term trend estimates. In our view, this second explanation is simpler and more plausible, given the consistency of amplification results across models and timescales, our theoretical understanding of how the tropical atmosphere should respond to sustained surface heating, and the currently large uncertainties in observed tropospheric temperature trends.”

    What Santor is deliberately saying is that “Atmospheric theory and computer climate derived from that theory agree with each other, but don’t agree with the measured data, so we must throw out the measured data because it makes our theory wrong.” (And, by the way, this disagreement means my funding and reputation are threatened.)

    Should “science” be an answer in political debates?
    Absolutely!

    But should politics be an answer in scientific debates? It is now: The IPCC IS a powerful political machine, and one that no scruples, morals, nor ethics as ot seeks to move trillions of dollars to corrupt dictators, and to the politicians that empower the bureaucrats.

  275. kim says:

    Robert A. Cook PE (17:12:25) Excellent point. I also disagree with Santer when he calls the models’ scenario ‘simpler and more plausible’. Simpler, yes; overly simplified, the regulation of the climate is extremely complicated. He has hit on one great flaw in the CO2=AGW paradigm, that is, that it is too simple. The data tells the tale.

    I suspect he’s also hit the nail on the head with his first scenario, that ‘all models must have common errors that prevent them from capturing these different physical mechanisms, which have yet to be identified’. Isn’t that practically admitting what every skeptic knows, that clouds and convection are inadequately parameterized at present?

    I think I’ve never heard so loud
    The quiet message in a cloud.

    Still louder, now, but still and all,
    Still ’tis shadows on the wall.
    =========================================

  276. kim says:

    The moon over which will have jumped the cow.
    Will o’ the wisp, optical path length Tau.
    ======================

  277. kim says:

    kim (03:52:18) Come to bed, it’s late, dear.

    -I can’t, there’s someone wrong on the internet.

    -Is your pome about models trying to mimic clouds being like a cow flying over the moon?

    -Yes, but it’s no good if you have to explain it.
    ======================================

  278. PDO negative SOI positive = Draught in USA. As the “water cycle” shows: Cold seas less evaporation=less clouds=less rain=draught. Draught=less wheat=higher prices.
    Remember William Hershel?

  279. Dan McCune says:

    Has anyone heard of the Institute for Energy Research? Since there seems to be a little controversy with Heartland sponsoring this event maybe they could get invovled – that is if they are legit too. Big Oil has got to be involved somehow I’m sure..

    http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/about-us/

  280. pkatt says:

    “Why not set up a separate fund for donations to enable people that can contribute to the conference but can’t afford to attend. I would be willing to donate provided we could find someone to audit the cash and so on.”

    This idea has a lot of merit.

    “Dr. James Hansen receives the Heinz Award in the Environment for his exemplary leadership in the critical and often-contentious debate over the threat of global climate change.”

    Why not just get your opinion of Dr. Hansen straight from the horses mouth so to speak….. http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/
    That site is his own words and his own agenda. I personally do not see any… ANY!!!! form of objectivity coming from him only his agenda. Is this the kind of scientist you want researching your future?

  281. Roger Knights says:

    A catchier and more descriptive name for this convention would help. I suggest “The Cooler Heads Convention on Global Warming”–which would be easier for TV reporters to refer to by its shorthand title, The Cooler Heads Convention.

  282. david says:

    Holton WEather Forecasting, (Australia)Hasthe following forecast
    Solar & Ocean changes are shown to be the dominant drivers of Global Temperature Trends, with CO2 playing a more minor role than previously thought, according to the Holton Weather NEW REVISED NEW Statistical Global Temperature Model HSOC M3! (These latest results show that Global Cooling now has a distinct possibility of occurring during and for the next approximate 30 to 40 year period at least)

  283. david says:

    Solar & Ocean changes are shown to be the dominant drivers of Global Temperature Trends, with CO2 playing a more minor role than previously thought, according to the Holton Weather NEW REVISED NEW Statistical Global Temperature Model HSOC M3! (These latest results show that Global Cooling now has a distinct possibility of occurring during and for the next approximate 30 to 40 year period at least)

Comments are closed.