A Gathering of “Skeptics”

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?

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…

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.

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.

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’’.

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/

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.

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.

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”

It would be great if videos of the presentations were made available online.
Preferably of high enough quality to be pleasant to watch.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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?

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.

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.

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).

Long live the (Climate) Rebellion!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

It seems that Lewis Gordon Pugh is still talking Pollocks.

Apologies for the off topic, but it appears that the Denmark Strait (between Greenland and Iceland) is freezing up:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/NEWIMAGES/arctic.seaice.some.001.png
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……..

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.

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.

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.

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!

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?

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

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.

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!

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!

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!

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.

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

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.

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.

Ice area and extent both in the normal range today.
http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/ice-area-and-extent-in-arctic

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.)

F. Rasmin. My thoughts exactly!

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

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.

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.”

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”.

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.

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.

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.
===========================================
==========================================

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

The Heartland Institute must be a bit libertarian leaning to invoke Ayn Rand.
Maybe John Galt works for them.

@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.

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.

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

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!

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.

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! 😉

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!

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.

Dee Norris (21:15:21) :
Nice.
Dee Norris (23:55:58) :
Even nicer
$10 sent to Anthony.
My thanks and best wishes,
Perry

Correction.
I shall get my coat and just leave.
Perry

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.

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.

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.
================================================

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?

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.

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..

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.