Dr. Roger Pielke Senior: support for CATO letter and advertisement

This is a perfectly legitimate approach to the problem, which like many other logical, reasonable discussions on the subject of AGW, will fail.
Look no further than the latest budget to understand why.
Of an estimated $2.7-3.2trillion, roughly $900billion in revenue comes from carbon credits/carbon taxes. In order to admit the truth regarding this discussion, the president would have no choice but to find an addition source of revenue to make up for the $900billion shortfall. Image the president going to the democratic party and explaining that they would have to cut $1trillion in spending from the budget that HE proposed.
As I’ve said before…AGW is a revenue mechanism for politicians. The fact that it’s been a funding mechanism for scientists goes hand in hand with this.
If someone could go to the president with an alternative for funding 1/3 of his budget, I’m sure he’d be much more likely to listen. Until then?…talking to a brick wall.
JimB

Not being from the US, can you tell me which newspapers this was published in ?? Would be good to forward this on but would be better if I can state which newspapers its in.

Superb. I nearly chocked on my cornflakes. This really should be paid for advertising in national newspapers. Perhaps the oil lobby would step in to pay the fees? 😉

Do you want to know the future?…all decent countries have taxed oil, added value tax, etc. “smile though your heart is aching”!

I see myself as a positive person but this will not be (allowed to be) heard.
There will be little in the way of reportage, although the MSM will take the advertising fees thank you very much. Do not expect editorial or journalistic comment. There is a new world order to uphold.
Socialism (Marxism, Environmentalism, Envy) must prevail. Lies are merely a tool to liberate us all. The dream of taxing the very air that we, the great unwashed and irrelevant, breath has come true. The UN is the last best hope for humanity.
Oh yeah, I knew I forgot something.
Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia

Monbiot is already on the attack
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/mar/30/cato-institute-advert-climate-change-scepticism?commentpage=1

It seems that the evidence against accepted IPCC stance is being undermined more regularly now. Any thinking person will have now to question the status quo.

Let us all get real here. “Real Climate” are you watching?

@jim B
Your wrote:
“The fact that it’s been a funding mechanism for scientists goes hand in hand with this.”
A longtime acquaintance is the head of the local University’s physics department. He’s retiring this spring and taking control of a solar panel start-up company.
At a recent gathering he opined that his certitude about AGW is – on a scale of 1to10 . . an 11.
He’s just received several million in grants for his company. I smiled and congratulated him. He lowered his voice and conspiratorially whispered that it probably would never be a commercial success.
I’ve known this man for years. I sat beside him at a concert after 9/11 when he complained, before our fannies hit our chair seats – that they shouldn’t have politicized the public concert by playing the Star Spangled Banner before the performance.
The recent election has in his words: liberated him from his wandering in the desert for 40 years.
Now your tax money and mine must support his leftist, Utopian,
politically-correct endeavors.
BTW. His wife has placed her icy hands on mine we we meet for coffee. She laughs about it. Their thermostat is kept turned down so that they can brag about their low to non-existent energy bills. (solar panels)
Give me a break.
If they read this, I’d lose an old friendship.
What hangs in the balance today, is more important.

These lists you skeptics come up with get funnier each time. Take Edward F. Blick – this guy is a young earth creationist:
“There are over eighty scientific indicators of a young earth. Yet, there is no mention of these in most high school biology books. Instead they state that the earth is billions of years old.”
http://www.valleyhighlands.com/Blogger/page/Bible-Frequently-Asked-Questions.aspx
This is the best you guys can come up with? What a joke!

As others have pointed out, Obama’s lavish budget depends on “carbon tax income” to succeed — even I was shocked by that. Anyhow, Obama needs the money; hence, mere facts are not enough to stop government “carbon taxes” and other questionable “green” government activities.

novoburgo (07:38:03) :
“The CATO list of diversified and impressive scientific signatories is commendable. I truly hope that JimB (07:03:43)’s conclusion is incorrect although it is very realistic. ”
Of course all the assignees are entitled to their opinions but as they are all retired, out of field or oil industry employees they can safely be ignored and ridiculed especially as they think CO2 is a harmless trace gas.
Sarcasm off.
I tire. I tire of railing against the stubborn idiocy that owns great suspicion of everything government does except this errant rubbish. The environmental movement is shooting itself in both feet with this and they are too blinded by the control it offers to see that the damage they are accumulating will last at least a generation. It won’t be a generation limited to less than 20 years by lack of clean water, medicine and electricity either. That is the truly devastating legacy of the green’s push for sustainable whatever. Too much, too soon. When the public’s disillusionment really sets in science and the eco terrorists will lose more than the rest of us put together. The money will be of little consequence.

it was in the chicago tribune, and I assume many other major papers in each major market.

And now this!
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/04/team-of-climate-sceptics-invited-to-un-copenhagen-conference/
It will be interesting to see what if this will have any impact or is it just a token gesture?

JimB (07:03:43) :”Of an estimated $2.7-3.2trillion, roughly $900billion in revenue comes from carbon credits/carbon taxes. In order to admit the truth regarding this discussion, the president would have no choice but to find an addition source of revenue to make up for the $900billion shortfall.”
I’m afraid that Jim is correct; I mean right. A few weeks back, President Obama stated that his administration will insist on only the best science in making policy decisions. What we need to do is set up well the contrast between the good climate science and the nefarious; between what the President says and what he does.
Perhaps it is axiomatic — that a politician will say anything that sounds good, only to do the opposite. Already he said he would end ear mark spending. What are we up to now, 9000 ear marks in the last spending bill? But on some level it is a reasonable argument and criticism to point out when a politician ascribes to a high ideal, only to abandon it at the earliest convenience out of political expediency.

BTW – We’re talking about skepticism of AGW and you stumble in here with young Earth theory as a retort?
Are you joking or brain dead? I hope the former.

Aron (07:40:12) :
“Monbiot is already on the attack
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/mar/30/cato-institute-advert-climate-change-scepticism?commentpage=1”
Scurrilous article and Ageist.
GM: “Half of them were old friends: David Bellamy, Pat Michaels, Martin Hertzberg, Craig and Sherwood Idso and the rest. The others are almost all either retired, not scientists, or in a completely different discipline. ”
His reference and disgust at “all either retired” is ageist and an offence in English law. The implication that by be retired the person has no value; this is now an offence.
GM does not mention two very brave signatories
STEVE JAPAR, PH.D
and
GERD-RAINERWEBER, PH.D
REVIEWER(s), INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE
Nor does GM mention:
CRAIG D. IDSO, PH.D
CENTER FOR THE STUDY OF CARBON DIOXIDE AND GLOBAL CHANGE
nor
JOSEPH S. D’ALEO
FELLOW,AMERICAN METEOROLOGICAL SOCIETY
nor
HARRY F. LINS, PH.D.
CO-CHAIR, IPCC HYDROLOGY AND WATER RESOURCES WORKING GROUP
But he does say “or in a completely different discipline. ”
Guess GM did not read their qualifications or just did not understand them.
Well done to all signatories.

That would be arguments about AGW.
Mark

BTW (07:58:46) :
These lists you skeptics come up with get funnier each time. Take Edward F. Blick – this guy is a young earth creationist:
This is the best you guys can come up with? What a joke!
Is this the best you can come up with? His views on a different subject matter, no matter how incorrect, must therefore effect his views on this subject? What a joke!!

Mark (08:33:26) :
And now this!
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/04/team-of-climate-sceptics-invited-to-un-copenhagen-conference/
It will be interesting to see what if this will have any impact or is it just a token gesture?
=================================================
Oops! Tripped up by the International Date Line?! Is this a cruel April Fool’s joke by Jennifer?

It does not matter. Our government works best when each party has control of part of the government. When one party has control of the House, Senate, and Presidency, any agenda will pass.

This is the “fifth sun” the Mayans were thinking in! 🙂

G. May –
“BTW – We’re talking about skepticism of AGW and you stumble in here with young Earth theory as a retort?
Are you joking or brain dead? I hope the former.”
Mark T –
“Soooo ad hominem is the best YOU can come up with? Look in the mirror for the joke.”
Paul S –
“Is this the best you can come up with? His views on a different subject matter, no matter how incorrect, must therefore effect his views on this subject? What a joke!!”
No, it’s not the best I can come up with.
The title of this thread IS: “support for CATO letter and advertisement” and touts that “The letter is signed by over 100 scientists”. So, like it or not, it is very much on topic to take a look at the “scientists” supporting this letter.
That Blick holds that the earth is only a few thousand years old speaks volumes to his credibility on matters of science (and BTW Paul – thats especially matters with science concerning the earth – you know, like AGW)
One would think that if you are going to trot out a list of 100 “scientists” supporting your position, you would pick the best of the best. That your list includes “scientists” such as Blick clearly shows that you are scraping the bottom of the barrel. That speaks volumes to the qulity of this list.
So Mark – it is not an ad hominem to look at the credibility of the signatories of this list when the very title of this thread touts the credibility of the signatories.

BTW (07:58:46):
These lists you skeptics come up with get funnier each time. Take Edward F. Blick – this guy is a young earth creationist:
It’s not a matter of “skepticism”, but of the correct use of the scientific methodology. We’re not just “skeptics”, but scientists who know well that AGW is full of imprecision and biased flaws. Instead examining our work AGWers make use of ad hominem logical fallacies.

Flanagan (08:11:54) :
According to a recent article in by Doran and Zimmermann, ‘Examining the Scientific consensus on Climate Change’, Eos Volume 90, Number 3, 2009; p. 22-23, about 58% of the general public in the US thinks that human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing the mean global temperature, as opposed to 97% of specialists surveyed.

Yeah, I have read this too. My question is, how many “specialists surveyed” were there? 1, 2, perhaps 3? I could not find an answer myself. Additionally, who were these “specialists”? and what makes them “specialists”? ..”specialists” of what?
Its bunk…

BTW (09:58:29) :
No, it’s not the best I can come up with.
Yet, that is what you offered.
So, like it or not, it is very much on topic to take a look at the “scientists” supporting this letter.
Again, take a look at their relevant work, not unrelated work.
That Blick holds that the earth is only a few thousand years old speaks volumes to his credibility on matters of science (and BTW Paul – thats especially matters with science concerning the earth – you know, like AGW)
No, it speaks volumes to his religious faith, nothing more. I don’t agree with him either on that point, but I don’t care.
One would think that if you are going to trot out a list of 100 “scientists” supporting your position, you would pick the best of the best.
Just because YOU don’t think they are good does not make it so.
That your list includes “scientists” such as Blick clearly shows that you are scraping the bottom of the barrel. That speaks volumes to the qulity of this list.
It is not my list, and they are only “bottom of the barrel” in your OPINION. My opinion is that Mann, Hansen, et al. are bottom of the barrel.
So Mark – it is not an ad hominem to look at the credibility of the signatories of this list when the very title of this thread touts the credibility of the signatories.
Yes, it is an ad hominem. Their credibility, in the article, is w.r.t. their knowledge of climate science, which is indisputable (to all but the likes of you).
Mark

Briggs is probably right in some aspects, btw. I agree the tactic is similar to what the “other consensus” typically uses, i.e., “we’re right because we all agree,” which doesn’t help the case of merit. Argument by authority does not really work for them, nor should it work for skeptics.
However, given that the “consensus” is what politicians are listening to, it can’t hurt to point out that it is actually weaker than they pretend. Ultimately, they (politicians) don’t care, and won’t care till people stop voting for them. They see an opportunity for money: $900 B is what Obama is expecting. Only the threat of losing an election will change these minds, not scientific merit nor a list of even 1000 skeptics.
Obama does not care about the challenge in the ad, IMO. He’s already got his justification for fleecing the US taxpayers. All he does is marginalize his critics, no different than any other elected official, and ultimately, ignore them.
Oh, and BTW, there are plenty of PhD atheists that disagree with all this nonsense, too. Many of them have even better credentials in relevant fields than “the best you can offer.”
Mark

BTW:
Is it, without arguing the facts of the matter, logical to say that what one believes in one field is invalidated because of what one believes in another field of study? Are you really prepared to say that that is a valid way to reason? Dr. Blick co-authored “Introduction to Fluid Mechanics and Heat Transfer” so whatever it says in that book must be wrong because, after all, he believes in God. Dr. Blick authored “The 1-2-3 Engineering Math Handbook: Engineering and Scientific Numerical Calculations Using Microcomputers and Lotus 1-2-3 Spreadsheets/Book and Di”, but whatever he said in that book must be wrong because, after all, he believes in a young earth! Dr. Blick was a U.S. AirForce Weatherman, but he simply must have caused great havock and failed at the job because, after all, he doesn’t believe in abiogenesis! Dr. Blick was many years at the University of Oklahoma, but he couldn’t have been a competent professor since he doesn’t like pie! Do you really want to defend the logic of this approach?
On the other hand, if you have some substantive flaw to state about his critique of AGW in “The Religion of Global Warming” or some other work, then fire away.

Agreed with Tim McHenry.
Why should one’s religious faith disqualify them as a scientist?? That is utter nonsense and a true ad hominem if there ever was one.
The real religious zealots are those deacons and presbyters and acolytes in this new odd and peculiar, but powerful, new world religion: “The New International Holy Church of the Apostles of the Anthropogenic Global Warming.”
No book-burnings or inquisition-style executions have occurred yet that we know of….
But some of the world’s leading scientists, engineers, and intelligentsia who DARE to disagree with this new Orthodoxy, are being ostracized, marginalized, and slandered on a quite regular basis….
Chris
Norfolk, VA

BTW
You found one guy that you dissagree with on the list; Wow you are amazing. Can we do the same for your lists? I think that we can come up with more than one.

While I acknowledge no groundswell just yet, the G-20 conferences, with the Prez and 500 of his most trusted staff in attendance, is an excellent opportunity for change–a messy, inconvenient change–but an opportunity one can hope will be met by patriots of vision before approbation is guaranteed.

Many on that list have no qualification or expertise in climate and many have never published a science paper relevant to human induced climate change.
Perhaps someone here might cull the list to those who have actually taken the time to contribute to the science in recent years. A handy place to start is http://www.eecg.utoronto.ca/~prall/climate/climate_authors_table.html .

gary gulrud (11:29:48) :
“While I acknowledge no groundswell just yet, the G-20 conferences, with the Prez and 500 of his most trusted staff in attendance”
Non non non non G19 conference! G19!!!
Want to guess who has already taken the huff!?
Who wants their own way or they are not playing?
If they do not get what they want, they are walking out.
Want a “oui” wee clue?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7974190.stm
“If France were to leave the summit, it would be a blow to both UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown and US President Barack Obama.”
Well that mucks the G conference up.

I see that list is about 601 names short- 700 have signed this:http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/9505
and then there is freeman dyson: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/magazine/29Dyson-t.html?_r=1
Not news to anyone here, I’m sure.

OT.
And yet another 20 day period with no sunspot activity. That makes what 6,7 such periods this minimum? Far more than any period since 1900.

How can you carry on a discussion with people who refuse to use logic?

UK John (11:54:18) :
Climate AGW Alarmist blinded by self interest and self belief.
Climate AGW Skeptic blinded by Cynicism and mistrust.
Does it matter?
Blinded! Oh no!
I thought it was just dark in here!

DJ:
You say: “Many on that list have no qualification or expertise in climate and many have never published a science paper relevant to human induced climate change.”
Name Einstein ring any bells? Unpublished when he came up with e = mc^2. Name Wright Brothers mean anything to you? Not scientists but drop outs.
In the world of scientific discovery, many of the greatest discoveries were not by Ph.D scientists.
Dr. Hathaway has predicted the start of Solar Cycle 24 several times. His predictions have not come true. http://www.solarcycle24.com/news.htm. Does the fact that he has papers published on the solar cycle, mean that we should believe the cycle started way back in 2007. Does it really matter if a paper is published or not when it comes down to whether it is fact or not.
Your argument as all who use such tactics are no less than a complete subterfuge of the truth.

I hate to rain on the parade, but this letter won’t make a bit of difference. It’s like a gnat to an elephant. Is it true? Absolutely. Is the President, an official member of the Alarmist Brigades, going to change one wit of his stance on global warming? Nope. The only thing that may moderate his stance is the self-preservation instinct politicians seemed to have honed to work under the economic and political pressures we face today.

Global warming, global schmarming. This problem has already been solved.

sod (12:01:20)
There was nothing of substance to respond to in the 2nd half of your comments, but once again the logic escapes me:
Why Newton believed the answers to questions about the future of the earth were bound up in the BIBLE of all things, therefore we should discount all that stuff about math, physics, and other silly notions of his, eh?

Barry (12:16:43) :
How can you carry on a discussion with people who refuse to use logic?
Reminds me of a story from the 1770’s.
That was the time of James Hutton and the problems that he was faced with in 1770’s Scotland.
“There are no such things as Volcanoes”, the Neptunists told him.
He replied, “What about Etna and Stromboli?”
“They are coal mines which are on fire”, they retorted.
What a put down!! Coal mines on fire. Good one. Most people had seen a coal mine on fire!! Bang! Flames!!
“Wait a minute, wait a minute, there is no coal at Etna or Stromboli.”
“Well just shows you that the fires have burnt up all the coal.”
“So there”.
So how do you carry on a discussion with people who refuse to use logic, well quite simply you cannot they have a belieif they have a faith.
They just know!!
Hutton he produce a book “Theory of the Earth”.
Quite a book, even today.
Totally unreadable, trust me, but never a less quite a book.

AGW alarmists are just too set in their religion. They are believers and followers, not thinkers or users of common sense. 99% of believers that I get into global warming talks with always have the same answer:
me: so why do you believe that c02 is going to fry up the earth?
them: i heard it on the news
They kind of remind me of kids believing in Santa Claus. You believe because you believe anything your parents tell you. Some of us grow up and learn to research and think for ourselves.. others, well we never learn and continue to live our lives on propoganda.

solenadon (12:46:14) :
So
I like this response to this little mess…
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/mar/30/cato-institute-advert-climate-change-scepticism
Read the comments. Monbiot gets shown up.

OH…. and to BTW and DJ:
You like to pick apart people from this list who are not up to your “credible standards”.. yet you worship the Oh Mighty Goracle.. Were you people aware that Gore majored in History. He is an arts student.. An arts student is not a science student.. The majority of environmental activists are arts students. His opinion is bias. He probably signed the petition to ban dehydrogen monoxide. How can you pick apart 1 or 2 of the thousands upon thousands of skeptical scientists, but yet you praise your leader Al Gore. Hypocrites.

solenadon (12:46:14) :
So
I like this response to this little mess…
Don’t you mean….Solenodon?

Hareyreynolds above feels are witnessing a phenomenon. I agree, we are witnessing and participating in the last throw of the dice for the green left.
Participation is the key, not just posting comments.
I regard this blog, and others as valuable resources for my own anti-AGW musings, we have been handed this technological tool at a desperate time, and it must be used…thanks Anthony, from New Zealand.

I wonder if Hathaway et al. could predict how long this “green cycle” will be, hope it will also follow SSN 🙂

DJ (11:55:14) :
Many on that list have no qualification or expertise in climate and many have never published a science paper relevant to human induced climate change.
– And how many people on the IPCC panel fit into this category…….?
Wasn’t it only ~20% !

sod (12:01:20)
…and i agree with BTW.
a person who has written such a book
http://www.amazon.com/Scientific-Analysis-Genesis-Edward-Blick/dp/1879366126
shouldn t be on a list of scientists handling climate change.
a person who does believe that the earth is 10000 years old can NOT understand climate change.
Apparently sod, you and “BTW” either don’t understand the logical fallacy of the ad hominem argument, or are merely pretending to. In any case, here, for your edification is the wicki definition:
“An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: “argument to the man”, “argument against the man”) consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the source making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.
The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.”

“DJ (11:55:14) :
Many on that list have no qualification or expertise in climate and many have never published a science paper relevant to human induced climate change.
Perhaps someone here might cull the list to those who have actually taken the time to contribute to the science in recent years. A handy place to start is …”
Amazing. You can pretty much tell when an article is considered “dangerous” by your side, because the troll activity increases significantly.
I don’t think that either you or BTW want to try and trade Kooks, because frankly, your side isn’t looking so hot either.
Have either of you explained why Hansen won’t release his algorithms for temp adjustments?
Mann? Steig?
Doesn’t that bother you in the least bit?…and if the answer is no, then we know that you really have no interest in the science itself.
So instead of playing “lets pick out the nutjob on your side” games, lets talk about true transparency in science.
JimB

I don’t see where Mr. Blick’s religious views matter. Now if BTW would care to offer a reasonable critique of Blick’s work on heat transfer and fluid mechanics, I would be willing to take the time to read it and see if there is anything to it. (I won’t hold my breath.)

There is a good reason people would lob an ad hominem argument rather than a legitimate argument.
Mark

Thanks, Sod, for your reference. Now I understand how there is still “global warming” even though the temperature is going down. It makes perfect sense, true?

Some, of those who follow this, and similar, blogs, have contacted their elected representatives to tell them that they have serious doubts about the soundness of the empirical and theoretical evidence that underpins the case for AAGW (Apocalyptic, Anthropogenic Global Warming).
Some appear less than delighted with the reply that they may, or may not, receive.
To aid future historians with their study of our current, and highly interesting, times may I make a suggestion that a web-site be created, if not already done so, that concentrates, categorizes and, consequently, archives, party by party, politician by politician, word by word, unequivocal time-stamped correspondences!
Perhaps, the political recognition of the dangers posed by AAGW and the environmental, cultural and fiscal measures needed to combat such dangers, may turn out to be the most far-sighted contribution to the well-being of our planet and its denizens since the Earl of Sandwich made the teleconnection with sliced bread and invented the Wellington boot!
Maybe or maybe not.
I suspect that if AAGW turns into a giant finger-pointing, blame-diverting exercise that legions of defecting politicians will resort to a Nuremburg defense along the lines of “But the IPCC told us- as did NASA- and all those scientists said…Even the POTUS himself! We only were obeying orders”
Don’t let them weasel out of it. Tell them that an alternative viewpoint not only exists but is gaining momentum; they can’t hide behind the umbrella of misled ignorance. Let them answer or not- but document their reactions when you expose their disinterest in that the Science is far from settled! They are politicians- they are part of History- and, like all of us- they crave to be well-remembered.
Maybe strap-lines for such a site could be:
“Didn’t the alarm bells go off in your head when Global Warming changed into Climate Chaos?”
“When the US government came up with a near-trillion Dollar invention and they didn’t patent it- why didn’t you ask a question, or two?”
Or, and maybe a wee bit below the belt.
“What did you do in the Climate Wars, Daddy?”
Any one out there, philanthropically disposed, concerned sufficiently and able enough, to take this on?
Just a wee thought!

Was this letter only intended for the President? Or, could it be placed on the front page at Yahoo in one of the advertising spaces, preferably the large one on the right side near the top?
I would contribute to that.

Benjamin P. (15:15:23) :
but I can recognize good science when I see it.
Then consider the man’s relevant science, rather than his irrelevant nonsense. I would consider that a solid understanding of fluid dynamics would certainly be relevant to climate science, as would a solid understanding of the concepts of software modeling, or statistical signal processing, or physics… understand? Most “climate scientists” are not actually “climate scientists” in the first place.
Mark

Just Want Truth… (15:23:53) :
Check the comments at the end of her post.

Antonio San (10:34:38) : Every time, for sake of discovery, I venture on reading either Monbiot’s column or a Desmogblog type website, every single time, I feel the chill of the “green star”
It’s good to see that Monbiot’s respondents are demolishing him more and more; yet he hasn’t apparently noticed.

Whatever SOD’s personal beliefs, and whether he knows it or not, he makes a valid point.
CATO, in retaining and publishing Professor Blick’s signature, diminishes the impact of the letter. It has allowed the alarmists to attack Blick’s creationist writings rather than discuss or debate the message in the letter.
I personally am disappointed in Dr. Michaels for not catching this.

Peter S (16:29:17) :
‘…yuppie self-loathing. ”
I like it!
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/chris_ayres/article6011157.ece

The implication of the Cato letter is basically that “things will be o.k.” When is the last time anyone saw a media piece touting “normal” or “O.K.”? That kind of message has no place in a blizzard of “grab ’em by the lapels” stories such as “Single virgin ejects eight babies into startled physicians lap!” or “We’re all going to burn up and die!”
What is needed to compete with Gore’s and Hansen’s death-grip on the news media is a statement by 100 concerned scientists that “The sun is dying and we’re all going to freeze to death!” Once the media’s imagination is properly aroused, a plathora of stories will burst forth with lives of their own: “California directly in glacier path to Mexico!” “Scientific studies show New York Harbor to be left twenty feet above sea level!” “Prince Charles says we’re at a ‘tipping point’ with only 90-days left to begin burning more coal before all is lost!” “Dr. James Hansen warns windmills are ‘death fans’!”

“D. King (14:48:02) :
JimB (14:16:46) :
So instead of playing “lets pick out the nutjob on your side” games, lets talk about true transparency in science.
JimB
Boxer, on the Senate floor, just had her Cap and Trade
amendment voted into law.
They have no interest in transparency Jim!”
My point exactly, but my comment was directed towards the trolls, not the politicians.
JimB

Benjamin P:
Rueters has run pieces claiming that it’s $650Billion:
“WASHINGTON, Feb 26 (Reuters) – U.S. President Barack Obama’s estimate of $646 billion in revenue for the first years of a carbon-capping program to curb climate change is realistic or possibly a little low, policy analysts said on Thursday.”
Some analysts say that”s low, some say it’s high.
JimB

Cathy (15:29:41) :
Must watch video with accompanying essay on the symbolic dimming of civilization during Earth Hour:
http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/6970.html#

LOL at the helicopter filming the lights going out on Christ the Redeemer.
Reply: I’ve flown around that statue in a helicopter tour but with much less grand visions of purpose. ~ charles the moderator

To: Roger Knights (16:41:33) : Thank You! Thank you. I forwarded your citings to Mr. Joe Romm…a person who, I hope, can gain a bit of education with facts, not just mainstream media hype based upon Hansenism and the Book of Goracle. I also hope the next time folks of his ilk and their websites, will tone down the the AGW “facts” and present BOTH sides. RealClimate and ClimateProgress should at least publish the reasonable skeptic comments rather than snipping them out-of-hand, regardless of merit of an argument.
Furthermore, I urge everyone to know the opposition: I am amazed by the underlying tones of RealClimate.org and ClimateProgress.org . They keep saying the “debate is over” (when we all know there wasn’t ever a debate. The alarmists refuse to debate anyway). And I am particularly annoyed when AGW folks say the skeptics (many of us) are using arguments that have been “debunked a long time ago”. I am sorry, science is never debunked, it merely gets more and more exact, and more conclusive after scrutiny of data, observation and review.
We all know the history of scientific “consensus”. Flat earth, junk DNA, pandemics, E=MC2, etc. We are still working on string theory, the benefits of vitamins… and my local forcaster STILL can’t get my San Diego weather correct for more than a day at a time.
Keep the facts coming about Urban Heat Islands, Icecaps recovering, oceans cooling. One day, President Obama will listen and Gore can go back to inventing IPv7.0 for the Internet.

Robert Bateman (17:56:27)
Well ******* said, Rob.
Chris

Roger Knights (18:04:08) :
Napoleon enters Moscow.
(They’ll win and win until they lose.)
Yes……Yes slow and painfully!
Too funny Roger!

The full page ad appeared in Monday, March 30th Los Angeles Times in the front section. Anthony, your good friend Jim Goodridge’s name is there.
REPLY: Yes I noted that. I had an opportunity to put my name there also, but given that there was limited space, and I knew Jim would sign, I wanted to make certain that he got the opportunity. As former State Climatologist, his presence was far more important than mine. I reach more people through WUWT anyway. – Anthony

“Lance (19:42:13) : Sadly, this letter is not a victory.”
Gee Lance, put on a happy face, would ya!

Paul S: “BTW (09:58:29): I fail to see your point.”
The CATO advertisement seeks to persuade the reader to a particular point of view on the basis of a list of named scientists. It doesn’t take a climate scientist to understand that the credibility of the persuasion depends on the credibility of the names listed.
An ad hominen argument attempts to undermine a claim by introducing an unrelated claim. In the present case, the issue is the credibility of the names. Therefore, any claims about the names on the list are not ad hominen.
On the matter of young-earth creationism, since the earth is around 4.5 billion years old, and YEC believes in a 10,000 year-old earth, a young-earth creationist is heavily compromised when making statements on earth science.
Further, YEC is not just a religious belief. It is a claim to scientific knowledge. Therefore, anyone who espouses young-earth creationism is making a scientific claim, and can be judged on scientific criteria.

To answer the question on how many scientists state they support AGW, the number is 82% of the 3000+ earth scientists.
http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

“Aron (12:59:51) :
I like this response to this little mess…
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/mar/30/cato-institute-advert-climate-change-scepticism
Read the comments. Monbiot gets shown up.”
Just did. Great stuff – looks like a worm turning to me. Especially impressed by INGSOC1984 comments there.

Brendan H (22:35:16)
It IS ad hominem if it is not on the same topic as piece they are signing. You attempted to show that the criticism was on target by saying that what someone believes about a past, non-repeatable, non-observable event is germain to a discussion of present temp. readings and testable near-future models! It’s once again like saying that Einstein could not be qualified to speak on General Relativity because he believed in the God of Spinoza! If you want to discredit Blick or any other signer then you must discredit their work and comments on AGW!!

CATO Rawks! I hope they keep up the good work and more people start to listen to them.

sod (05:22:09) :
Off.

MattB (06:28:48) :
“David Bellamy? Was this list put together without enough time to get better than Bellamy?”
There are few people involved with this sham who hold more respect with the public than this man. Amongst the first to stand up and point out the utter lack of science and the total swamp of politics this issue brings, he has been attacked, smeared and had his livelihood trashed because he had the temeriity to point out that all the “relevant authorities”, such as the Royal Society, that the warmista labour on and on and on about are ALL tools of agenda and have become corrupt influences.
No-one had more right to point this out. No-one has shown more courage in the face of the assault. No-one has lost more as a result of exposing the lies and downright terror tactics of those who would rule us totally and disinform us utterly.
I suppose my amswer to you would be, even if they spent a year searching they would be hard pressed “to get better than Bellamy”.

@JLKrueger (01:03:52) :
Thanks for that. So its over a decade, and not a single budget as JimB made it appear in his comment.
I knew 900 Billion for a single budget seemed a bit off the mark.
@ Nasif Nahle (15:33:50) :
Using old scientist as evidence for scientists who where creationist but still did good science is apples and oranges. Almost everyone back in the day was a pretty devote religious person. The thing is, we know SO much more about the Earth and the origins of the earth and universe today.
I find it absolutely absurd for folks who claim to be scientists to hold a YEC view of the world. Even more so when trying to speak on climate science.
How can a person speak on climate when they think the earth is less than 10,000 years old? Sure, he may understand fluid dynamics, but what must be his thoughts on some of our oldest ice cores? The power of God made them look older? Or was it the devil trying to trick us?
That does not seem like standard reasoning and objectivity one needs when approaching science. The problem with creationism is the “scientist” has an answer and is looking for the evidence. Like many on both sides of the climate debate, here on this blog, and on other blogs boasting the opposite view.
Ben

@Burch Seymour (07:27:09) :
I don’t think the Goreacle ever claimed to be a scientist though? And he certainly did not sign a list of “Scientists” to try and make a point one way or another.
Thats the difference. The CATO folks are ideologues and have little interest in the climate debate beyond the politics. They tossed up a list of scientists and we are all supposed to go, “Oh and Aw, look at all those names they must be right” like this fantasy idea that concensous means anything.
I find it ironic that folks here are happy to cheer this “consensus” list and then dog on consensus if someone says something like “97% of scientists believe that man is effecting climate”
Ben

Benjamin P. (08:14:57) :
I find it ironic that folks here are happy to cheer this “consensus” list and then dog on consensus if someone says something like “97% of scientists believe that man is effecting climate”
I find it humorous that you completely miss the point. It’s not about this being a consensus. It’s about the simple fact that this busts the myth of your consensus (your silly 97% figure). Read a little deeper, Benjamin.
Mark

deadwood (08:08:48) :
You are 100% correct, deadwood. Even this late in the thread, folks such as Benjamin P hypocritically tout the ad hominem as some sort of proof the guy is wrong, while failing to address what Blick is actually known to be good at. Why? Because Benjamin P cannot address Blick’s salient points in a coherent argument. He has to hide his own failings behind an insult.
Mark

Nasif Nahle (08:45:38) :
Please, tell me which of their scientific assertions is wrong and demonstrate why they are wrong.
If he could do that he wouldn’t have to marginalize the CATO signatories as ideologues.
Mark

I remember reading about that, at least, the liquification process. I wondered what happened.
Mark

Your check won’t be 50% higher once per year, Smokey, what gets taken out of every paycheck, however, will be. 😉
What will happen, btw, is that more and more domestic manufacturing will move overseas to 3rd world nations that are exempt from the treaties that force CO2 regulation. That means the goal of deconstructing the US economy will have been achieved.
What angers, and saddens me, is that some of the people pushing for this know what it will do, and are in fact counting on it. Most, however, are incapable of seeing outside their blinders.
Mark

sod (10:06:14):
our climate is NOT cooling. there is ZERO data supporting your claim.
Really? What was the mean change of temperature in 1998? What was the mean change of temperature in 2007? And up to date?
∆T 1998 = 0.51 K
∆T 2007 = 0.29 K
∆T 2008 – 2009 = 0.09 K
∆T + Tstd 1998 = 351.15 K
∆T + Tstd 2007 = 300.44 K
∆T + Tstd 2008 – 2009 = 300.24 K
(Data from AMSU2-UAH and satellites).
Is it warming or cooling?

sod (11:44:04) :
i chose my words very carefully: our climate is NOT cooling.
Yes, that’s what you wrote.
5 years is NOT climate. 1 year is NOT climate.
What’s climate? Perhaps 400 BD is “climate”?
the “cooling” from 1998 is IRRELEVANT for climate, as there is warming when starting from 1997 (and every year before, for the whole period affected by by human CO2 emissions…) and 1999.
Thanks… Got two questions:
1. What “cooling” is relevant for climate?
2. Do you mean we humans have been here on Earth for the last 3.8 billion years emitting CO2?

deadwood (16:27:18) :
“CATO, in retaining and publishing Professor Blick’s signature, diminishes the impact of the letter. It has allowed the alarmists to attack Blick’s creationist writings rather than discuss or debate the message in the letter.
I personally am disappointed in Dr. Michaels for not catching this.”
Sigh. Now you want your own version of political correctness. I completely disagree. Those such as SOD are spouting hate speech. This should be pointed out with no further discussion.
why is everyone answering SOD et al as if there is a valid argument to answer?

@ Mark T (08:43:52) :
Mark my point was that consensus means little, read the paragraph I wrote above the one you quoted. I think it’s ironic that consensus seems a good thing when you are a member of that particular view point.
Man you folks go rabid if someone says something that does not fit your consensus!
@ Smokey (09:34:18) :
Smokey, I am not an advocate of cap and trade. JimB said “900 Billion in the latest budget” I thought that was a bit high, which it was, that was 900 billion over 10 years. That’s all my question was. Thanks for the treatise though.
@ Mark T (08:47:35) :
Listen Mark, its my OPINION that a person claiming to be a scientist has credibility issues being a YEC. Sorry if you don’t agree. He may be a great fluid dynamics physicists, but MY OPINION is still that I have a hard time taking him seriously. Does that make me a bad person in your eyes? Clearly it does based on your responses. I think you need to relax a little, maybe wipe some of that froth from your lips!
@ Nasif Nahle (08:45:38) :
I was simply saying that the folks are CATO are ideologues, which is true. They are likely the last place I would look for any thing on climate science.
I am not an “Alarmist” or an “AGWer” or a “Deiner” or any of those other fun labels we all come up with for each other. I think the science is NOT settled on the climate discussion, and I wish there was more discussion on the SCIENCE rather than the politics. Although I understand why the politics is brought into the discussion.
Ben

I was looking at the sun image this morning and I said to myself, “Look at that new sun spot!” and it turns out, it was just a some crud on my monitor.
Ben

deadwood (08:08:48) :
Just Want Truth… (17:29:54) :
i dont know why you said this to me.

@ Lance (18:07:20) :
Indeed, however, it is very difficult scientifically to argue a for a young earth. YEC is based on the idea first, and looking for the evidence second. If a person is happen to embrace that model for doing science with one aspect, why should I believe that they don’t use the same model for all their science?
Should I believe that he understands his YEC views are errant, and he can be objective about other aspects of science?
Ben

sod (11:44:04) :
Thanks for the bold print. If you shout that means people start to listen? Or is that you whistling louder as you pass the cemetery?
The earth is in a cooling trend. It is cooler on earth now that it was during the Medieval Warming Period, and that includes 1998. And, it was even warmer on earth during the Roman Wring Period than during the Medieval Warming Period.
The earth is cooling sod. The recent warming ended in 1998. And there is a clear cooling trend since 2004. This cooling was never predicted by Al Gore.

Burch Seymour:
“BH: It doesn’t take a climate scientist to understand that the credibility of the persuasion depends on the credibility of the names listed.
BS: Two words: Al Gore”
If Al Gore were to use his background in government or law to support his scientific claims, then you would have a case. Otherwise, not.
The issue here is the credibility of the scientists named in the Cato ad. The fact that Cato has used these scientists to support a claim that President Obama is wrong means that the credibility of those scientists is a legitimate issue.
If the credibility of the names didn’t matter, Cato could simply have used the names of 100 sceptics picked at random. It didn’t do so because it was banking on the force of the names it chose. Since the Cato ad is based on the credibility of its named scientists, it is legitimate to examine their credentials.

What’s climate? Perhaps 400 BD is “climate”?
climate is average weather, over a longer period. 30 years is a number often mentioned.
Nonsense. Results are results, they live or die on their own merit. It does not matter if he thinks God told him how to work the formulas used to obtain his results, if they are correct, they are correct, if they are wrong, they are wrong.
i pointed out that the claim about “no net global warming for over a decade now” is false.
i have noticed, that nobody has brought up any evidence to support this claim.
so Blick has signed a false claim. no surprise, as he also thinks that earth is only 10000 years old.
someone with such a believe can be right on any climate issue, only by chance.
somebody who believes that earth is flat, can NOT understand the climate of our planet. neither can a person, who thinks that it is only 10000 years old.

sod (04:36:30) :
What’s climate? Perhaps 400 BD is “climate”?
climate is average weather, over a longer period. 30 years is a number often mentioned.
That’s the definition forged by the IPCC and spread out by ehow.com and wikipedia. I have the scientific description on what climate is:
Statistical description in terms of the mean and variability of meteorological elements, including temperature, precipitation, and wind, that characterize the general conditions of the atmosphere over a period of time ranging from months to thousands or millions of years.
Thus the period from which Smokey concludes the Earth is cooling is scientifically valid.
That number of years (“30 years is a number often mentioned”) is no more than an attempt on downgrading climate.
Scientists consider the climate of a region during lapses much smaller than one decade; although, we extend our researches over periods longer than 30 years. For example, to understand the last negligible warming, which concluded in 1998, we must analyze the climate over at least the last 2000 years or, better, over the last 12000 years.
If you evaluate the temperature fluctuations during the last 20 thousand years, you’d easily confirm that the Earth is not only cooling, but actually it is getting glacial.

Benjamin P. (13:48:30) :
I am not an “Alarmist” or an “AGWer” or a “Deiner” or any of those other fun labels we all come up with for each other. I think the science is NOT settled on the climate discussion, and I wish there was more discussion on the SCIENCE rather than the politics. Although I understand why the politics is brought into the discussion.

Not sure what a “Deiner” is 😉 But your single phrase “I think the science is NOT settled on the climate discussion” makes you a denier by AGW standards.
Welcome to the club!

Benjmain P. (07:33:43) :
Short term trends trump everything, right Smokey?
Strawman alert. Smokey never said that, nor did he imply that.
Mark