The Empty Chamber

Guest post by Ken Haapala who attended the Markey-Waxman BEST briefing on Monday.


“Where are they?” the lady sitting beside me asked out loud, looking around anxiously.

“Who?” I inquired.

“The press!” she said, “The place was packed the last time.” Apparently, she was referring to a hearing held in the spring of 2010. Indeed, the usual staff was setting up the television cameras and the typical photo opportunities, but nothing unusual. No commotion on Monday, November 14, 2011.

The US House of Representatives National Resources Committee Room is a deep, chamber-shaped room, dominated by a large, elongated horseshoe-shaped table adequate for seating the 48 members of the Committee with sufficient room for several staffers to sit behind each member. At the open end of the horseshoe, a table was set up for the three speakers: Professor Richard Muller of the BEST project, Ben Santer of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, and William Chameides, Dean of Duke University’s Nicholas School of the Environment and Vice-Chair of the National Academies’ Committee on America’s Climate Choices. The three scientists appeared early, assuring that their visual presentations would work properly. Behind them were three rows of chairs totaling about 40 seats for the audience.

“No one is here,” the lady stated, looking at the small audience.

“Perhaps they were not notified,” I commented, hoping to be reassuring.

“That’s impossible,” she retorted, “I notified everyone I know.”

The Press Release of the event had announced: Congressional Climate Briefing to Push “End of Climate Change Skepticism.”

As the two o’clock hour approached, a number of legislative staffers dutifully filed in, filling the many empty chairs. TV cameramen despise a void.

“Will there be only two!” the lady exclaimed, noting that only two chairs were prepared for members of the Committee, both at the bend in the horseshoe, as far from the speakers and audience as possible.

There were only two:

Of a total of 48 members, only Ranking Member Edward Markey attended, along with Representative Harry Waxman (who is not a member of the Committee). Two years ago, both were powerful congressmen who were well known for their environmental advocacy. That day, the other 19 Democrats (there is a vacancy) and all of the 27 Republican members of the Committee had other business. There were no announced regrets.

Rep. Markey began the briefing with stock claims that his opponents are anti-science and that today’s briefing would reveal the scientific basis for global warming. Rep. Waxman reinforced Markey’s statements with more blunt statements as to the anti-science nature of the Republican Party.

Professor Muller presented himself as a former skeptic, but he couched his skepticism as questioning the quality of the land-base surface measurements – according to him 70% of measuring stations in the US are poorly sited with a possible error of 2 to 5 degrees C. He evaded the real issue: that most skeptics: realize that temperatures have risen, but question that human emissions of carbon dioxide are the principal cause of global warming.

He presented his research of some 39,000 stations and admitted some 13,000 of which show a cooling. His conclusions were that the poor quality of siting is not introducing a bias, that there is virtually no urban heat island effect, and there is little bias from the removal of stations covered by NOAA, NASA-GISS, and CRU. Questions concerning his research have been discussed in The Week That Was by SEPP and elsewhere.

Muller failed to mention that he told Judith Curry that the title of his Wall Street Journal op-ed, which was incorporated in the press briefing, was chosen by the editors; that he questioned the human influence on global warming; that his calculations of temperatures show no warming for the past ten years; that he has suggested that the cause for the pause in warming is a change in ocean oscillations, and that there is a disconnect between land surface data and atmospheric data.

Ben Santer began his comments with a reference to Katrina and the flooding of New Orleans. He did not mention that environmental groups had used the Federal National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to block a barrier system that would have prevented the major flooding of New Orleans from Katrina. Perhaps Reps. Markey and Waxman would not have cared to be reminded of the consequences of some Federal environmental laws.

Santer stated he has been involved with all four UN IPCC reports and emphasized that he inserted in the second report that humans have a discernable impact. He did not mention that he inserted this statement after the document was fully approved by all reviewers – an act that Fredrick Seitz publically stated was the worst abuse of the peer-review process he had witnessed in fifty years of involvement in American science.

Santer reminded the members he testified before the same committee in the spring of 2010. There was no recognizable acknowledgement of the statement by the two members attending.

Among other comments, Santer emphasized the only natural causes of temperature changes are changes in solar irradiance and aerosols from volcanoes, the standard IPCC claims. He failed to mention changes from ocean oscillations, the solar-cosmic ray influence, or other influences.

Most interestingly, after disparaging the satellite temperature data from the University of Alabama, Huntsville, for a small error since corrected, Santer presented a straight line graph from the beginning of the data to the end point – falsely implying the data indicates a trend. The data demonstrates a discontinuous jump in temperatures, indicating a cause contrary to the carbon dioxide claim. Santer’s straight line hides the meaning of the data.

William Chameides began his presentation emphasizing America’s Climate Choices. The publication is an excellent example of the logical fallacy of a false dilemma. It uses highly speculative projections from unverified computer models to present an unrealistic choice about global warming. Then, it provides an economically destructive choice as the alternative. Projections from unverified computer models are scientifically meaningless. Such is the standard of science of the National Research Council.

After a few minutes into the Chameides talk, I decided to leave to beat the traffic, almost feeling sorry for the staffers who had to sit through the remainder of briefing – a rehash of dubious science from a bygone era presented on the behalf of two once powerful Congressmen in the empty chamber.

Nov 17, 2011

92 thoughts on “The Empty Chamber

  1. How is it that Muller is always referred to as a former skeptic? He is never referred as a former “D” word. You will note they always grant him a level of respect they never give to someone like Lindzen. It is all smoke and mirrors, former skeptic, yeah right.

  2. Great report. Thanks. And I hadn’t realized Ben Santer had added that statement after peer review. Good to know.

  3. Another Gotcha! moment, Anthony. Great way to celebrate the 5th Birthday.
    Well done, you and Ken.

  4. Brilliant summary, Ken :)

    dubious science from a bygone era presented on the behalf of two once powerful Congressmen in the empty chamber

    My favorite lines…

  5. The staffers are the true power in Congress and this report shows why.
    They have to endure the often dull testimony, but that makes them the people the Representatives will listen to when it comes time to write a bill. Politics is not governing, that is what the staffers do.
    Anyone who wishes to influence the Government must get to know the staffers and work with them.

  6. This is how it ends… with a whimper as even the proles finally begin to understand the lies, fraud and deceit.

    Just like chicken little.

  7. Given the recent failure of Solyndra, I would imagine most politicians want to distance themselves from a potential mud bath.

    Showing up at this briefing on Monday (November 14, 2011) when Energy Secretary Steven Chu is set to testify today (November 17, 2011) before the House Energy and Commerce Committee could be political suicide. Especially with an August Rasmussen poll shows: “69% Say It’s Likely Scientists Have Falsified Global Warming Research”http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/environment_energy/69_say_it_s_likely_scientists_have_falsified_global_warming_research

    And that poll is followed by a Oct 24 opinion piece: “Cult of Global Warming Is Losing Influence” http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/cult_of_global_warming_is_losing_influence

    The “80% of ‘Green Energy’ Loans Went to Top Obama Donors” was just posted yesterday on November 16, 2011, but those with an ear to the ground may have been aware of the article sooner. I am sure there are a few sighs of relieve from those who might have considered attending the meeting but decided to send a staffer instead.

    http://biggovernment.com/whall/2011/11/16/80-of-green-energy-loans-went-to-obamas-top-donors/

    I think the “Cult of Global Warming” may soon be viewed as an albatross and avoided by savvy politicians. Especially if the green energy loan scandal gains traction.

  8. They obviously were not sworn in to ‘tell the truth, the WHOLE truth and nothing but the truth, so help me Gaia’

  9. If your report represents an accurate summary of what they said, then I am embarrassed for Waman, Markey, Muller and Santer. Very clearly a propaganda affair, with little regard for getting at the truth.

  10. Most people couldn’t give crap about “climate change”. Most people just want to pay the rent and feed the family. Are politicians finally seeing which way the wind is blowin’?

  11. Pack them all off to Greece. No wait, Greece is coming here in a few short years. Time to pack up the tents and locking in the grants and federal loans to all their network of friends before financial winter sets in (and with declining AMO, PDO).

  12. When I was a kid we went to the circus. The place was almost empty. Even the clowns were sad.
    I can imagine what was going through Ben Santer’s mind when he was addressing the “crowd”.
    “I have been involved in all four IPCC reports” he may have started looking at the empty congressmen section. He would have been sad.

  13. Anthony, it must be frustrating to have someone claim your work is irrelevant. The good thing is, they are going out of their way to make it look irrelevant. Tells me you are right on target. Slow and steady, straight on ’til morning!

  14. David Ball says:
    November 17, 2011 at 7:49 pm
    Most people couldn’t give crap about “climate change”. Most people just want to pay the rent and feed the family. Are politicians finally seeing which way the wind is blowin’?

    I think our politicians don’t care which way the wind is blowing unless it is putting money in their pockets. The days of patriotic politicians are long past – assuming there was ever such a time.

  15. Well, when Obama destroys your economy, you don’t really have time to worry about a minuscule climate change that is not caused by man, and won’t have any effect on your life.

  16. Ben Santer is the poster boy for the modern Lysenkoism called “climate science”. He re-wrote the Summary for Policy Makers of the 1996 IPCC report AFTER it had been peer reviewed and accepted by the other lead authors.

    The story is at: http://www.sepp.org/science-editorials.cfm?whichcat=Organizations&whichsubcat=International%20Panel%20on%20Climate%20Change%20%28IPCC%29

    Here is what Frederick Seitz, past president of the NAS said about Santer in an August 13, 1996 Wall Street Journal article: “In my more than 60 years as a member of the American scientific community, including service as president of both the National Academy of Sciences and the American Physical Society, I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report.”

  17. Hard to believe these are scientists. Muller is no longer a skeptic because the data shows warming- well duh, the nobody’s questioning whether there has been some warming. The debate is about the cause(s), the rate, the magnitude, and whether it is unusual. Pretty sad bunch. Glad they’re not getting as much attention anymore.

  18. A long fall from power and grace… with the ash heaps of history awaiting.
    Can’t happen soon enough….

    “Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive.”

  19. A link to the Junk Science Hearing, November 14, 2011, at (very slow link):

    [video src="http://democrats.naturalresources.house.gov/content/files/2011-11-14_Briefing.wmv" /]

    Say No To Junk Science
    Say No To Global Warming Hoax
    Say No To Climategate
    Say No To Temperaturegate

    Say Yes To Scientific Method
    Say Yes To Non-Junk Science (formerly Science)

  20. One of the now-standard “tricks” of IPCC “climate scientists” in citing from unpublished works (ref. Bishop HIll’s ‘Caspar and the Jesus Paper’) was initiated by Santer when during his re-write of the 1996 SPM. He used data from an unpublished paper he wrote. When that paper was finally published in Nature, Pat Michaels looked at it and discovered that Santer had cherry-picked Southern Hemisphere data to show warming – where in fact there was none. The result was that Santer was forced to withdraw the paper. My guess is this is the genesis of the famous Santer Climategate email threat to “beat the crap” out of Michaels: http://www.di2.nu/foia/1255100876.txt

    See http://www.worldclimatereport.com/archive/previous_issues/vol1/v1n21/feature.htm

  21. So everybody invited was skeptical about this group’s skepticism about skeptics, eh?

    I can see why… They are so “yesterday”.

  22. cui bono says:
    November 17, 2011 at 7:19 pm
    Lemming-like politicians. Talking of which:-

    http://uk.news.yahoo.com/naughty-lemmings-skew-climate-calculus-001301671.html

    =========================================

    Very interesting.

    Those scientists should cast their literature searches a little further back. It was known back in the 1980s that mammals chomping on vegetation promoted new growth, mediated by epidermal growth factor. This was quite a surprise at the time of the cloning of the gene for EGF, but an answer as to why it was found at high levels in the salivary glands of rodents. For example:

    http://www.pnas.org/content/77/8/4836.full.pdf

  23. Too much optimism here.
    They won’t give up.
    They will keep the flame burning until they have their global carbon treaty.

    Australia’s carbon coup will be regarded as a great encouragement.

    And we have too many power hungry crooks in our government.

    Even the GOP has three Presidential candidates running who are convinced warmists.

    I say the battle is only beginning and we’ve seen nothing yet.

  24. “Rep. Markey began the briefing with stock claims that his opponents are anti-science and that today’s briefing would reveal the scientific basis for global warming.”

    If only Markey would reveal the scientific basis! He could start by explaining how science is done to Santer! Thanks for this Ben. Interesting to see that the Discovery Channel have turned down episode 7 of the BBC documentary, “Frozen Planet”, as it deals with AGW. Apparently the reason is 50% of the U.S. will have none of it!

    Seems to be spreading to the US House of Representatives National Resources Committee Room!

  25. He failed to mention changes from ocean oscillations, the solar-cosmic ray influence, or other influences
    ———
    I have noticed this line of: oscillations affecting climate, being pushed recently.

    Seems to reflect some degree of intellectual confusion about what a cycle is.

    A cycle has a number of important properties:
    1. Periodicity
    2. A constant average value.

    Since the idea of climate has implicit within it a degree of constancy, it follows that it is a strain on the concept to claim that any cyclical variation represents a change in climate. The obvious cycle is the cycle of the seasons and these are not often considered to be climate. By extension any cyclical changes due to the 11 year solar cycle, pseudo cycles such as the 3 year ENSO should not be categorized as climate change. These things are simply variations around the climate baseline.

    Even random variations, climate noise, that have a fixed average value, should not sensibly be called climate change.

  26. LazyTeenager says:
    November 17, 2011 at 11:11 pm

    A cycle has a number of important properties:
    1. Periodicity
    2. A constant average value.

    Since the idea of climate has implicit within it a degree of constancy, it follows that it is a strain on the concept to claim that any cyclical variation represents a change in climate.

    It seems likely that there are numerous cycles involved, with periods varying from less than a year to many centuries. These will interact with each other to hide ‘constancy’, like this:

    http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/02/21/tallbloke-and-tim-channon-a-cycles-analysis-approach-to-predicting-solar-activity/

    Long cycles will look like secular trends over long periods, especially to dummies like Waxman and Markey.

  27. I am sure I have said this before, but can anyone please tell me, which of the myriad of disasters foretold to befall humanity (apart from an impending ice age within the next few thousand years, oh & Global Socialism of course) has actually happened? Please tell me, I am desparate to know which one actually happened!!!!! :-)

  28. Forget Mann, Jones and the rest. Santer is the man. History will show that in the winter of 1995-6 he was at the pivot point of this monumental corruption of this science. The two previous IPCC reports, and the earlier draft of SAR, presents scientists moderating the hysterical extremes of the debate (eg Hansen) by way of science. The IPCC ‘consensus’ mostly resisted corruption before this moment. After SAR, the resistance collapse and soon the momentum was unstoppable.
    (And, by the way, 5 years. What a monumental relentless effort. Congratulations! It’s been along for 3 years of these, not many comments now, but still watching.)

  29. That was a very clearly written and informative summary. The reminder of Santer’s trick put the icing on the cake.

    That photo is very interesting. I know photographs can capture unrepresentative moments but that image of Muller’s daughter seems to suggest at least part of the reason why he has been dazed and confused and conflicted in his 15 minutes of fame, She looks rather serious, in a Julia Gillard True Believer sort of way.

  30. All in all, a good report, however this…”He evaded the real issue: that most skeptics: realize that temperatures have risen, but question that human emissions of carbon dioxide are the principal cause of global warming.”; should have added, “and even if some skeptics consider that most of the last six decades of mean warming MAY be primarily anthropogenic, they do not consider CO2 caused warming it to be dangerous or catostrophic, and quite likely beneficial in balance.

  31. This plot shows the second time differential (rate of change of rate change , or acceleration ) of three global temperature records: B-est, hadSST2 and CRUtem3.The latter two are land only so they have been scaled by 0.5 to allow a direct visual comparison with SST.

    Looking at d2T/dt2 will flatten the CO2 effect to a near constant value. It is so small as to be invisible here, but that does not imply it is insignificant , it is quite definitely there but that not the point of this comment.

    What is interesting here is firstly the overall agreement, fine. Second there are two major departures from that “consensus”. Firstly Muller’s “BEST” version shows a very odd accelerated cooling around 1990 that is not shown in the other dataset, neither land nor ocean. This accounts for BEST’s failure to correctly show the 1998 El Nino peak and maybe part of the reason Dr Muller mistakenly thinks warming has not slowed since. He should do some more quality control before making such public policy statements.

    Second point of interest is the post was acceleration in Hadley SST. This would seem to be the result of Phil Jones’ “buckets cooling on deck” adjustment, long time suspected as being unjustified , this plot shows there is something badly wrong at this time in the Hadley data.

    HadSST2 is maintained by Met office, not UEA CRU but the adjustment comes from a paper published by Jones.

    It seems inconceivable that ocean temps could sea temps could have shown a strong acceleration to a warming trend without it being reflected in the land temp data. Someone has been warming the data!

    Doctors Muller and Curry should may consider this significant anomaly before concluding so publicly that Jones and other have not introduces spurious effects into the climate records.

  32. they will all go down in history for all the wrong reasons the poor souls they do not know what they are doing

  33. This is surely a clear sign that the cult of AGW is suffering an increasingly acute demise. The whole of the AGW brigade must be very depressed at this fiasco, especially following on from the recent Al Gore world promotion debacle, making the cult wary about organising their own AGW-promoting events in the future. It is quite possible that the whole business of AGW will now suffer an early total collapse, especially if the Mann research papers are released, which by definition, must be damning otherwise he would not be fighting against their disclosure.

    President Obama would do well now to get off the fence and state publicly that due to the total uncertainty of the AGW case, climate change and ‘green’ pressure groups will not now have any influence on his policy decision making. He should now feel sufficiently confident to give his full approval to the oil pipeline from Canada, and other projects that have thwarted common sense decision making in his government. That way, he will gain millions more votes at the next elections from thankful Americans who are looking for every opportunity to revive their flagging economy, compared to the votes he will loose from those who follow the Al Gores, Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth et al, all of whom have debased their credibility on the back of corrupted science.

  34. pat says:
    November 17, 2011 at 10:14 pm

    Let them put their 401ks into solar panels.

    Sadly the BBC already has, Of couse this in no way influences their coverage of all things climate.

  35. Across the pond in England,,,,
    its politics as usual, seems the world has a breed that no matter what color , race, or religion are bent on out doing each other. Yep, that the Political Classes.
    Dr, Richard North of EuReferendum blog, in a post entitled,
    The Elective Rip/off, (as reported by the Daily Mail, )
    A former British MP Sir, Peter Soulsby is granting himself an 80% pay rise as Mayor of the City of Leicester, after overseeing 1,000 job cuts etc, etc, employing his 2 daughters as junior secretaries and his wife as office manager, he like most of the breed just don’t care.

  36. “– a rehash of dubious science from a bygone era presented on the behalf of two once powerful Congressmen in the empty chamber.”

    Well said!

  37. The latest U.S Federal budget voted upon on Thursday, 17 November 2011, excluded the $322,000,000.00 the Obama Administration attempted to appropriate to fund a new Climate Change Office in NOAA (National Atmospheric and Oceanic Administration).

  38. This is just more proof that CAGW is old news. Al Gores 24 hours of reality thingy received almost no media coverage, we are going to see similar coverage at Durban. I expect almost no leaders will show up, almost no media coverage either except to record the arrests of the same old professional window breakers that get arrested every year. Durban will be the biggest failure of them all.

    I’ll wager that Al Gore himself finds an excuse to to attend, he’ll get the flu or something. Just watch.

    CAGW is dead, and Durban will demonstrate it.

  39. In the picture, Elizabeth Muller is the one who interests me.

    The body language, the tense head and neck, and the facial expression, seems to indicate a closed, embattled, mind. Someone said that she is the ‘activist.’ She doesn’t break the mould by being a happy greenie. Maybe daddy daren’t say no to her. (speculation)

  40. “Suppose you were an idiot and suppose you were a member of congress. But I repeat myself.”
    -Mark Twain

  41. Frankly, if the only “notables” on the horseshoe were Markey and that distasteful little troll Waxman were the only persons to look at from the gallery, I might take a pass as well!
    Really, the only thing worse than having to look at Waxman for a couple of hours would be to listen to him speak!
    I commend you for your tolerance Mr. Haapala!

  42. Hansen in 1988 had 4.2K for CO2 sensitivity. The latest GISS has 2.6K.

    Extrapolating this result we end up with a CO2 sensitivity of 0.0K in 2048.

    This result is equally as valid as any climate science result for the future. It is based on observation of trends, using a computer model that follows the laws of science as laid out by al-Khwārizmī in 820 AD.

  43. “Muller failed to mention that he told Judith Curry that the title of his Wall Street Journal op-ed, which was incorporated in the press briefing, was chosen by the editors; that he questioned the human influence on global warming; that his calculations of temperatures show no warming for the past ten years”
    This is clearly shown at http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1980/to:2011.75/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1980/to:2001/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2001/to:2011.75/trend
    If in Series 3 you change the From (time) Value to 1998 you will see how the trend has been flat from 1998 on (0.03°C per century).
    You can substitute HADCRUT3 for BEST to see for yourself.

  44. ‘Santer stated he has been involved with all four UN IPCC reports and emphasized that he inserted in the second report that humans have a discernable impact. He did not mention that he inserted this statement after the document was fully approved by all reviewers – an act that Fredrick Seitz publically stated was the worst abuse of the peer-review process he had witnessed in fifty years of involvement in American science.’

    That would be the Santer clause would it?

  45. “George Lawson says:
    November 18, 2011 at 2:36 am
    President Obama would do well now to get off the fence”

    Like that is going to happen, not!

    Not unless you are a large campaign contributor. Then the White House cannot act fast enough to protect your interests. Need another billion dollars to help contribute to next years campaign, no problem. Company goes bankrupt so the money never need be paid back, no problem. Lots more where that came from.

    It is called a jobs bill. Stimulus 2. Its purpose is to create jobs by stimulating campaign contributions, paid for by taxpayer money given to large corporations to pay large salaries, bonuses and dividends to folks that make large campaign contributions to the folks that decide who gets the taxpayer money.

    To minimize the taxpayer complaints this money actually doesn’t come from taxpayers, it is borrowed in the taxpayer’s name. By the time the taxpayer figures out what has happened, the money has already been spent. Sort of like lending your kids the credit card to buy groceries, only they use it to take their friends out partying. You only find out after the credit card company cuts off your credit card, and your credit rating is downgraded.

  46. The world is about to jump into a war in the mid-east, With Nuclear weapons used a real possibility, and these “leaders” want US to worry about a little warming?

  47. LazyTeenager says:
    November 17, 2011 at 11:11 pm
    He failed to mention changes from ocean oscillations, the solar-cosmic ray influence, or other influences
    ———
    I have noticed this line of: oscillations affecting climate, being pushed recently.

    Seems to reflect some degree of intellectual confusion about what a cycle is.

    A cycle has a number of important properties:
    1. Periodicity
    2. A constant average value.

    Since the idea of climate has implicit within it a degree of constancy, it follows that it is a strain on the concept to claim that any cyclical variation represents a change in climate. The obvious cycle is the cycle of the seasons and these are not often considered to be climate. By extension any cyclical changes due to the 11 year solar cycle, pseudo cycles such as the 3 year ENSO should not be categorized as climate change. These things are simply variations around the climate baseline.

    Even random variations, climate noise, that have a fixed average value, should not sensibly be called climate change.

    Is a variation not a change? Does a normal, cyclical variation not count as a change as well? Why don’t those changes count as climate change?

    Perhaps you’re only talking about changes that vary from the normal, natural, cyclical climate changes? The problem is when people mistake or misrepresent those changes as being unnatural or abnormal, and then demand action be taken because of a “crisis.”

  48. Many here are celebrating. It is too early. Think about the possibility of a second term for BO when he is not concerned about re-election. Think about the possibility of generating lots of new money in taxes. Think about a coalition of the Left and businesses that expect to profit handsomely from the new taxes. It is too early to celebrate.

  49. ferd berple says:
    November 18, 2011 at 7:07 am
    Hansen in 1988 had 4.2K for CO2 sensitivity. The latest GISS has 2.6K.

    Extrapolating this result we end up with a CO2 sensitivity of 0.0K in 2048.
    ============================================================
    You won’t be laughing at extrapolations when we’re in an ice age in 2145.

  50. Brian S says:
    November 18, 2011 at 7:26 am

    ‘Santer stated he has been involved with all four UN IPCC reports and emphasized that he inserted in the second report that humans have a discernable impact. He did not mention that he inserted this statement after the document was fully approved by all reviewers – an act that Fredrick Seitz publically stated was the worst abuse of the peer-review process he had witnessed in fifty years of involvement in American science.’

    That would be the Santer clause would it?

    ROFLMAO!

    Timing is everything.

  51. More Soylent Green! says:
    November 18, 2011 at 7:58 am

    Why don’t those changes count as climate change?

    It only counts as climate change, if it involves CO2 and temperature movement is in the upward direction. Don’t you read the literature…

    Dave Springer says:
    November 18, 2011 at 9:17 am

    Nice repartee, I am ROFLMAO! GK

  52. Well if it were not Ken Haapala filing this report, I would be ROFLMAO; but as a long time reader of Ken’s regular briefings, including the doings of Dr Fred Singer, I have to take him seriously.

    So this Richard Muller chap; and also that Elizabeth Muller; did both of them speak; which one is the climate scientist ?

    Before Ken’s report, I would have bet my 401K, that there was this Anthony Watts chap who did the research (along with his team) that proved that the global climate Temperature sampling stations were a hodge-podge of Rube Goldberg contraptions; often based on a Weber Grill “forcing” of some quite arbitrary, and time dependent operation.

    So now just what was Richard (or Elizabeth)’s contribution to this scientifc research; was he on Anthony Watt’s research team; or izzat a figment of my imagination.

    So why wasn’t this Anthony Watts chap at the meeting to give a horse’s mouth renditioon of the research; instead of this stand in Muller pair.

    PS: My sincere apologies to Rube Goldberg, for associating his creations; with this climatism fiasco.

  53. And I thought all along that a bit of warming was helpful..! It helped the Vikings. It helped
    the Romans. And I think it helped the early Homo sapiens back about a hundred thousand
    years ago during that interglacial. We ARE resilient, so we will withstand ” the ice age we’re
    getting into about 2145..”. When are you guys going to think long term as IPCD does?

  54. Gail Combs at 11:56 a.m.

    Thanks Gail for sharing with us such a precious items from your CAGW treasure box. As usually, we can depend on you. Article “Cult of Global Warming Is losing Influence” is new to me. Thanks again.

  55. Kermit says:
    November 18, 2011 at 8:35 am

    “Think about the possibility of a second term for BO when he is not concerned about re-election.”

    Now. That is a scary thought.

  56. Santer’s clawses.

    Yes imho he is one of the worst. Rewrote the IPCC Summary for Policymakers, AFTER it had been signed-off, to turn the overall meaning from “possible AGW” to “likely”, and to downplay natural forces. Several centuries ago, the witches were blamed, after the inquisitors’ handbook was passed by a corrupt publishing sleight-of-hand similar to that described in Caspar and the Jesus Paper – Wahl and Ammann.

    And there are other shadowy figures who stood behind Santer. Who was it said “We have to get rid of the MWP”? Overpeck I believe. Climate scientist Dr David Deming was kicked out of climate science a couple years back, almost certainly because he spoke out about this – IMHO.

  57. #
    #
    tokyoboy says:
    November 17, 2011 at 10:02 pm

    What on earth was the purpose of this hearing/briefing?
    _____________________________________

    I think it may have had something to do with Muller’s consulting firm:

    Introduction:

    …..Muller & Associates provides expertise for energy challenges that deserve the best minds in the world. Our senior-level team includes Nobel Laureates, MacArthur Geniuses, and recognized global leaders with experience in over 30 countries. We integrate science with business acumen, economics, and long-term trends to ensure that our clients are making the right investments for their organization.

    We know that in order to be effective, solutions must be sustainable… and we know that for businesses, sustainable solutions must be profitable as well.

    GreenGov™ is a service offered by Muller & Associates for Governments, International Organizations, non profits, and other organizations that work with Government. The aim is to provide politically-neutral counsel that is broad in scope while rooted in the hard facts of state-of-the-art science and engineering…..

    http://www.mullerandassociates.com/index.php

    He has some heavy hitters behind him too.

    See comment http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/01/pre-prints-and-pre-data/#comment-784983

  58. R. de Haan says:
    November 17, 2011 at 10:06 pm

    Too much optimism here.
    They won’t give up…..
    __________________________________________-

    That is for sure. I am really surprised they did not sneak Cap & Trade through during the lame duck session as the did the Food “Safety” (cough) Modernization Act.

    I expect to see it slipped through after the November 2012 elections.

    We really really need “Recall the Rogues” before then. – http://www.recalltherogues.org/
    Map: http://www.recalltherogues.org/states.html

    This is about introducing bills in each state to allow voters the right to yank the chain on their “Representatives” in Washington& at home and recall them if needed.

  59. Alan the Brit says:
    November 18, 2011 at 1:06 am

    I am sure I have said this before, but can anyone please tell me, which of the myriad of disasters foretold to befall humanity … has actually happened? Please tell me, I am desparate to know which one actually happened!!!!! :-)
    __________________________________

    Sure there is the 1970 Kissinger quote of three disasters all nicely planned.

    Control oil and you control nations: CAGW => Carbon trading/tax (work in progress)
    Control food and you control the people: World Trade Organization Agreement on Ag. See: http://www.financialsense.com/contributors/william-engdahl/2011/06/29/getting-used-to-life-without-food-part-1
    Control money and you control the world: Central banks, fiat currency and the World Bank/IMF (done)

  60. Mark Johnson says:
    November 18, 2011 at 10:46 am

    Did Ben Santer announce his intentions to beat up anyone who disagreed with him?
    _____________________________
    Oh,My Gosh!

    That must be why no one showed up!

  61. “George E. Smith; says:
    November 18, 2011 at 10:17 am

    So this Richard Muller chap; and also that Elizabeth Muller; did both of them speak; which one is the climate scientist ?”

    We’re not falling for that trick question. Of course we all know the answer is: “neither”.

Comments are closed.