Readers may recall when I took OMSI to task for being debate deniers. That didn’t work out so well for OMSI what with the negative publicity and the packed room last night. Wish I could have been there. If anyone has this on video, please upload to YouTube and send a link – Anthony
Presentation by global warming skeptics draws big crowd in Portland
Written by Scott Learn, The Oregonian | January 26 2012
More than 400 people jammed into a Portland hotel ballroom Wednesday night to hear a panel of global warming skeptics assert that manmade increases in greenhouse gases are not driving climate change.
The event, hosted by the 150-member Oregon chapter of the American Meteorological Society, was open to the general public and drew an attentive and mostly sympathetic audience. Chapter President Steve Pierce asked for a show of hands beforehand, then estimated that 90 percent of the crowd favored the statement that human activities are not the main cause of global warming.
Three Oregon-based panelists — physicist Gordon Fulks, meteorologist Chuck Wiese and former Oregon state climatologist George Taylor — used long- and short-term temperature measurements and other data to bolster their case.
Skepticism about climate models was prominent, particularly given a general flattening of temperatures since 1998, a relatively warm El Nino year. Water vapor, sun cycles and natural weather patterns are more powerful in changing climate than increases in carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels, the panelists said.
“The effects of future changes in CO2 are likely to be modest and manageable,” said Taylor, who added that Northwest records do not indicate that temperatures have risen or snowpack has fallen, subjects of substantial debate.
The Oregon AMS moved the presentation to the Portland Airport Shilo Inn after the Oregon Museum of Science and Industry canceled it in November for lack of balance, and the ensuing controversy likely boosted in interest in the event.
“Thank you OMSI,” Wiese said, surveying the crowd. “This turnout is absolutely fantastic.”
Full story at Oregon Live: Presentation by global warming skeptics draws big crowd in Portland
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
My family is originally from Oregon. I went to college there and travel to Portland twice or more each year. Environmentalists have has convinced many Oregonians that their future depends on marketing their community to the world as “hip” and “green”. Virtually all institutions in state, including OMSI embrace this view. I pity Oregonians. Their taxes are high and their economic growth is stagnant. That said, Mr. Taylor and company deserve strong support. Looks like they are opening a few eyes.
The word backfire, implies some splash-back on to the Oregon Museum of Science and Industry. I don’t see any here. Too bad. They deserve a rap on the knuckles. GK
It isn’t as bad as you think. That attitude is limited to about 10 counties. I think as they experience being ripped off enough times, their attitudes will change. That will happen even faster if climate cools off. If you remove the area around Eugene and Portland, Oregon is actually surprisingly conservative.
AGW Theory loses everywhere it is debated. That’s why pro-AGW folks refuse to debate.
Step #1: Ignore the Science (Do not admit there is a possible opposite point of view.)
Step #2: Attack the Denier. (Discredit their credentials, accuse them of all that your side is accused of)
Step #3: Repeat the Mantra. (Its worse than we thought!)
I attended a meeting recently about how to inspire change in individuals and in companies. One of the women there was a writer who attended a climate skeptics conference to see what the issues were. It appears that nobody at the conference denied the impact of human activities on climate. What they appeared to be taking issue with was the fact that this news may change the way they live which is frightening for those who are change adverse (across all party lines). I am not sure what the tone of this conference was but it is something to keep in mind that 99.9% of all scientists agree that human activities have impacted the climate. This conference may have simply been hiding another issue all together under the guise of anti-climate change.
I sent Steve Pierce an email asking that he makes the video available. They usually tape their events, so I am guessing there will be video.
It’s going to take a few more of these types of gatherings to get the word out there to the general public. The suggested format would be: Try to book a place that would refuse. Get the publicity in the local newspaper. Book another place, and expect a larger crowd.
I just saw this from Steve Pierce, as quoted in the Columbian Newspaper.
“We plan to have all of last night’s presentations uploaded to the Oregon AMS website within the next 48 hours, along with a complete video of the meeting to follow that. ”
http://www.ametsoc.org/chapters/oregon/
So stay tuned.
Crosspatch is correct as to the ten counties. But the problem is that most of the population lives in those counties.
I would expect the AMS to disband this rogue Oregon Chapter within the next few days…
greenurbangirl, I think you may find your figure of “99.9% of all scientists agree that human activities have impacted the climate” is a little high.
But that depends on your definition of ‘impacted,’ ‘climate’ and ‘99.9%.’
greenurbangirl wrote:
“I am not sure what the tone of this conference was but it is something to keep in mind that 99.9% of all scientists agree that human activities have impacted the climate.”
Strictly speaking, probably 100% of scientists believe that human activities have had climatic impact. And I’d even guess that 100% of readers and supporters of Watt’s Up With That agree “that human activities have impacted the climate.” I certainly agree with it.
In fact, I’ve been reading this blog for over three years and never have I come across a single suggestion that human activity does not have climate impact. In fact, one of Anthony’s main themes has been to demonstrate that local climates in urban areas (where the vast majority of temperature recording stations are located) have warmed dramatically as a result of local man-made conditions. Oddly enough, many of those who disagree most vehemently with Anthony have attempted to deny or minimize this dramatic localized warming.
So the issue is not whether human beings have caused climatic changes or will continue to do so in the future. The core issue centers around claims that these man-made changes 1) are globally significant and measurable, and/or discernible from ever-present background climate change not caused by humans; 2) pose dangerous large-scale risk to human beings and to ecological systems; 3) are subject to prevention or reduction by either national or global efforts to reduce CO2 emissions.
There are many scientists who would answer “yes” to some or all of these questions, and many who would answer “no” to some or all of them. I appreciate this forum–despite its weaknesses–as a place where interested persons from a wide array of backgrounds can learn and question and offer their perspectives. greenurbangirl, I hope you stick around. Thanks for the post.
Ken in North Dakota
greenurbangirl says:
January 26, 2012 at 12:19 pm
…
So let me see. You were at some meeting where some lady said she was at a different meeting where she perceived that it seemed most people believed AGW but were adverse to change. Now that is believable! You must be new here. You may not realize but that whole “99.9% of scientists” comment has been thoroughly trashed years ago. No one who studies the facts believes that still.
greenurbangirl says:
January 26, 2012 at 12:19 pm
Straw man argument alert. Skeptics generally accept that mankind has some influence on climate through aerosol emissions, agriculture, urbanization and even emissions of so called greenhouse gases. So in that way skeptics agree with your alleged 99.9% of all scientists. What skeptics are skeptical of is the claimed sensitivity to doubling of CO2 concentration and the seeming irrational fixation on hypothetical bad effects from CO2 concentration increase to the exclusion of positive effects of an increase in CO2. So your post reveals that you really did not learn how to “inspire change in individuals” at this meeting, at least not in knowledgeable individuals who have been observing the global warming/climate change/ climate disruption circus for a while.
@greenurbangirl:
Please show us or direct us to the poll for the basis of your 99.9% figure cited.
While I agree that humans have had impacts (and speaking as a Civil Engineer, I know we’ve certainly made changes to the landscape), what I suggest we do not know clearly is if those impacts are (1) “significant,” (2) irreversible, or (3) overwhelming the natural systems. Take for example the item that follows this on WUWT’s main page regarding projections for the magnitude (and start date) of Solar Cycle 25. NASA scientists acknowledge that “we don’t understand” the links between variations of the sun’s cycles and Earth’s climate, but yet asserts that a practically flat Solar Cycle unlike anything we have seen in 300 years or so — three centuries — will not result in anything close to a Maunder-type Minimum.
The impression I walked away with was that despite the fact that SC 25 will probably not peak until 2030 or so, and the peak will be almost nonexistent we have nothing to fear and the world will still continue to warm. Natural forces are nothing to trifled with: there have been numerous dams, bridges, buildings and levees built that were monuments to humankind’s stupidity and arrogance, structures that failed because we did not account for the uncertainties in the [incomplete] data we had on natural systems and the fact that historical records have a beginning before which we generally have nothing on which to base our theories, leaving only conjecture and supposition.
greenurbangirl: I think some of the message was lost in translation. Skeptics of the AGW theory agree that there has been some warming over the recent decades, and we agree that humans can affect temperature through land-use changes and clever homogenization algorithms. We debate the extent of CO2 as a driver of temperature, the amount of influence man has had on climate, and the dire future predictions of the CO2 influenced climate change theory. And, after careful analysis of the research, we disagree with the PR slogan: “The Science is settled.”
You are just repeating something you have been told over and over. Try investigating this statement further. Don’t simply go to your previous source for confirmation. Of course, humans can impact climate. Just not significantly from CO2 emissions. Understanding significance is the challenge. Are you up to it? GK
“”””” greenurbangirl says:
January 26, 2012 at 12:19 pm
I attended a meeting recently about how to inspire change in individuals and in companies. One of the women there was a writer who attended a climate skeptics conference to see what the issues were. It appears that nobody at the conference denied the impact of human activities on climate. What they appeared to be taking issue with was the fact that this news may change the way they live which is frightening for those who are change adverse (across all party lines). I am not sure what the tone of this conference was but it is something to keep in mind that 99.9% of all scientists agree that human activities have impacted the climate. This conference may have simply been hiding another issue all together under the guise of anti-climate change. “””””
I couldn’t agree with you more greenurbangirl, we humans have impacted the climate; and that is irrefutable.
Well Heisenberg explained to us nearly a hundred years ago that simply looking at the climate, will change it, and in ways that we can’t predict, and with our luck, they are most likely to be bad.
So all of those green Oregonians rushing around out in the wilderness, are changing the wilderness, just by being there.
So perhaps you can explain to us, just why you are greenurbangirl, and not greenruralgirl. It seems that you might be part of the problem.
A niece of mine just moved up there to provide a better life for her daughter, than her parents provided all her life for her here in California. If I told you what my niece’s husband does for a living, that enabled them to leave the sorry state of California for your green paradise; you would simply be horrified.
Talk about a total and complete waste of precious and valuable resources; with absolutely no redeeming social value whatsoever; that’s what he does, and he is very good and successful at it.
My son is studying in school to do exactly the same thing as his cousin’s husband does.
@greenurbangirl: As the famous quote goes, “Where you stand is where you sit.” If you are in an urban location, the local climate has certainly been modified and modified to the warmer. You do not dump all that energy in a small area and not expect the temperature to go up. On larger scales, man made effects can take the Aral Sea and turn it into a desert. But I really think the question is one of broad impact on the order of the “Little Ice Age” or the “Medieval Warming Period”. Here I suspect you will find that many scientists, meteorologists and assorted PhDs in the field (such as myself) do not feel that man made effects are either permanent or noticeable on a mesoscale. New York City had a different local climate when I was growing up in the 1950s from where I lived 10 miles away. That difference was man made. But aside from such relatively small and potentially transient effects, I doubt that man has more influence than other factors that determine climate on a mesoscale. Sorry.
greenurbangirl, welcome to WUWT! Diverse opinions are always welcome but be aware that many commenters here demand hard science and will jump on anything less. Enjoy the wealth of information available!
@greenurbangirl
What human activities are impacting the environment? How much impact? A little, some or a lot? And impacting how? Does any of that mean AGW is real? Is evidence of climate change evidence of a human cause?
As usual, The Oregonian underestimated the crowd. I was there – it was about 525 attendees. The president of Oregon Chapter of AMS asked right at the beginning for a show of hands from the crowd of who believed climate change was not human caused, and over 90% of the crowd raised their hands.
http://5440fight.com/2012/01/22/cancelled-november-global-warming-meeting-at-omsi-rescheduled-for-january-25/
That’s good news from Oregon, as opposed to this:
Climate Change Lawsuit In Court In Oregon
http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/west/2012/01/25/232639.htm
greenurbangirl,
Welcome to the forum. Please ignore some of the vitriol you may receive from some of the commenters as some have been viciously attacked on other sites for their “heretical” views. I think you will find most commenters and posters to be quite engaging. I would warn you that if you wish to present some statistics or scientific discourse you need to be sure you can back it up with references. Otherwise you are likely to get flamed.
Again, welcome to the fray and I hope you stick around!
Rick K & greenurbangirl
You see, what we are really up against is a) the misrepresentation of the sceptic viewpoint and b) the fact that there isn’t a single sceptic narrative.
I think that you will find that “everyone” believes that man-made activity has some effect on the weather/climate. It must do – the UHI phenomenon is evidence enough of that – anyone who has lived in London knows that it has a different climate to the rest of the country. Deforestation, pollution, urbanisation, intensive agriculture all have their effects on the ambient conditions.
As most sceptics are fair-minded people, if you were to pose the question “Do humans have an effect on the climate ?”, I suspect that nearly 100% will say “Yes”.
And that is where (b) comes into play: some sceptics will state that the obsession with CO2 is the problem, some will say that it is computer modelling that is at fault, some will say that the numbers and arguments are simply made-up, others will take a political stance and claim that Global Warming/Climate Change is simply the hard-left finding something to campaign with because Marxism is dead.
Climate change scepticism will never really influence policy, because it does not have a united voice, it attacks the enemy on many different fronts, but in small partisan brigades. WUWT is an excellent generalist site that covers everything, but many other sites are single-issue/specialists who cover other issues beyond their iommediate scope poorly or sparsely. There is no sceptical organisation with the lobbying and PR clout that Greenpeace has. Because many in the media are of the same left-liberal mentality, they are prepared to allow such organisations free rein with their views and make wholly false statements without challenge ( I saw just this yesterday on Austrian TV: the local petrogas firm OMV are going to start “clean-fracking” just up the road from me, but Greenpeace are determined to stop it, because it will “ruin the ground-water” and produce “dirty gas”. Nothing on the news about the local resistance to a giant windfarm that is going through the courts, though ).
This OMSI episode is the entire argument in microcosm – scepticism threatens the AGW industry and has to be stamped out. Unfortunately what many on both sides of the fence forget is that economic reality trumps everything ( Marxism again ) and the state of the economy or security of supply will really decide our future. Solar farms and windfarms, for instance, become very unattractive without subsidies in these straitened times and before anyone says that nuclear needs subsidies too, they are right. But a nuclear plant has a ROI of 20 years, after that they create megabucks in profits – which is why the German electric companies are so annoyed at Merkel, their plants are going to be shutdown at their most profitable points, but after 20 years a windfarm has fallen to pieces.