UPDATE: see an additional report from Prof. Bob Carter below the “read more” line.
ALSO: See this announcement at Climate Audit
Photo by Evan Jones
I don’t have a lot of time to blog about today’s conference. You can see the agenda here.
Highlights today: I spent about a half hour meeting with Steve McIntyre. Some improvements to the Climate Audit website will be coming soon. See this announcement at Climate Audit
Frequent contributor and moderator Evan Jones came by too. As always it is a pleasure to see him.
Attendance doubled from last year. 400 last year, 700 for the dinner tonight with another 100 tomorrow registered.
I shared a table tonight with John Coleman, Joe D’Aleo, Art Horn, Alexandre Aguiar of Metsul Brazil, James Waters, Peter Leavitt, and Steve McIntyre. The presentations from Vaclav Klaus and from Richard Lindzen were enlightening. I particularly liked Lindzen’s presentation and I hope to have a copy to share here. UPDATE: His speech is here
Despite what critics have said about the conference, it was well attended by a wide variety of people from the US, Canada, Britain, and the EU. A number of elected officials were in attendance. Tomorrow Congressman Tom McClintock from California will be speaking. For those that stick by the tired old fallacy that the conference is funded by “Big Oil” to that I say you are quite wrong. Rebuttal here and list of sponsors
I discovered that WUWT has quite a following, and I was mobbed by people after the dinner presentation. It was an odd feeling.
UPDATE: Professor Bob Carter also has a nice account which I’m reposting here:
Heartland-2: session one
March 9, 2009
President Vaclav Klaus reports latest poll from the Czech Republic: only 11% of people believe that man has a significant influence in warming the climate.
West Australian Joanne Nova’s Climate Skeptics Handbook launched, and a 150,000 print run announced.
“We will win this debate”, says Dr Richard Lindzen, “for we are right and they are wrong”.
The opening session of the Heartland-2 Conference opened with a bang here in Manhattan tonight [Sunday evening March 8, 2009]. With registrations of around 700 persons, the conference is almost twice the size of its predecessor last year. The audience for the two opening plenary talks, held over dinner, included an eclectic mixture of scientists, engineers, economists, policy specialists, government representatives and media reporters. 
In welcoming delegates, and opening the conference, President of the Heartland Institute Joe Bast also launched two new publications. The first, by Anthony Watts, is a summary of his extensive studies of the weather stations at which U.S. surface temperatures are measured (“Is the U.S. Surface Temperature Record Reliable”), which have revealed that many stations are scandalously poorly sited for their intended purpose. The second, “The Skeptic’s Handbook”, by Joanne Nova from West Australia, is a succinct and well illustrated briefing paper that summarizes accurately the evidence against dangerous human-caused warming in a humorous and easily understood format.
The first Plenary Address was given by President Vaclav Klaus, who is President of both the Czech Republic and (for a 6 month current term) the European Union. His talk was greeted, both before and after, with standing ovations. 
In response to a question, he reported a just-released Czech poll, which shows that only 11% of persons questioned in a recent poll believe that man has a significant influence in warming the global climate.
The President commenced his talk by commenting that little change had occurred in the global warming debate since his talk, 12 months earlier, at the Heartland-1 conference. He likened the situation to his former experience under communist government, where arguing against the dominant viewpoint falls into emptiness. No matter how high the quality of the arguments and evidence that you advance against the dangerous warming idea, nobody listens, and by even advancing skeptical arguments you are dismissed as a naïve and uninformed person.
The environmentalists say that the planet must be saved, but from whom and from what? “In reality”, the President commented, “we have to save it, and us, from them”.
Klaus reported his discouragement at participating in meetings with other senior politicians at Davos and within the EC. Here, he finds that not one other head of state who will make common cause in support of a rational assessment of the scientific evidence. Instead, all believe that the summaries provided by the IPCC represent the scientific “truth” on global warming.
But the climate data do not support the theory of human causation; the IPCC summaries therefore do not represent science, but instead environmental politics and activism. As a result, large and highly organized rent seeking bureaucracies and groups have emerged, and they further propagate the climate alarmism that is now in their self-interest.
President Klaus professed to be puzzled by the environmentalists’ approach to technical progress. It as if they “want to stop economic progress and take mankind centuries back”, he said. Applying their ethic of “saving the world”, western electorates are being asked for the first time in history to abandon successful current technologies before new technologies have been developed to replace them. Klaus stressed that there is no known, feasible way in which modern technological society can be run based on present sources of renewable, clean, green energy.
The second Plenary Address was delivered by Dr Richard Lindzen of MIT, an acknowledged world leader in atmospheric physics and a doyen of meteorological science.
Dr Lindzen started by making the important observation that being skeptical about dangerous human-caused global warming does not make one a good scientist, and nor does endorsing global warming necessarily make one a bad scientist.
He then pointed out the professional difficulties that are raised for many skeptics when scientists whose research they respect nonetheless endorse global warming. In most such cases, however, the science that such persons do is not about global warming in the strict sense. It’s just that supporting global warming makes their life, and especially their funding life, easier.
Thus, it is a particular problem for young scientists to oppose the prevailing alarmist orthodoxy, because to do so is to cruel their chances of receiving research funding. For as long as it is the AGW spin that attracts the research funds, for so long will there be a strong disincentive for most scientists to question the hypothesis in public.
Lindzen commented that the politicization of the AGW issue has had an extraordinarily corrupting influence on science. Most funding that goes to global warming would not be provided were it not for the climate scare. It has therefore become standard to include in any research proposal the effect of presumed AGW on your topic, quite irrespective of whether it has any real relevance or not.
Lindzen asserted that it boils down to a matter of scientific logic against authority. The global warming movement has skilfully co-opted sources of authority, such as the IPCC and various scientific academies. For instance, over a period of 20 years, the US Academy of Science has had a backdoor route for the election of environmentalists as Members of the Academy. The success of this tactic is indicated by the fact that the current President of the Academy (Ralph Cicerone) was elected that way and is a strong environmentalist.
But in giving an endorsement of alarm about climate change, the NAS, as well as similar societies in other countries, has never polled their own expert membership. Rather, the pro-alarm policy statements that are issued by various professional societies express the views of only the activist few, who often control the governing Council.
Despite the manifold problems of combating the alarmist climate message, Dr Lindzen concluded his talk with the rousing observation that in time the climate rationalist cause will win. “When it comes to global warming hysteria”, he said, “neither gross ignorance nor even grosser dishonesty has been in short supply. But we will win this debate, for we are right and they are wrong”.
During an extended question and answer session after the conclusion of the two plenary addresses, Drs Klaus and Lindzen were in close agreement about two things.
The first, is that global warming hysteria is being fomented as part of an environmentalist ideology; it is a politically organized movement. The grip that this hysteria now has on public opinion is explained partly by the fact that there is no equivalent, politically organized movement to mount a defense of sound science. Instead, there is simply a collection of persons who are united mainly by their common affront at the gross abuse of science that is going on.
The second common viewpoint was expressed in response to the question “What arguments are the most effective to promulgate the skeptics’ cause of building policy, not on authority, IPCC or otherwise, but on sound science”.
Both President Klaus and Dr Lindzen agreed that the most important arguments were (i) that sound science demonstrates that human increases in carbon dioxide are not going to cause dangerous global warming, and (ii) that a thorough cost-benefit analysis must be applied to all potential policy options.
For those on all sides of the argument accept that the Kyoto Protocol, despite its high cost, will do nothing towards measurably reducing global temperature; and the public need to be informed that the same is true also for the more ambitious carbon dioxide cuts mooted under cap and trade legislation. If taxpayers are to fund the operation, then it is only fair that they be told that the considerable pain, which will run to many trillions of dollars, will be for no measurable gain.
It was not expected that new science would be presented at the opening Plenary Session of Heartland-2. What participants got, instead, were inspirational messages delivered by two inspirational leaders of the climate rationalist cause.
Bob Carter
Bob Carter’s preliminary article on Heartland-2 here
SOURCES:
The full text of President Klaus’ speech will be posted on the websites of the Climate Science Coalition:
http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/
http://www.nzclimatescience.org/
As this article went to press, an account of the Heartland-2 meeting by Andrew Revkin appeared in the New York Times. Reading it is an interesting exercise in spot-the-spin.
The thing I like about it most is the photo shot. You have a balding rather fat man in the lower right hand corner.
Who cares?? The truth is immune to hollywood images.
Thats what I love about all this.
Would rather trust an overweight balding scientist who cares about the truth ANY DAY than some hip Coal Plant Protest Disinformation BS.
OT but worth it. Enjoy!
Hubble [Ultra] Deep Field: The Most Imp. Image Ever Taken (Redux)
I once got on the radio down in California (called from Oregon) to announce a new song by a new artist. The DJ (Jo Jo I think his name was) sent me an autographed photo of himself. Anthony, since I have typed my opinions here, can I have your autograph? You know, before you have to move to DC?
Have fun, and be sure to give us the low-down upon return.
Anthony:
WUWT has a great following, which has increased exponentially since it justifiably won the Weblog Awards “Best Science” site.
Anthony is a modest guy, but the fact is that people want and need an authority to look up to in this debate, to clearly explain what’s going on.
This site does it better than any other… thanks to Anthony Watts.
You almost sound surprised “that WUWT has quite a following.” Don’t forget how good your numbers are as reported at Alexa or at Quantcast. Those numbers are earned through hard work — and by allowing for comments to be posted by critics who accept the AGW position. From all I’ve heard, I doubt the same would happen at someplace like RealClimate.
Congrats Anthony, your website has had almost 10mil hits. Not bad for a climate heretic!
Try again;
OT but worth it. Enjoy!
Hubble [Ultra] Deep Field: The Most Imp. Image Ever Taken (Redux)
Wow that sounds like an enormous agenda at the conference. I see different “tracks”, meaning you have to choose one of 4 presentations at any given time? Sounds like you would miss a lot no matter what you did. I hope the presentations are made available after the conference.
I’d like to go next year… Is it open to anyone or do you have to be invited?
Thanks.
REPLY:
Open to anyone, skeptics and alarmists alike. Gavin Schmidt and James Hansen were invited also. They only have to walk 10 blocks or so from Columbia U. Naturally they declined. – Anthony
“I discovered that WUWT has quite a following”
You mean the media hasn’t been lining up to interview you? I’d be shocked and surprised if they don’t. Thanks for taking us along for the ride!
Mike
Doubled attendance, that’s great! Wish I was there too.
“I discovered that WUWT has quite a following, and I was mobbed by people after the dinner presentation. It was an odd feeling.”
With more to come. Great work Anthony, and please keep us updated with the latest from the conference.
Tom McClintock is a good man. He was my state assemblyman and state senator from Ventura County before he moved up north and ran for Congress. He is very much a realist and doesn’t pull punches. Looking forward to hearing what he has to say.
Congratulations, Anthony!
As I wrote a few weeks ago on the post Most Hits Ever In January, “I have learned more at WUWT in a few weeks than I did in a couple of years on other sites. This is the way the internet ought to be!”
Apparently, a LOT of other people feel the same, or similarly.
Enjoy the accolades, sir, enjoy. Well-deserved.
Lets hope you can resist the inevitable effort to control your content.
Thanks for the blogging about the conference. Now all of us can attend but we do appreciate being informed with the latest and hot topics Du Jour!
Looking forward to seeing these talks.
If Tom McClintock was Governor of California, I doubt we’d be in as much trouble as we are now. Although to be fair to the Governator, our State legislature is a real quagmire.
I understood AGW supporters claim the Hertland institute to be sponsored by “big oil” and “neocons”? In many discussions about climate global cooling change warming with “supporters” of AGW over the years, this view appears to be the concensus.
You’re a star! Next thing you’ll be dating Madonna!!!!
Just kidding. You’ve always been a star to me.
REPLY: Ewww!
You should not be surprised that you have a great following. People look for truth and when they cannot get it from the mainstream media, then they will look elsewhere. The same thing happened regarding the Iraq war. Mainstream news readership has plummeted as the blogosphere has become a much more reliable medium for presenting honest information.
You’re famous! Woo Hoo!
Keep it up buddy. Your approach is a breath of fresh air for people interested in truth. Your contributions to society as a whole could very well be recalled in future history books. You report from the edge… you are on the front lines… stay objective and true to discovery and maybe it will catch on.
Thank you.
Mr Savethesharks said (19:16:20) :
“The thing I like about it most is the photo shot. You have a balding rather fat man in the lower right hand corner.”
Ahem, I say while polishing my pate, what’s wrong with balding fat men? (I omitted “rather” in the cause of personal accuracy)
I look forward very much to reading the addresses and supporting papers from this conference. Much though I like to jest about my scientific ignorance (using that term literally not figuratively) , I do my best to read and understand the science behind many of the issues raised here on WUWT.
My expectation is to find both the speeches and the supporting paperwork at the ICCC expressed in clear English (and/or American) and to be as free from unnecessary jargon as possible. Perhaps the greatest dividing line between the Apocalyptic doom-sayers and the rest is language. They seem determined to dress things up in so much techno-guff that the details of their message is not comprehensible to most reasonably well-educated bald fat men, whereas “we” prefer to concentrate on the substance of the thing and cut-out pompous obfuscation. (Yes, I know it is not wise to decry pomposity while writing “obfuscation”, but you know what I mean.)
Enjoy the conference Mr Watts, I look forward to receiving a postcard.
Thanks Andrew for implying that Britain is not in the EU. If only that were true.
wow, groupies, it’s enough to make teenage, spotty kids get interested in science again 😉
You are lucky.
Here in Copenhagen things are quite different. I turned on a danish News Channel to see Kathrine Richardson proclaiming that this “Copenhagen Climate Congress” (starting tomorrow) is an important step Towards COP15, James Hansen is invited to talk to “ordinary” People and tell them to panic (I heard Frank Lansner got a ticket for that speech) and the weather forecast is saying warm. So no James Hansen Effect.
On the bright site the hockeystick has been broken (again) this time by Danish scientists form DMI (Danish Meteorological Institute). But there where no news on that
Firefox can’t find the server at http://www.heartland.org.
My paranoia tells me it is being attacked.
Reply: It’s working fine. 1:08 am PDT ~ charles the moderator
Watch live at http://www.theclimatescam.com/ when Maggie is there.
Thank you everyone. Thank you Anthony for your continuing unassuming good and hard work, making the exploration of real science comprehensible and fun. Wow! numbers up from 400 to 800. Does that mean Inhofe’s list is now double as well? And 80 speakers, a dazzling array of stars. I look forward to the reports.
Thanks for covering this meeting. WE look forward to your summaries.
I am impressed by the international content of the co-sponsors but depressed that there was no organisation from the UK. I am just now listening to the BBC and Lord Stern is saying that things are even worse than we thought, and we must do more to control our CO2 emissions etc. Where have we heard this before? Then in The Independent we have this ridiculous article http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/carbon-cuts-only-give-5050-chance-of-saving-planet-1640154.html So I wonder if these are in response to the ICCC.
17C yesterday in New York. That’s nearly a record. Guess it’s not only Al Gore and Chu who can influence the weather.
Thankfully it’s going to chill a little bit this week.
PS willing to bet that less than 10% of the 700 attendees have every published a science paper related to human induced climate change.
How many of those 800 people are below 50? Just curious.
I regularly notice that a lot of prominent skeptics are relatively old. And most old people I know (not all of them though) are quite entrenched in their patterns and beliefs, which makes them rather stubborn and inflexible. And especially when these relatively old, retired skeptics are being overly sarcastic, I sense a lack of wisdom, probably due to some personal bitterness. This for me has been one of the reasons to lean towards the AGW version of things.
So, I wonder: Are there a lot of old people at the conference?
Neven,
Get off of my lawn!
Looks like a fun group of folks. Not a lot of posturing politico’s… Looking forward to the stories when you get back.
The AGW folks seem much more dour in their presentations. Lacking hope for a future. The folks in your picture look like they would believe they could make a fusion reactor in their basement!
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/03/09/mr-fusion/
and solve the world’s energy issues.
BTW, some couple of weeks ago I asked The Rain Gods in an earlier posting to please bring us enough rain for even just 1/2 normal… At this point California has had quite a bit of rain and I must say “If it please the Rain Gods, might we have a brief break to dry out and stop the mold?”… (whispering: just seeing exactly how powerful WUWT has become 😎
Anthony,
You have a popular blog and its growing. Its not surprising that some of it rubs off on you. As long as you stay away from the circus of celibrity you should be OK
I think the more important part is that people are listening to what you have to say because four years ago when CA started up, it was a struggle to get noticed and heard with the environmentalists in full hue and cry and the only “serious commentary” on a very slick Realclimate.org (but looks can be deceiving)
Times have changed and the pendulum has swung back.
WUWT has filled a big niche in the blogosphere for informed comment on climate science that isn’t loaded with politics and doesn’t require a mathematics degree to understand (sometimes).
Next year, you’ll have the results of the SurfaceStations project to speak about. Then the fireworks will fly.
Anthony,
Please say thanks to the attendees for all their hard work.
Neven (01:38:28) :
How many of those 800 people are below 50? Just curious
Neven…Loop, Swoop and Pull. Don’t worry, you’ll get it!
The Guardian is painting this conference as being funded by Exxon-Mobil.
They fail to mention that Greenpeace gets more oil money than any of the free market think-tanks.
Neven 01 38 28
If you mean the more mature have travelled lifes road long often enough to recognise the charlatans, the naive, the misguided, the fervent, the politically motivated and the zealots, and can use lifes’ experiences to make up their minds based on facts, better than those who are younger and may be swayed more by their emotions, then I guess many of those questioning the AGW hypotheses are likely to be more mature.
Amazing as it may seem to you Neven, the ‘old’ do not become senile at 50, and the world’s sole repository of knowledge does not reside exclusively with the young. Those who no longer rely on a government pay cheque or are constantly seeking research funds to continue their work may also be rather more dispassionate and willing to speak out don’t you think?
I guess many of us who have been rationally examining the AGW hypotheses for some years, have acquired a basic grasp of Earths ever changing climate, and have the attributes mentioned above, would nod our heads in recognition of the truism expressed in one of my favourite quotes by H.L.Mencken who wrote:
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”
Judging from some of the comments expressed here by apparently young, pro AGW bloggers, closed minds are certainly not the exclusive province of the ‘old’ and they seem more frightened of hobgoblins than I am.
Would you actually read some climate history lessons if we gave them Neven?
Do you want to start with the ‘unprecedented’ ice melt of the 1930’s, or the Viking colonisation of Greenland back in the 9th century, or perhaps you would enjoy reading how the Romans maintained their empires by marching over high level passes now closed by ice? Perhaps information on the Bronze age warm periods when the ancient civilisations first flourished as the climate warmed, then collapsed as they cooled, would be more up your street?
Myself and others here are quite happy to pass on facts rather than conjecture Neven, or you might prefer to read Al Gores 1992 book ‘Earth in the Balance’ who enumerated all these past warmer events. Perhaps you only saw ‘An Inconvenient truth’ by which time Al seems to have conveniently forgotten his earlier book?
Best regards Neven
TonyB
Do you know the Met Office here in Great Britain has said we have had the coldest winter for 10 years. but it would have been much colder if it was not for climate change. They will not accept anything that in any way contradicts what they believe.How can they say that . They cannot predict next weeks weather.
Dr. Linzen’s presentation is here:
http://www.heartland.org/full/24841/Climate_Alarm_What_We_Are_Up_Against_and_What_to_Do.html
“willing to bet that less than 10% of the 700 attendees have every published a science paper related to human induced climate change”
If you are right the proportion might not even be that much higher than among the IPCC authors.
“I regularly notice that a lot of prominent skeptics are relatively old. And most old people I know (not all of them though) are quite entrenched in their patterns and beliefs, which makes them rather stubborn and inflexible.”
They’re also old enough to not care if government funding gtes pulled. They have thier own money…
How many AGW proponents are under 50? Just curious.
I regularly notice that a lot of AGW believers are relatively young. And most young people I know (not all of them though) are still easily led in their patterns and beliefs, which makes them rather naive and gullible. And especially when these relatively young people are being overly sarcastic, I sense a lack of wisdom, probably due to some personal haughtiness. This for me has been one of the reasons to lean towards skepticism.
So, I wonder: Are there a lot of young people in the AGW movement?
DJ (00:54:02) :
PS willing to bet that less than 10% of the 700 attendees have every published a science paper related to human induced climate change.
Seems likely more have published papers related to natural climate change.
Naveen,,,, could be because older people are the ones who remember the scares of the new ice age in the 70s or even the global warming from earlier in the last century.
Or perhaps they are just old enough to remember that we used to call this “weather”.
So I would have said it was that older people have more experience, rather than say they are more rigid in their opinions.
How old are you Naveen?
I am 57 and I am not stuck in my ways….. but I do remember warm summers in the 50s and cold times in the 60s and 70s.
Sorry meant to write Neven… My apologies… got a student called naveen whose work I am marking!
How’s the media presence?
REPLY: Won’t know until today
Prince Charles says we’ve got 8 years!
Here (scroll down) you can see him getting off his PRIVATE JET!
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/royals/article2306132.ece
On Australian news tonight, additional CO2 absorbed by the oceans (Making it like a “soda” apparently) is now responsible for micro-oganisms building thinner shells. There was an image shown how these shells were before the industrial revolution and now. It get’s better all the time!
Also, on world new, “global warming” is responsible for an increase in squids off the west coast of California.
OT:
If anybody has access (I don’t):
http://www.worldscinet.com/cgi-bin/details.cgi?id=jsname:ijmpb&type=all
Volume: 23
No: 3 (30 January 2009)
FALSIFICATION OF THE ATMOSPHERIC CO2 GREENHOUSE EFFECTS WITHIN THE FRAME OF PHYSICS
GERHARD GERLICH; RALF D. TSCHEUSCHNER
Page 275 – 364
From the abstract:
The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that many authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier (1824), Tyndall (1861), and Arrhenius (1896), and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According to the second law of thermodynamics, such a planetary machine can never exist. Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology and in a widespread secondary literature, it is taken for granted that such a mechanism is real and stands on a firm scientific foundation. In this paper, the popular conjecture is analyzed and the underlying physical principles are clarified. By showing that (a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects, (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33° is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified.
Interesting little map on La Nina from this morning.
http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/PSB/EPS/SST/data/anomnight.3.9.2009.gif
manse42 (23:42:05) :
Oops – posted the following to the wrong article – WordPress may rejected this try.
Well, I was in Atlanta last weekend for American Mensa’s Annual Colloquium. Dr. Hansen was the keynote speaker Saturday night, and was supposed to be at the panel discussion Sunday AM. However, he moved up some travel plans because the rain was changing to snow. (Traveling to the Capital Coal plant protest.) I wasn’t so lucky – a couple inches of snow overwhelms the deicing facilities at Atlanta’s airport and I didn’t get out until Tuesday.
Perhaps there hasn’t been enough time to recharge.
Or I can take credit – on annual trips I use to make to San Jose at the end of February, I’ve seen rain for 10 of the 11 days, a 40 year flood, and snow almost to the valley floor. That first event ended the area’s last major drought.
After a taste of spring on the last couple of days (frost heaves and mud season), it’s snowing again here in New Hampshire.
Hansen’s speech at the Colloquium was quite tame. No mention of death trains, but a few mentions of creation and future generations. He described the problem and why he thinks 350 ppm is so important, but admits he doesn’t know the solution.
mmm DJ are you willing to bet how many AGW people at their gatherings have published work on climate science? seems to me they are mainly activists and politicians (same thing?)
I wonder how many have found non-government funds for their research.
Neven (01:38:28) :
That’s because a lot of us old fogies remember the weather from the 1960s & 1970s. A few might remember the 1930s. I wouldn’t be surprised if someone here remembers the Medieval Warm Period. 🙂
i am 35, and i was taught to learn by my father. not to just blindly accept dogma. Not like today in schools, which are politicalised, and edited to find the “current” policies of the governments.
The problem is for the last few years, younger people are being told this is true, in the schools and the press, and they are not being given the entire knowledge.
Thats why this site is brilliant it gives the information to everyone, sometimes its a little hard to understand. Thats why its such a great place. Some very clever people here (i know how dumb i am and these people just blow me away).
So keep up the good work, i tell everyone i know about this site even put it on my blog. to spread the word.
Perhaps the conference would like to see the March 2009 temperature records, 597 new record highs and 150 tied highs. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/records/index.php?ts=daily&elem=maxt&month=3&day=0&year=2009&submitted=Get+Records
Figures like these (but showing cold temperature records) caused great excitement….funny …all quiet now.
REPLY: I’m sure we’d be happy to Mary. Now if you can just convince James Hansen and Gavin Schmidt to get off their high horses and walk a few blocks from Columbia and attend (they’ve been invited, standing invitation remains) we’ll have a REAL debate. – Anthony
“How many AGW proponents are under 50? Just curious.”
I was in my 20s when I believed in manmade global warming. It wasn’t until I was 33 that I realised it was bull. It takes time to study these things so it is natural that young people get suckered into believing whatever the media and celebs tells them is virtuous.
@ Tony S
load pdf-file from:
http://scholar.google.de/scholar?q=FALSIFICATION+OF+THE+ATMOSPHERIC+CO2+GREENHOUSE+EFFECTS+WITHIN+THE+FRAME+OF+PHYSICS&hl=de&lr=&btnG=Suche&lr=
Just being right is not enough. There is a higher truth based on what is best for people.
It is best to just think, talk, and do as we are told. It is very disturbing to see these people questioning their betters. Hopefully, no one will pay any attention.
Perhaps MORI or similar should be asked to organise a completely anonymous survey amongst scientists to find out exactly how big the “consensus” is? I don’t mean a “sign the petition” type thing, but a poll sent out to all climate scientists and the like, regardless of whether or not they have a stated position on AGW.
I’ll bet that would be a shock to the system.
TonyS (04:39:01) : If anybody has access (I don’t):FALSIFICATION OF THE ATMOSPHERIC CO2 GREENHOUSE EFFECTS WITHIN THE FRAME OF PHYSICS
GERHARD GERLICH; RALF D. TSCHEUSCHNER>/i>
Try here:
http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.1161
Click in the upper right hand corner
This direct link may work:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf
Thanks to Jepe (03:05:19) for the link to Prof. Richard Lindzen’s keynote address.
It is well worth reading, it’s not very long, and it contains lots of information like this:
So there you have it, from one who sees what’s going on from the inside. Alarmists have gained control of U.S. policy for their own devious reasons.
This relatively small group of people, lavishly funded by foundations with a known AGW agenda, have managed to game the system — and the multitude of rank-and-file professionals are deliberately kept silent; they pay their membership dues in return for professional recognition, but their professional scientific opinions regarding AGW are never see the light of day within those organizations that purport to represent them.
The success of this conference is largely due to those professionals who are tired of being used and spoken for, and who willingly take risks by speaking out; and even by the defiant act of simply attending this conference. Kudos to them for having the courage to do the right thing.
Anybody catch this hatchet job? Saw it linked on Hot Air blog.
NYT article
If I didn’t post this correctly, you’ll have to paste it in–my apologies.
“Gave Schmidt and James Hansen were invited also. They only have to walk 10 blocks or so from Columbia U. ”
Can we blame them?
After all, how dare we challenge their science? The utter gall of us flat-earthers!
Yet, Gavin Schmidt and Hansen actually have the opportunity to attend a climate conference without even having to board a climate killing airline or private jet – without leaving a carbon foortprint.
You should have mentioned that in their invitation. 🙂
Mary Hinge: “Perhaps the conference would like to see the March 2009 temperature records, 597 new record highs and 150 tied highs. ”
Ah, but Mary, haven’t you seen the stations documented in Anthony’s “surfacestations”?
I wonder how many of the new record highs are from sensors located a few feet from heated buildings, car exhaust or on rocks or asphalt? I have seen many such sites which artificially inflate the temperature readings. Can you show me any sites where the local environment near a station reduces the temperature?
DJ
Last week National Ice center reported Lake Superior is virtually iced over again. 2nd time in 6 years, (normally every 20-30 years). Hope to warm up soon. Heating bill up again this year. Send warm air up here PLEASE.
Mary Hinge
This may come as a surprise to you but there are other parts of the globe apart from the USA. Some are even big enough to be called continents, yet others are called oceans. For example here in the UK the CET anomoly March 2009 is -0.14.
Congratulations, Anthony, for the fame of the best science blog and your recognition at the Conference. You have made it possible for many other scientists and weather-researchers to become famous, too.
Some “fortune” should follow. I am a regular subscriber (monthly donation) because my reading here is as good as it gets for me. I hope others do the same, in addition to adding to the tip jar occasionally — or adding a weather station to their humble abodes.
Some “fortune” is also necessary for an upgrade to Climate Audit. I hope it is permissible for me to mention this here:
“Climate Audit has become an important repository of data, with links to posts and content made from thousands of websites worldwide, to lose it would be a tragedy.”
The suggestion is that if 100 people donate $20 each, the upgrade will be paid for. I am sending an additional $20. How many others will join me?
I look forward to as much Conference information as possible that you and other contributors can make available at WUWT. Thanks again.
Heartland Institute has offered a great forum for debate on the climate change. There is great opportunity for meetings of the minds on the issue and it would be a great thing if the proponents of the opposing hypothesis could be there to present their positions before an unbiased group of individuals. The funding for the event is most impressive especially with no government funding to speak of.
Neven, I am soon to be 59 years old and I suspect that I have paid more dues to experience that has helped to form my thought process. I am very independent minded and read much varied reports. I look at both arguments and make my own mind. Having had to make my own way and provide for my family by hard work and persistence I expect others to have many of the same traits, IE hard work, independent thought, reading and study of the events, unemotional thought process. Yes Neven I am a skeptic, I became one due to the fact that the alarmists will for the most part not reveal their data, method, and collection methods. Science must be open to inspection and replication if not it is just speculation and has little value other than opinions and we all have those. I agree with you that most of the attendees at the conference are more than likely over the age of 50. But do not dispare I suspect that your AGW great icons are over 50 also. ( Dr. Hansen and VEEP Gore for example)
TonyB, I completely agree with you in your analisis.
Pat, more squids of the coast of California is a good thing. I love calimari so that is a very good thing.
Anthony please keep up the good work and keep us informed in the progress of the conference. This is a very importnt work. And you do it so well. You are an example to the rest of us.
Bill Derryberry
Mary Hinge (04:57:19) Using a temperature measuring system biased high several degrees F will obviously set record highs, it is just the results that the system is set up to produce. Minimize rural stations, make the sensors be no more than 10′ from a building, mount it on a rooftop, pave under it, place it next to a heat source, etc. It is just like writing a climate modeling program on a computer with only the variables you want, never mind it doesn’t have all the variables of climate or the ‘forcings’ have the wrong sign, it gives the right answer to control and tax the population.
Mary Hinge (04:57:19) : said;
“Perhaps the conference would like to see the March 2009 temperature records, 597 new record highs and 150 tied highs. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/records/index.php?ts=daily&elem=maxt&month=3&day=0&year=2009&submitted=Get+Records
Figures like these (but showing cold temperature records) caused great excitement….funny …all quiet now.”
You wonder why skeptics believe figures are doctored then point us to a site purporting to show us records for a month that hasn’t even happened yet?
What are their records going to be for the next 12 month? It would be useful to know in advance so we can plan our holidays. 🙂
TonyB
DAV (05:33:01) :
Hmm, I’ve recently started year 2 of this accursed “obession” about climate science, and one thing I want to do is spend less time debating warmists (we have plenty of people who can do that on both sides) and more time with numbers and equations. Especially related to IR radiation and CO2 reradiation.
A 100 page paper may be a bit much, but it comes with a lot of explanatory text.
It looks like readers will also want a response to an earlier version:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0802.4324 :
Proof of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect
AP Smith – Arxiv preprint arXiv:0802.4324, 2008 – arxiv.org
… is designed to clearly and accurately respond to recent claims 1 that a
physics-based analysis can “falsify” the atmospheric greenhouse effect. …
Mary Hinge: “Perhaps the conference would like to see the March 2009 temperature records, 597 new record highs and 150 tied highs. ”
Ah, but Mary, haven’t you seen the stations documented in Anthony’s “surfacestations”?
I wonder how many of the new record highs are from sensors located a few feet from heated buildings, car exhaust or on rocks or asphalt? I have seen many such sites which artificially inflate the temperature readings. Can you show me any sites where the local environment near a station reduces the temperature?
Sorry… forgot to say great post – can’t wait to read your next one!
Mary
On a more serious note to my 06 26 20, I have checked through some of them.
Can you help and tell me when the individual data sets commenced as some seem fairly recent. Also why they do not correlate with other weather data, why are they from ‘Selected’ cities and lastly has any one here got any data as to whch of them have as yet been surveyed by Anthony?
One off hot records are as meaningful as one off cold ones, so I don’t get too excited by them, although admittedly some of my friends here do seem to place great store over one off events 😉
Thanks for your time.
TonyB
Anthony
I agree with the first speaker at the conference that we need to have perseverance . Angus Reid Monitor reported on a recent survey of Americans by RASMUSSEN REPORTS. Here is what they found . Notice the steady increase in those who believe that long term planetary trends are behind global warming, THE SKEPTICS ARE NOW THE MAJORITY OF AMERICANS 44%
Is global warming caused primarly by human activity or by long term planetary trends ?
Human activity
41% jan 2009
43% dec 2008
47% april 2008
Long term planetary trends
44% jan 2009
43% dec 2008
34% april 2008
Pat
“On Australian news tonight, additional CO2 absorbed by the oceans (Making it like a “soda” apparently) is now responsible for micro-oganisms building thinner shells. There was an image shown how these shells were before the industrial revolution and now. It get’s better all the time!”
One begins to despair! So they reckon that having more calcium carbonate in the water makes the animals create thinner shells. Holy cow!
Vaclav Klaus and Richard Lindzen on opening night–there are not be two better people on earth to open! All of AGW with its 1000’s of politicians and 100’s of scientist to chose from could never top them!
You’re a star! Next thing you’ll be dating Madonna!!!!
Just kidding. You’ve always been a star to me.
Mike D. – Hands Off… He’s Mine!!!! 🙂
Mary Hinge (04:57:19) :
You did not mention record cold from many parts of the world over the past two years. You only mention part of one month. As your side insists sort term occurrences to not reflect trend. The trend in the earth has been cooling for years now.
Your side should be focusing on the trends like you insist those on the opposite side should.
But I know your side is grasping at every bit of data it can because you know the earth is in a cooling trend. Even some of the leaders on your side are acknowledging the cooling could last for 30 years. Everyone can see “global warming” is not happening, even you can see it.
You also did not point out this photo :
http://gallery.surfacestations.org/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=12972&g2_serialNumber=2
Gavin Schmidt and James Hansen were invited also. They only have to walk 10 blocks or so from Columbia U. Naturally they declined.
That’s sad, how could a scientist refuse to drop in on a local conference in their field if they were really passionate about their work?
On the subject of record temps and surface stations, I live in Pullman, WA, home of Washington State University. Our local surface station is located at an active USDA research facility. I drove by the station just yesterday and everything appeared to be in order. For some reason, this weather station does not seem to be included in any of the data. When I check it’s reports, they are filled in with X’s. We experienced a record low a couple of days ago and yet it’s not included. We are expecting another record low day after tomorrow and I am assuming that it will be reported as an X. I can’t understand why our weather is being excluded or am I not reading the correct reports? There is another station located about 8 miles away in Moscow, ID, home of the University of Idaho and it’s data also appears as X’s. I haven’t visited that one, but I imagine that it’s similar. Is there an explanation? How many others are being excluded?
April,
You can see the stations that have been surveyed so far in the SurfaceStations gallery at http://gallery.surfacestations.org/main.php?g2_itemId=20
It looks like Moscow, ID is done but Pullman WA still needs photo-documentation. You can find out how to do a survey at http://www.surfacestations.org/ and add a report to the database.
Roger and others: the worldwide anomaly for February is one of the hottest ever measured, just wait for the official numbers to come out…
I propose to call this the “skeptic effect” or maybe the “Watts effect”.
FatBigot (23:26:13) :
They seem determined to dress things up in so much techno-guff that the details of their message is not comprehensible to most reasonably well-educated bald fat men,
I believe that is intentional as it was in the 1380`s.
http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/index.html
April E. Coggins
Thanks to E M Smith I found out where the daily data is available from:
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/climatedata.html#daily
I’ve only looked at one station so far but was very surprised to find that in Jan 1893 the Berkeley, CA station reported temps for 31 days, but in 2009 only reported for 16 days, i.e. 15 missing. If most modern records have similar gaps then how reliable is any statistic based upon the data?
Ric Werme (06:28:47) :It looks like readers will also want a response to an earlier version: http://arxiv.org/pdf/0802.4324 :Proof of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect
Thanks, Ric, more to read during those long Gore Effect nights 😉
Neven (01:38:28)
Do you remember the Hitler youth movement or are you too young.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler_Youth
I HOPE THEY REALIZE…
It doesn’t matter if there is no global warming, because the pols are going to push “renewables” anyway, because that is what they want to do, because that is where the power and money are…
(he gets into some extraneous stuff at the end, but the beginning is pretty informative)
Think neo-ENRON, this time on steroids.
Although the science is one front in the war with the warmmongers, it’s only a diversion from the real battle for political and economic control that will be achieved after the political and economic upheavals that are rushing at us due to the “stimulus” fiasco.
Don’t get me wrong, getting the science right is essential. But if you think that showing people the truth about the science will alter the Left’s agenda, you will be mistaken. Still, it may slow them down enough to mitigate the damage, because without the cover of “settled science” their policies will clearly be seen for the folly they are.
Borrowing from another article; There is NO beef! …at least, not for you.
April E. Coggins (07:47:44)
Both stopped reporting or were dropped from GISS from June 2007.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/
Enter there names in the search box.
Try this for historic data up to date March 2008-2009. Play around and see if you can get what you want. Try weekly or daily etc for realtime weather.
http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/KPUW/2008/3/1/CustomHistory.html?dayend=1&monthend=3&yearend=2009&req_city=NA&req_state=NA&req_statename=NA
If the link doesn’t work try this.
http://www.wunderground.com/US/WA/Pullman.html
at: Monday, March 09, 2009
Obama signs memo seeking science strategy
Recommend writing Obama and asking him for substantial funding to provide objective quantification of natural versus man made causes of climate change, and validation of climate models.
Neven,
Lots of young people believe in global warming, because they have been told that the weather was always nice before America and Europe ran amok with CO2 production. There were never any hurricanes, and Penguins and Polar Bears were always happy, peaceful and smiling.
Older people went to school before political indoctrination was the primary purpose of education.
The discussion regarding the average age of the skeptics participating in the event reminds me of an old quote from a social scientist:
“If a man isn’t a socialist at the age of 18, he has no heart. If he is still a socialist at the age of 30, he has no head.”
In any case in the current political climate, it is difficult for a working scientist who is not already financially secure to be an outspoken critic of AGW, which is in itself worrisome.
Mary Hinge (04:57:19)
You have to read beyond the numbers.
I am a builder and needed a new access onto busy main road, Local Authority said no for the reason that to many accidents had occurred at junctions along route. There were eight junctions with traffic lights at each end, all the accidents had occurred at the traffic lights, on appeal I gained permission.
These AGWers are pulling the wool over your eyes.
reference Mike D. (22:48:59) :
Anthony, if you date Madonna, instead of putting a bag over her head, you’ll be safer if you put a bag over your head.
Keep up the good work.
OT: Bill McKibben is on our local KERA radio talk show “Think” making very alarming statements about the Arctic melting, seas rising and unprecendented droughts and floods around the world all happening right now. If someone has the time, a call or e-mail in to the show with a challenging question would be great:
Tell us what you Think: 1-800-933-5372 or think@kera.org
Listen live: http://www.kera.org/audio
The environmentalists say that the planet must be saved, but from whom and from what? “In reality”, the President commented, “we have to save it, and us, from them”.
Why can’t we elect guys like this?
Great work Anthony, I’ll be stealing more of it to pass along.
“”” Neven (01:38:28) :
How many of those 800 people are below 50? Just curious.
I regularly notice that a lot of prominent skeptics are relatively old. And most old people I know (not all of them though) are quite entrenched in their patterns and beliefs, which makes them rather stubborn and inflexible. And especially when these relatively old, retired skeptics are being overly sarcastic, I sense a lack of wisdom, probably due to some personal bitterness. This for me has been one of the reasons to lean towards the AGW version of things.
So, I wonder: Are there a lot of old people at the conference? “””
Didn’t anybody ever tell you, Neven, that humans are born knowinbg everything about everything; “little knowitalls” they are called.
And as they get older and try out some of the stuff they know, they slowly get stupider and stupider, until they become old and senile and don’t know anything about anything. At that point the die, and leave it all to the next generation of knowitalls to slowly discover how dumb they are.
But if you want to attend next year’s conference; I’m sure the organizers are just too idiotic to keep you out; so you might as well go so you too can find out what is wrong with all of your knowledge that you need to forget.
George
PS I would have gone; but I actually have a working life and my boss expects me to keep working at forgetting the things I know will work, and concentrate on the things I can show him working.
Neven,
Even if every single skeptic in various fields of science were older than 90 it would not make any difference in the science.
Your concern, or observation, is an inaccurate distraction that diverts your focus from the importance of grasping the fatally flawed IPCC/AGW theory.
So….
When are we going to be able to read about this conference in mainstream media? A Sharon Begley article in Newsweek maybe? A front page story in the NY Times?
Maybe the media would have to report it if Barak Obama decided to pay a visit to the conference. 😉
LOL Neven…
So are you saying don’t trust those who are snarky and old… like Hansen, and/or fat… like Gore?
Frankly, Boulder living has proven, through repeated experiences and trying multiple communication strategies, that mockery is a much more effective method than discourse, when confronted with control-mongering, narcissistic, neo-pagan Gaia fetishists.
Over at the NY Times, Andrew Revkin is complaining that climate skeptics don’t have common ground on global warming. Earth to Andrew: we are skeptics not a religious cult like your mindless AGW followers.
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/08/skeptics-try-to-find-common-ground/
I posted the NASA links to their RFP on low Solar Cycle 23 activity and the NYT allowed the post this time; I have been rejected in the past. Here is the link:
http://community.nytimes.com/blogs/comments/dotearth/2009/03/08/skeptics-try-to-find-common-ground.html?permid=37#comment37
Let’s see if the NYT continues to ignore solar inactivity as they have for the last two years. Their science editors now know that NASA is looking into the issue.
Mike
Mary Hinge (04:57:19) :
Perhaps the conference would like to see the March 2009 temperature records, 597 new record highs and 150 tied highs. Mary,
I just eyeballed the data in the link you posted, and it looks to me like the new highs are coming predominantly from regions that get warmer during La Nina’s, for example the SW. So they aren’t telling us anything, necessarily, about global warming, and in fact would be consistent with global cooling (i.e. increased frequency of La Nina’s). See here:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:La_Nina_regional_impacts.gif
What you’ve done, here, is sort of a spatial variation of cherry picking a start or stop date for time series analysis. Climate changes on all time scales, and at any point in time, you can find some place on earth that is doing what you want to show.
For a more spatially complete picture of the recent winter in the US, try this:
http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/data/usclimdivs/climdiv.pl?variab=Temperature&type=1&base=3&mon1=12&mon2=2&iy%5B1%5D=2008&iy%5B2%5D=&iy%5B3%5D=&iy%5B4%5D=&iy%5B5%5D=&iy%5B6%5D=&iy%5B7%5D=&iy%5B8%5D=&iy%5B9%5D=&iy%5B10%5D=&iy%5B11%5D=&iy%5B12%5D=&iy%5B13%5D=&iy%5B14%5D=&iy%5B15%5D=&iy%5B16%5D=&iy%5B17%5D=&iy%5B18%5D=&iy%5B19%5D=&iy%5B20%5D=&irange1=&irange2=&xlow=&xhi=&xint=&scale=&iwhite=1&Submit=Create+Plot
View the white areas as near normal, the blue-green areas as cooler than normal, and the yellow-orange areas as warmer than normal (with normal being the 1971-2000 climatology). Just eyeballing, it looks like about half the country had a “warm” winter, while the other half was “normal” or “colder than normal.”
Incidentally, this is not what NOAA predicted:
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2008/images/outlooktemp.jpg
NOAA completely missed the colder than normal winter across the northern tier of states, and their warmer than normal prognosis was for warmer weather further east and northeast than what actually transpired.
Back to the March records, we’re seeing a La Nina spring already here in the South. But the bet is that winter is not over, and we’ll see some more blasts of winter weather before it is all over.
George E. Smith (09:39:38) :
So that explains why when I write something down in a specifcation I completely
forget about it within weeks. Fortunately I haven’t forgotten to keep the
specs around during implementation and testing. I have read through some
old specs of mine that I had forgotten writing. Pity – they were quite good!
I endevour to forget no item of importance before its time.
Slightly… well OK, completely OT, but I had to share since it is obliquely related to NOAA. Check out this item that is included in the NOAA part of the Omnibus Spending and Pulled Port Bill for 2009:
“SEC. 105. Hereafter, notwithstanding any other
12 provision of law, no funds appropriated under this Act or any
13 other Act shall be used to register, issue, transfer, or
14 enforce any trademark of the phrase ‘‘Last Best Place’’.”
A continuation of this nonsense, no doubt:
http://www.missoulian.com/articles/2005/12/29/news/mtregional/news02.txt
How bizarre that it should be hidden away in the NOAA section.
-b
Christopher Booker gave the conference a good write-up in the UK Sunday Telegraph. He is attending the conference, and promised a large summary on his return. (He is a correspondent from the Telegraph.)
.
TonyS: Try this link:
http://www.giurfa.com/gerlich.pdf
Gary (08:05:38)
Thank you, I can easily add it to the collection, probably can take care of Colfax, too. I should have done it yesterday while we were out on our CO2 spewing Sunday drive. I can’t do it today because we getting a lot of snow right now. LOL
MartinGAtkins (08:59:11) Is there any explanation of why those stations would be dropped from GISS? I find it very odd that weather data from two ag research universities would be dropped.
Perhaps while I am taking pictures some alarmed government worker will come out to investigate and I can ask them.
Michael Ronayne (10:07:38) :
Let’s see if the NYT continues to ignore solar inactivity as they have for the last two years.
And for good reason, as there is as little support for that affecting our climate as for AGW. No need to replace one scare with another. It is not what the scare is about that is important to our handlers, but just that there is a scare. Any scare will do.
Neven:
“I regularly notice that a lot of prominent skeptics are relatively old. And most old people I know (not all of them though) are quite entrenched in their patterns and beliefs, which makes them rather stubborn and inflexible. ”
I prefer to think of myself as more experienced and less gullible.
What I cannot understand is why so many want so badly for AGW to be true. I mean, if a doctor said I had some terminal disease, I’d absolutely demand a 2nd, 3rd, and 4th opinion, and absolutely would want to find that the 1st doctor was mistaken. Yet we seem to see the opposite with the AGW crowd. Very strange indeed.
From the NY Times article by Revkin:
Kert Davies, a climate campaigner for Greenpeace, who is attending the Heartland event, said that the experts giving talks were “a shrinking collection of extremists” and that they were “left talking to themselves.”
ROTFL! That’s their standard line, of course. If they say it often enough, at least the “faithful” will continue to believe it, along with the feeble-minded and gullible.
Stephen H. Schneider, a climatologist at Stanford University and an author of many reports by the intergovernmental climate panel, said, after reviewing the text of presentations for the Heartland meeting, that they were efforts to “bamboozle the innocent.”
Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha! This, from one of their chief climate bamboozlers, who came up with “we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have…. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”
Yvo de Boer, head of the United Nations office managing international treaty talks on climate change, said, “I don’t believe that what the skeptics say should provide any excuse to delay further” action against global warming.
But he added: “Skeptics are good. It’s important to give people the confidence that the issue is being called into question.”
Wow, what a shocker. In other words, the science doesn’t matter, (not that it ever did) – full steam ahead on climate change legislation, and the war on “evil” C02.
Oh, and we don’t mind Skeptics – they’re good, in fact. We only say this to give people the illusion that we don’t mind the fact that the issue is being called into question, to divert attention from the fact that the wheels on the AGW bandwagon itself are falling off, and our enormous fear of that.
Neven,
Why do the alarmists resort to scaring school children?
Bloomberg story: “Climate Change Skeptics Meet in new ork to Challenge Obama, ‘Mainstream’ Science”:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601124&sid=aofKTZ4wabJ4&refer=home
It’s 75% quotes from the mainstream pooh-poohing the event, which is in line with Bloomberg’s consistent headlining of every alarmist news story.
Leif Svalgaard (10:30:27) :
And for good reason, as there is as little support for that affecting our climate as for AGW. No need to replace one scare with another. It is not what the scare is about that is important to our handlers, but just that there is a scare. Any scare will do.
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed — and hence clamorous to be led to safety — by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
— H. L. Menken
Newspaper Columnist,
In Defense of Women (1920)
Mary Hinge wrote:
“Perhaps the conference would like to see the March 2009 temperature records, 597 new record highs and 150 tied highs. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/records/index.php?ts=daily&elem=maxt&month=3&day=0&year=2009&submitted=Get+Records”
Mary Hinge….you are “hinging” too much on one piece of data.
During the same time period March 2009, there were 219 LOW Minima either broken or tied and 361 LOW MAXIMA either broken or tied.
Anyone can make the data say what they want when they want (especially when they go picking for cherries!).
And as we are headed toward the boreal spring and Father Sun is a lot higher in the sky….getting THAT many record LOW MAXIMA so late in the season, is pretty damn impressive.
Chris
Norfolk, VA
Michael Ronayne (11:22:45) :
“Any scare will do.”
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
That we can agree on !
Michael Ronayne (11:22:45) :
“Any scare will do.”
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
it may only be a question of time when the GOP will begin to tout the cooling scare. …
“Leif Svalgaard (10:30:27) :
Michael Ronayne (10:07:38) :
Let’s see if the NYT continues to ignore solar inactivity as they have for the last two years.
And for good reason, as there is as little support for that affecting our climate as for AGW. No need to replace one scare with another. It is not what the scare is about that is important to our handlers, but just that there is a scare. Any scare will do.”
Our climate has a history of several ice ages over the past 1 million years. If I were a betting person I would wager we will have another ice age before climate warming and the new ice age will be far more devastating than a little warming.
I was gonna write something pithy but I kept nodding off. Must be old age. Hey Neven, quit pickin’ your nose!
Granpa Dave
I have e-mailed the BBC national and international news services, uknewsplan@bbc.co.uk
worldnewsplan@bbc.co.uk
giving them information about the conference and asking that they, in the interests of “balance” report this in the same depth and detail that they have Al Gore’s AGW conferences. I pointed out that a plenary address by a double, and current, President, Vaclav Klaus should checkmate an Ex Vice President.
Is the BBC biased? We will soon know for sure.
Here’s a link to an article arguing for the positive role blogs can have in policy making:
http://seekingalpha.com/article/124930-the-president-vs-blogs-and-the-future-of-derivatives
Here are a few quotes:
“If you’ve worked on economic policy formulation – or in any large bureaucracy – you know how to get your boss to make the decision you want. The key is to frame the options in such a way that he or she feels that your preferred course of action is the only plausible direction. Alternatives need to be undermined or discredited.
…………………
“Blogs relax previous format restrictions. Length can vary, as can technical content. Comments allow immediate feedback, clarification; debate is healthy for ideas. Experts can now express a view or an endorsement immediately to a broader audience – and get pushback, as appropriate.
“And … experts can now talk directly to other experts at a very detailed operational level, and the results of that conversation are now public – and again attract public content (let’s be honest: sometimes experts are way off-base and they need to be told). This is very threatening to official technocrats, both because their monopoly on expertise crumbles and because a broader set of people become skilled at criticizing their ideas. These technocrats would much rather have their boss read newspapers and weekly magazines.”
>giving them information about the conference and asking that they, in the interests of “balance” report this in the same depth and detail that they have Al Gore’s AGW conferences…
That’s funny. Lets also demand that the media cover the “Flat Earth Society conference” and the “Moon walks occurred in a studio conference” in the interests of balance.
PS Bob Carter is a geologists. He has a great publication record in geology.
“”” DJ (12:42:58) :
>giving them information about the conference and asking that they, in the interests of “balance” report this in the same depth and detail that they have Al Gore’s AGW conferences…
That’s funny. Lets also demand that the media cover the “Flat Earth Society conference” and the “Moon walks occurred in a studio conference” in the interests of balance.
PS Bob Carter is a geologists. He has a great publication record in geology. “””
Thanks DJ for that illuminating information. I can file it away along with the Resume of the UN’s IPCC chief climatological Guru, Pachauri, who I believe is trained as a railway engineer. Well who better to understand carbon pollution than someone shovelling coal into a train firebox.
MAKE THE MOST OF A GOOD CRISIS, AND IF THERE IS NO CRISIS, CREATE ONE. IT DOESN’T MATTER IF IT IS IMAGINARY, AS LONG AS IT’S BELIEVABLE…
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/09/barack_obama_and_the_strategy.html
climatebeagle (07:40:24) :
“Gavin Schmidt and James Hansen were invited also. They only have to walk 10 blocks or so from Columbia U. Naturally they declined.”
It is actually about 80 blocks to Times Square from Columbia University – but Schmidt and Hansen will unlikely make it due to predicted ice/sleet storm Tuesday. Overnight temps: 1°C
@ DJ (12:42:58)
So Bob Carter is a geologist. And you think that scientists studying past Earth history including past climate is irrelevant? Care to guess what James Hansen’s academic training is in?
Spend a little time researching the geologic constraints on the evolution of CO2 levels through earth history and it may explain why geologists as a rule are sceptical on AGW.
The Guardian is desperately trying to attack all forms of skepticism and critical inquiry. It has become more and more savage with the drop in temperatures.
Neven
There’s a terrible paradox about getting old.
When you are young you are think you are right most of the time but you are not.
When you are old you know you are right most of the time – and that can be really depressing
>Thanks DJ for that illuminating information. I can file it away along with the Resume of the UN’s IPCC chief climatological Guru, Pachauri, who I believe is trained as a railway engineer.
Pachauri doesn’t claim or pretend to know better than the climate experts who publish.
>Spend a little time researching the geologic constraints on the evolution of CO2 levels through earth history and it may explain why geologists as a rule are sceptical on AGW.
I’m guessing you are not a geologist by that statement. If you were you would realise the role of CO2 in geological temperature changes is well established.
Just been looking at the programme for the Heartland Conference. One of the things which struck me was the long list of free market/libertarian groups involved. Being a bit of an all-round sceptic, not just a climate sceptic, this got me wondering. Why does this link exist?
“Heartland is not a scientific research organization. In recent years, it has been providing a platform for the so-called “sceptics” in the global warming debate because (a) it’s apparent that advocates of more government power exploit the public’s scientific illiteracy to advance their agenda…” (The Heartland Institute)
Which comes first: the chicken or the egg? Some sceptics (as in the case of the Heartland Institute) seem to believe that there are certain people who, per se, want governments to have more and more power and therefore support the idea of catastrophic global warming caused by human activity. They probably think that Lord Shaftesbury wanted to ban children being employed down the mines because he thought that governments did not have enough power or that the Clean Air Act was passed just to increase the power of governments. It could, however, be that certain people believe that there is such a thing as human-induced global warming and therefore support government action to deal with it. Why do people’s motives always have to be seen as underhand – whether it is ‘libertarians’ objecting to taxes or ‘liberals’ wanting more taxes?
A person’s right to smoke cigarettes is not without its social costs. It is a waste of human resources as people die from smoking-induced cancer (or is that just another example of ‘advocates of more government power exploit(ing) the public’s scientific illiteracy to advance their agenda’) and because resources are used to treat people who suffer from smoking-induced cancer. The public’s taxes are used to treat people who suffer from smoking-induced cancer and so everybody has an interest in reducing the incidence of smoking. I support the view I have just stated and therefore support government policies aimed at reducing smoking. But I don’t do so just because I want a bigger and bigger government.
It is a pity that the whole debate about AGW seems to have got caught up in an entirely separate debate about the proper role of government in a modern democracy. Why is it that there is such a close link between climate scepticism and free-market/libertarian philosophy? And which comes first? Is it that free marketeers/libertarians like the idea of climate scepticism because it helps their political aim of smaller government? Or is it that, it just so happens, free marketers/libertarians all take exactly the same view of climate science? (And, yes, exactly the same point could be made about the people on the other side: Which comes first in their case: a left-wing political philosophy or a certain view of climate science? (Well, OK, David Cameron is not exactly left-wing – although going by some of the comments posted on blogs some American thinkers might think that he is a dangerous ‘liberal’.)
As to the public, their choice seems to lie between accepting the views of ‘respectable’ political bodies such as the UN and the views of ‘respectable’ scientific organisations on the one hand, or a bunch of climate sceptics who are ‘outcasts’ (their own term) in the scientific community and are closely linked to a bunch of free market/libertarian pressure groups. What kind of a choice is that? No wonder, a poll in today’s Scotsman reports that only 7% (of people surveyed) reject the idea of global warming (by which, probably, they mean AGW because that’s the only form of global warming the majority of people hear about).
Is it the case that people who have a free market/libertarian view will always be able to take a ‘correct’ view of science while people on the other side of the political debate cannot avoid taking an ‘incorrect’ view of science? What else explains the politics/science connection? Maybe people with a free market/libertarian outlook are born with a gene that always leads them to understand science ‘correctly’. And people on the other side are born with a gene which always makes them misunderstand science. (Just in case anybody is choking over their Corn Flakes and thinks I’m making a serious suggestion – forget it.) But with few exceptions the overlap between view of AGW and political leanings is uncannily close and there must be some explanation. As someone who teaches politics and economics I find it fascinating.
Finally, the Heartland Institute says that most of its money comes from ‘Foundations’. But where do the ‘Foundations’ get their money from? I looked up the website of the Competitive Enterprise Institute and could find no list of donors. It’s difficult to believe that all of its $5 million comes from donations by individuals with modest incomes. (I’m not suggesting that anyone’s been bought by anybody else but let’s have all the information before we start rejecting claims made by other people.)
That should set the cat among the pigeons. Meanwhile, the following story in “The Scotsman” has been causing a fair bit of amusement:
“THE Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall began their ten-day tour of South America yesterday with the issue of climate change at the top of their agenda.
Prince Charles and Camilla arrived in Chile, but they will also visit Brazil, Ecuador and the Galapagos Islands. Highlighting the issue of global warming is a major theme, and this week the prince will give a dire warning on climate change to the world.
Their chartered Airbus arrived at Comodoro Arturo Merino Benitez airport close to Santiago. They were driven away in a limousine, followed by a motorcade of six cars.”
Wondering if the Scotsman put those last two sentences in deliberately.
“”” DJ (14:10:52) :
>Thanks DJ for that illuminating information. I can file it away along with the Resume of the UN’s IPCC chief climatological Guru, Pachauri, who I believe is trained as a railway engineer.
Pachauri doesn’t claim or pretend to know better than the climate experts who publish. “””
Then why is he appearing before the US Senate committee on environment and Public Works, and presenting himself as an expert; why doesn’t he send his UN IPCC “Climate Experts” instead.
The Senate Committee, is already up to speed on the global politics of MMGWCC and the UN’s stance; but what they are lacking is some training on the Physics of what is going on; and that Pachauri can’t help them with; yet ehy won’t invite scientists to come and talk to them, and the One they did invite Frof Happer from Princeton Department of Physics; Barbara Boxer dismissed as having received research grant moneys from Exxon Mobil. Who has more vested interest in getting the science correct on MMGWCC; Barbara Boxer, or Exxon Mobil; who it just so happens also contributes to Boxer’s re-election campaigns.
“”Mike Ryan (14:21:52) : “”
Mike, why would you presume that Government has a vested interest in curbing smoking; as distinct from expressing their displeasure with smoking; while taking advantage, of that very drug addiction to tax the hell out of the victims caught in that trap, but simultaneously hoping they kick the bucket before they reach Social Security age.
If government really believed smoking was bad, they would let them sell them to kids, and make them more potent; to spare the world from another generation of tobacco junkies who pollute the air more than exhaling CO2 does.
We need to force the separation of politics from science otherwise you’ve got the same situation as uniting church and state.
From his ICCC remarks, McClintock’s advice to climate skeptics:
“If you’re sitting in [your legislator’s] office and you’re talking to them, you’re in exactly the wrong place,” McClintock said. “If you want to communicate with your legislator, don’t write them a letter. Write that same letter to the local newspaper or put it on a blog. Mention them by name, how they’re voting and ask them those inconvenient questions.” (bold emphasis added)
http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2009/20090309101821.aspx
Have at it, guys and gals.
TonyS (04:39:01) :
FALSIFICATION OF THE ATMOSPHERIC CO2 GREENHOUSE EFFECTS WITHIN THE FRAME OF PHYSICS
GERHARD GERLICH; RALF D. TSCHEUSCHNER
Page 275 – 364
Preprint v4 here…
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0707.1161v4
DaveE.
Brilliant stuff, truly deserved Anthony. What an arena. I don’t think I’d sleep if I was there. Piers Corbyn too. What a feast. Good luck.
Some of you may be aware that I post on the comment section of the Guardian’s Environment section. I have never resorted to ad hominem attacks even though I am frequently attacked by a small clique of Alarmists.
Well, today I was posting some hard facts about how unreliable surface temperature monitoring stations are and that historical data is contaminated by urban heat island effects and. in earlier times, dense urban smog which blocked sunlight.
I was repeatedly attacked and mocked for this but did not take the bait. They could not get me to resort to personal attacks.
I have just seen that the Guardian won’t let me post comments any longer. My post comment button has been disabled. Here is a screenshot to prove it.
http://img187.imageshack.us/my.php?image=32786956.jpg
This prompts me to believe that the anonymous comments from Alarmists were partly attributable to Guardian employees or that the Guardian does not want my views on 19th century temperature data being contaminated by smog to be posted any longer.
DJ (14:10:52) :
I’m guessing you are not a geologist by that statement. If you were you would realise the role of CO2 in geological temperature changes is well established.
As i understood it it had been established that co2 was following temp with the ice core samples… which admittedly is relatively recent history as far as a geologic time frame goes… but if we go further back in the paleonoclimate data, which is from sediment analysis we find that the only time atmospheric co2 has been this low in the past was during extended ice ages… the data is a bit sparse, but thats what it shows.
At the present the earth has been in an ice age for around 2.5million years, being punctuated with brief post glaciations, its generally believed that the position of the continents is what is responsible for this. At present we are due for another glacial period, as for temp vrs co2, here is a copy of the vostoc record, and you can see we are considerably cooler now than during the Holocene maximum(bronze age) even though co2 was significantly lower, http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/temp/vostok/graphics/tempplot5.gif And indeed shows that this “warm period” hasnt peaked as high as past warm periods. Hell we should be praying for our “childrens” sake that co2 does prevent the next glacial period!
Mike Ryan:
Perhaps that’s true in the US, but here in the UK the tax take from smoking amounts to many times what it costs to treat smoking-related disease.
It’s the same with carbon taxes – the tax we pay on fuel amounts to many times the ‘cost’ of our resultant emissions.
It’s all just a money-making scam.
Speaking of educational backround…
Is Jams Hansen a climatologist?
I’m not looking for the answer. I already know. Do the alarmist who are concerned with field of learning know?
DJ (14:10:52) :
I’m guessing you are not a geologist by that statement. If you were you would realise the role of CO2 in geological temperature changes is well established.
Yes, it’s minimal.
I wonder if Mary Hinge gets paid by the number of times she is addressed or her name is mentioned on WUWT. If so, this troll is making a fine living.
DJ (12:42:58) :
Lets also demand that the media cover the “Flat Earth Society conference”
I love statements like these. Lets correct it a little.
It was the majority of the educated that believed the earth was flat. The sceptics were proven correct.
It was the majority of the educated that believed the earth was the centre of the universe. The sceptics were proven correct.
It was the educated religious leaders that believed in creationism. The sceptics were proven correct.
It is the educated that believe in AGW. But, as always, the sceptics will be proven correct.
It seems that those who believe, always get proven wrong by the sceptics. I’m glad I’m a sceptic. I may be persecuted now, but ultimately, I will be proven correct.
On the NY Times blog :
It is obvious that Andrew Revkin is biased toward environmentalism. His wordsmithing that tries to make skeptics look agenda driven, while making himself look unbiased and sensible, is pretty well developed. He knows right where the belt line is and he hits below it very well, thank you very much.
That usually is the fatal fracture of writers like him : their continual beating of the “funded by Exxon” drum reveals their own agenda–and we didn’t need Houdini to point that out to us. I wonder if Revkin is concerned how much funding from petroleum companies David Suzuki gets?
I am reluctant to say this, but when Walt Meier pointed WUWT readers to Andrew Revkin I was a little taken aback…. anyway, I will continue to believe that Walt Meier is trying to be unbiased. It could just be he is stuck between an alarmist and a job security place.
——————–
Article about Exxon, AGW, and Newsweek :
page 1
http://www.newsweek.com/id/32312
page 2
http://www.newsweek.com/id/32312/page/2
And I’m willing to bet that less than any of the 700 attendees have published a science paper about human induced climate change, fairies, unicorns, leprechauns, goblins, orcs, dragons, ents, naiads, trolls, pixies, gryphons, or gnomes.
jorgekafkazar (15:58:27) :
And I’m willing to bet that less than any of the 700 attendees have published a science paper about human induced climate change, fairies, unicorns, leprechauns, goblins, orcs, dragons, ents, naiads, trolls, pixies, gryphons, or gnomes.
LMAO! You forgot those poor little hobbits!
Congratulations Anthony. Keep up the good work. Science will win out.
” … for we are right and they are wrong.”
Paul S writes:
While I agree with the sentiment, educated people (who tended to be quite clever back then) did not believe that the earth was flat. If I recall correctly, a Greek calculated the diameter of the earth to surprising accuracy using facts that only make sense if the world is a globe (close enough to).
I regularly notice that a lot of prominent skeptics are relatively old. And most old people I know (not all of them though) are quite entrenched in their patterns and beliefs, which makes them rather stubborn and inflexible.”
May your children adopt just such an attitude!
Buwahahahaha, it alway works!
Well none of those beasties bother me; it’s the true Nibelungs that concern me; for they have an agenda to control the world.
I’m guessing you are not a geologist by that statement. If you were you would realise the role of CO2 in geological temperature changes is well established.
Yep. Temps go up, followed by an increase in CO2 levels, on average of 800 years later. Even the good folks at RealClimate recognize this:
At least three careful ice core studies have shown that CO2 starts to rise about 800 years (600-1000 years) after Antarctic temperature during glacial terminations.
That doesn’t mean that CO2 can’t cause warming, but the burden of proof concerning a causal relationship is squarely on the shoulders of the Doomsday AGW’ers, and more and more peer reviewed studies are throwing doubt on the prospect of CO2 overriding natural variability anytime soon. Thank you for shopping at WUWT. Next please!
(Signed Mike, the former Geology Student.)
Richard Sharpe (16:17:11) :
While I agree with the sentiment, educated people (who tended to be quite clever back then) did not believe that the earth was flat. If I recall correctly, a Greek calculated the diameter of the earth to surprising accuracy using facts that only make sense if the world is a globe (close enough to).
Actually, I agree with you. It is the sentiment I was after. I believe a number of Greeks over a large period of time calculated that the earth was a sphere and eventually to the conclusion of its diameter. If I remember rightly, Aristotle and Plato had a say, but the diameter was calculated, I believe by Eratosthenes.
However, Eratosthenes was criticised by his peers on a number of occasions, notably by Hipparchus on the above topic. It just goes to show, you can’t please all of the people all of the time.
Off topic, but has the tornado season started early over in the US?
Do you want to start with the ‘unprecedented’ ice melt of the 1930’s, or the Viking colonisation of Greenland back in the 9th century, or perhaps you would enjoy reading how the Romans maintained their empires by marching over high level passes now closed by ice? Perhaps information on the Bronze age warm periods when the ancient civilisations first flourished as the climate warmed, then collapsed as they cooled, would be more up your street?
Myself and others here are quite happy to pass on facts rather than conjecture Neven, or you might prefer to read Al Gores 1992 book ‘Earth in the Balance’ who enumerated all these past warmer events. Perhaps you only saw ‘An Inconvenient truth’ by which time Al seems to have conveniently forgotten his earlier book?
Best regards Neven
TonyB
Now Tony, you ol’ geezer, your age is showing badly. Don’t bother the young whippersnapper with history or facts. The goracle hath spoke. Don’t trust anyone over…er, 50.
-psi — who is 50 and therefore to be trusted.
“Ric Werme (10:13:55) : ….I endevour to forget no item of importance before its time.”
funny!
April E. Coggins (10:27:56)
I can’t help you with GISS. You could try asking the universities about who maintains them and who uses the data. They may even know why they are no longer used by GISS.
Penn and Teller on Global Warming
GERHARD GERLICH; RALF D. TSCHEUSCHNER note that convection is the critical difference in the commercial greenhouse effect or a car warming in the sun.
Climate change may similarly be changing the magnitude of convection and precipitation that may counter changes in radiation from Total Solar Insolation, Cloud cover, CO2 and water vapor.
These changes need to be evaluated against the change in temperature lapse rate and consequent changes in radiative heat transfer with such changes.
Mike Ryan (14:21:52) :
Just been looking at the programme for the Heartland Conference. One of the things which struck me was the long list of free market/libertarian groups involved. Being a bit of an all-round sceptic, not just a climate sceptic, this got me wondering. Why does this link exist?
Mike, as someone who has become quite skeptical of AGW, but is also skeptical of the “they are trying to take over the world” anti-AGW argument, I appreciate your raising this issue. To my way of thinking, it is unfortunate that some AGW skeptics tend to resort to this kind of argument, when they could just as well acknowledge that their opponents may be sincere but misguided or misinformed. Skeptics have a huge and growing arsenal of scientific data and perspectives, mostly being swept under the rug by alarmists. There is no need, imho, to cloud the debate with accusations of bad intent or hidden political agendas. Those may be an influence, but I suggest that they are not in fact the primary driver of AGW hysteria.
Neven:
“I regularly notice that a lot of prominent skeptics are relatively old. And most old people I know (not all of them though) are quite entrenched in their patterns and beliefs, which makes them rather stubborn and inflexible.”
Somwhat similarly, using my own anecdotal logic, by the age of 18 I had concluded with the utmost confidence that by the age of 18 nearly everyone would have realised that stereotyping people by means of their external physical characteristics – sex, “race”, age, you name it – or other froms of these “identity” groupings – ethnicty, geographic regionalism, religion or none, income, place of University graduation or none, you name it – was essentially bigoted and therefore a very poor way by which to determine who they were as individuals, what they thought, how “smart” they were, and whether what they said was more likely right or wrong, etc..
I was previously “rigid” as to my confidence in people’s ability to learn, but as proven over time I was obviously quite wrong as to the reality of what many people actually learn and realize.
But, oops, I did it again: until I was about 55 I would have been nearly as rigid in my belief that any group of scientists working on an ostensibly very important project over a long period of time would surely have been doing real science.
But then in 2000 I ran into the ipcc “Climate Scientists”. By deciding to look at the ipcc and “Climate Science” myself.
Neven, here are some stats from a commercial service that monitors WUWT.
Age
1% 3-11
17% 12-17
9% 18-34
32% 35-49
42% 50+
Affluence
12% 0-30K
22% 30-60K
35% 60-100K
31% 100K+
Aron (15:12:02) :
Some of you may be aware that I post on the comment section of the Guardian’s Environment section. I have never resorted to ad hominem attacks even though I am frequently attacked by a small clique of Alarmists.
Well, today I was posting some hard facts about how unreliable surface temperature monitoring stations are and that historical data is contaminated by urban heat island effects and. in earlier times, dense urban smog which blocked sunlight.
I was repeatedly attacked and mocked for this but did not take the bait. They could not get me to resort to personal attacks.
I have just seen that the Guardian won’t let me post comments any longer. My post comment button has been disabled. Here is a screenshot to prove it.
http://img187.imageshack.us/my.php?image=32786956.jpg
This prompts me to believe that the anonymous comments from Alarmists were partly attributable to Guardian employees or that the Guardian does not want my views on 19th century temperature data being contaminated by smog to be posted any longer.
Aaron, I’m sensing a real pattern here, one I recognize in my work on another very different topic than this one. I recommend that you, or someone on your behalf, write a formal email to the Guardian webmasters pointing out the problem and requesting a redress. If they are willing to admit to the ban, ask them the reason why. Put them in the position of having to explain the action, and ask them to correct it.
Document it all. If you do not recieve a legitimate response, then the matter should be fully documented in public (more permanent, not lost in a thread like this) view on another website. In fact, there should be a site devoted (or perhaps Anthony can create a space here for it) specifically to documenting these kinds of actions by the high guardians of Climatespeak. Such incidents in themselves tell a story that needs to be told, about a brittle and insecure status quo that resorts to banning the messenger for simply pointing out that its holy emperor is in the buff.
Thanks for
Neven (01:38:28)’s regarding the age of skeptics…
In addition to J. Peden’s excellent comments regarding the bigotry of such a thought process, please be aware that older people, such as myself, have years of witnessing, experiencing, and thereby remembering the completely natural warming and cooling oscillations of the climate. It is for this reason that we (the skeptic) became aware that the warmists were wrong in suggesting that the short lived warming trend was irreversible anthropogenic global warming and that it was an insult to historical fact and the intelligence of people to suggest as much.
By the way, I am 47 years of age. Too old to know anything?
While we wait with CO2 breath for the next report. I have an idea. At the end of the conference, let’s all open an ice cold bottle of CO2 and quaff it to Anthony. I’m a Coors Light person (would rather have a Henry’s Reserve but I am trying to watch my middle so that I can still see my feet). When is this gathering over?
I wonder if Richard Feynman would have accepted that climate models could predict the future, or if co2 has as much influence on the atmosphere as some say it has.
After watching this video I have my doubts he would…. I have my doubts he would.
Richard Feynman on Scientific Investigation
Paul S (16:37:35) :
“Off topic, but has the tornado season started early over in the US?”
What is tornado season? Tornado season usually means the peak period for historical tornado reports in an area, when averaged over the history of reports. There is a general northward shift in “tornado season” in the U.S. from late winter through mid summer. The peak period for tornadoes in the southern plains, for example, is during May into early June. On the Gulf coast, it is earlier during the spring; in the northern plains and upper Midwest, it is June or July. Remember: tornadoes can happen any time of year if the conditions are right!
Aron:
How to complain
guardian.co.uk
The Guardian, the Observer, and guardian.co.uk strive to maintain the highest editorial standards at all times. However we do not always get things right and should you feel it necessary to correct or complain about an article, the means for doing so are printed below.
Please remember to direct your complaint to the relevant publication. Although you will have read the article online, it will often have originated from one of the two newspapers. If the article does come from the Guardian or the Observer, it will say so underneath the date on the article.
For more general queries, complaints and questions, please contact
userhelp@guardian.co.uk
How to contact the Guardian’s readers’ editor
It is the policy of the Guardian to correct significant errors as soon as possible and the paper has appointed a Readers’ Editor to deal with questions and complaints from readers. The Guardian also has an Ombudsman to represent the interests of readers where the Readers Editor is unable to resolve a problem to the satisfaction of all parties.
Please quote the date of the article you have read. Readers may contact the office of the readers’ editor by telephoning +44 (0)20 3353 4736 between 11am and 5pm Monday to Friday excluding UK public holidays.
Email: reader@guardian.co.uk
Fax: 020 3353 3188.
Siobhain Butterworth
The Guardian
Kings Place
90 York Way
London, N1 9GU
How to contact the Observer’s Readers’ Editor
Email: reader@Observer.co.uk
Tel: 020 3353 4656 (Mon-Fri)
Stephen Pritchard
The Observer
Kings Place
90 York Way
London, N1 9GU
observer.co.uk/readerseditor
How to contact guardian.co.uk user help
User Help
guardian.co.uk
Kings Place
90 York Way
London N1 9GU
Tel: + 44 (0)20 3353 2170
Email: userhelp@guardian.co.uk
http://www.guardian.co.uk/information/guardianunlimited/story/0,,824307,00.html
I believe Guardian has an external ombudsman.
Is it possible to change the tide here? Not according to the following article. Advertising solidifies your base and sways those not in your base who lean your way. Then once there, they don’t leave. However, knowing that, efforts to break the dam will be informed by hard it will be to put a crack in it.
http://www.factcheck.org/specialreports/our_disinformed_electorate.html
Pamela Gray (18:49:28) : “…I’m a Coors Light person”
Bass Ale or Anchor Steam for me.
Aron (15:12:02) :
You have to actually type something into the text field before the ‘post comment’ button becomes active – have you tried that?
I recently got placed in ‘moderation’ on their climate blogs, which meant delays of days before some of my comments appeared – whilst my other comments were simply ‘disappeared’ into thin air. I wrote to the moderator asking when I would be allowed to post again and they completely ignored me… mind you, the trouble started when I suggested a link between climate change advocacy and a repression of homosexual desire in males. So I count the repression of such ideas from the Guardian blogs as perhaps an indicator that I was getting a little too to the, errrr… bone, for comfort.
If all else fails, it’s easy just to sign up again under another name. That’s what I did.
Great post Anthony on Heartland-2 – please continue for the rest of it.
That last sentence was typed too fast: …will be informed by HOW hard it will be to put a crack in it.
There is a US Dept of Ed web site that is actually very good (I know, that’s just amazing). It seeks to serve as a clearinghouse and review of published research on fairly well known educational curriculum and practices. It has set up a review process based on well-known standards of research design and reporting that leads the panel to assign a “meets standards” vs. “meets standards with reservations” vs. “does not meet standards”. It then goes on to rate curriculum, based on the web site’s literature review, as to whether or not it can provide a positive affect on its targeted student population.
I am wondering if such a panel can be convened to serve in this capacity on published climate research?
The educational site is here
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/
Peter,
Oh yes I know that I have to type something!!! I just made that screen capture from a reloaded page to show that my post comment button is permanently greyed out.
Psi – the Post Comment button at the Guardian is disabled until you type some content into the comment box … in your screenshot it is empty. Try typing a comment and see if it enables the button ….
Thanks Andrew for implying that Britain is not in the EU. If only that were true.
I believe Guardian has an external ombudsman.
Mike Bryant (19:08:42) :
What is tornado season? Tornado season usually means the peak period for historical tornado reports in an area, when averaged over the history of reports.
Mike, apologies, I wasn’t being to specific. I was referring to the season through what is typically referred to as tornado valley, Texas, Arkansas etc. I believed this season usually starts in April. It an area of meteorology I’m just getting into.
Mary Hinge (04:57:19) :
I guess you’re implying that manmade co2 caused record temperatures. Or are you just implying that commenters here only pay attention to records of cold? I guess that’s what it was. I will have to guess your meaning because I see you haven’t checked back in to elaborate.
I think the reason I point out record cold, which has been happening for 2 years now, is because ‘global warming’ is supposed to be happening. Record cold for two years running, and cooling trends, were not predicted in AGW.
Occasional record heat, which is not unusual, isn’t worth pointing out, just as occasional record cold isn’t worth pointing out. These both would be normal ‘weather’, which your side is quick to point out. You should have been quick to point it out too.
Paul S (15:39:34) :
Also, it was the majority of scientists who “knew” the universe had existed forever, until the middle of last century when Penzias and Wilson accidentally discovered the signature of the big bang.
http://www.bell-labs.com/project/feature/archives/cosmology/
…which was predicted by a minority of Gamow.
Yep, the Guardian reactivated my post comment button but have placed me in moderation. I just discovered that when I commented on Monbiot’s latest blog post about automobiles. If they don’t allow my post to be displayed in public then I’ll let that be known to a lot of readers on a certain site.
Note to Bruce Cobb
Did Schneider really write this? Do you have the reference for me.
Mary Hinge wrote:
“Perhaps the conference would like to see the March 2009 temperature records, 597 new record highs and 150 tied highs. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/records/index.php?ts=daily&elem=maxt&month=3&day=0&year=2009&submitted=Get+Records”
Mary,
Thanks for the link. There are a few things about the NOAA site I’m not sure about. Maybe someone can clarify. At the top of the page is a reference to “36,550 stations”. Looking back at January and February I find 170,613 and 162,782, respectively. I take it that “stations” here means something like “station reports” or “station daily maximums” I suppose I could bumble around on the NOAA site and verify this, but there must be a couple hundred WUWT watchers who could give a quick answer.
At any rate this chart does indeed show 597 new highs. And the corresponding chart at
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/records/index.php?ts=daily&elem=mint&month=3&day=0&year=2009&submitted=Get+Records#recs
shows 145 new lows. So warming is ahead by 452 new records, out of 36,550 readings. Doesn’t strike me as excessive variability, for _weather_.
Spencer Atwell (08:15:30) :
Note to Bruce Cobb
Did Schneider really write this? Do you have the reference for me.
Yes, he did indeed, in an Oct. 1989 interview with Discover Magazine. There are a number of references to it on the web, but here it is on wicki, with the full quote (scroll down to Public understanding of science, second quote).
In short, “the ends justify the means” for these people. Lying, and even worse is “ethical” if it serves the “greater good”. That way lies authoritarianism.
Maybe because the big-government left has seized upon AGW, quite irrespective of its scientific probity, as an excuse to push for draconian programs of government expansion, control, and taxation worldwide.
If the advocates were to back off and say, “This is a really complicated issue. The science is not settled nor even clear. We don’t know whether the hypothesis of CO2-induced global warming is true, or even falsifiable. So let’s hold off on declaring CO2 a ‘pollutant’, and let’s not tax an already-faltering economy into depression with Cap-and-Trade. Let’s put the money we have into unbiased, empirical research,” then maybe you’d find people who value individual freedom, private property, free enterprise, smaller government, and pro-growth tax policies backing off.
But right now the Alarmists have the upper hand, and are about to smack it down on the rest of us. I suspect that if conservative and libertarian scientists were convinced that AGW was not only real but a clear and present danger, they would join forces with the Alarmists, even if they disagreed with the ‘solutions’. To which the Alarmists say, “Better to take precautions, even if it turns out not to be true.” But conservatives are not likely to buy the ‘insurance policy’ argument and give up freedom for a dubious theory and unlikely security.
/Mr Lynn
You are so right, Mr Lynn.
Look at what the despicable John Kerry says: click
The proper role of government, aside from prudent national defense, is to…
…BUTT OUT!!