Who makes up the IPCC?

Guest post by Steven Goddard

Suzanne Goldenberg recently complained in the UK Guardian about the ICCC (International Conference on Climate Change) global warming “deniers” :

The 600 attendees (by the organisers’ count) are almost entirely white males, and many, if not most, are past retirement age. Only two women and one African-American man figure on the programme of more than 70 speakers.

In the UK, profiling like that might be considered a hate crime if it were about any other group other than the one she described.  But that isn’t the point.  Below is a photo of the vaunted IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change) taken at their last meeting.  The spitting image of her description of the ICCC.   No doubt Ms. Goldenberg considers the adult white men in the IPCC to be great visionaries, leading the noble fight against climate Armageddon.
Here are some other scientists active in climate change:
Jim Hansen:
Hansen at a climate conference in Denmark 2009.

Hansen at a climate conference in Denmark 2009.

Left to Right: Dr. Gavin Schmidt (NASA Goddard Space Flight Center), Dr. Paul Knappenberger (President of the Adler Planetarium and Astronomy Museum), Dr. Wally Broecker (Columbia University), and Dr. Ray Pierrehumbert (University of Chicago) pose for a photo after the first of the Global Climate Change forum. Forum I was held at the Adler Planetarium.

Is it a big surprise that most senior scientists are adult white males?  And what criteria did she use to choose the expertise of one group of prestigious scientists to the exclusion of another?  Does she consider her personal climate expertise to be superior to Dr. Richard Lindzen, to the point where she can choose to simply ignore his opinion?

Richard Siegmund Lindzen, Ph.D., (born February 8, 1940) is a Harvard trained atmospheric physicist and the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Lindzen is known for his research in dynamic meteorology, especially planetary waves. He has published over 200 books and scientific papers. He was the lead author of Chapter 7 (physical processes) of the Third Assessment Report of the IPCC on global warming (2001). He has been a critic of some anthropogenic global warming theories and the political pressures surrounding climate scientists.

It is one thing to question the scientific conclusions of an organisation, and a completely different matter to make an ad hominem attack against an entire group – based on such witless criteria.

H/T to Aron for finding the article

300 thoughts on “Who makes up the IPCC?

  1. Times Online’s environmental correspondent has been running a series of doom and gloom pieces from the Copenhagen conference this week but as far as I can tell, the sources have all been economists. Presumably, the scientists are trying to regain both credibility and funding.

  2. If scientific arguments fail, then just open another can of pickled ad hominems. Deperation springs to mind….

  3. Science is done in the MSM by attack. Find a spurious unrelated ‘weakness’ and attack. Clearly not science but clearly political agenda.

  4. Dismissing the ICCC members on the basis of race and gender is simply a spurious ad hominem and deserves no respectful rebuttal.
    However, the mention of a lot of “retired” attendees just may be relevant. People who depend of research grants to make house payments are unlikely to take a skeptical position on AGW.
    Has there ever been, or could some organization sponsor, a poll of scientists about AGW with enough data to tease out the differences between people who still depend on grants from public funds and others with similar demographics but not dependent on public grants?

  5. Why didn’t you continue the quote you pulled? “Aside from a smattering of academics from well-known universities, they are affiliated with rightwing thinktanks, such as the Ayn Rand Institute, the Carbon Sense Coalition, or the scarily named Committee for A Constructive Tomorrow, that operate far outside the mainstream of public discourse.”

  6. But it is a proven fact that adult white males are EVIL. They are responsible for all the problems in the world today!

  7. No fair! You’re not allowed to use someone’s ignorant prejudices against them! Are you?
    Sorry, I get lost in this PC lunacy sometimes. Which is it today? All white males are horrible, or white males are good?

  8. I think you should make clearer that Ms. Goldenberg’s article pertained to the recent Heartland Institute conference in NYC.
    Science is about what can be proven — demographics are irrelevant.

  9. Is there ‘female climate science’? How about ‘non-white climatology?
    Science does not care about race, sex, religion or gender-orientation. Neither does the climate.
    Politics does care about these things.

  10. Incredible. The level to which the AGW ideologues will stoop in their mindless and hypocritical effort to cast aspersions on and smear those who dare speak against their cherished AGW Belief system seems to know no bounds.

  11. Maybe you should give further hints to Ms Goldenberg by pointing out that there are many Jews among the attendees of ICCC. For instance Richard S. Lindzen is descendant of German Jews who fled Germany in the early thirties. His middle initial S. stands for Siegmund. Fred Singer is an Austrian Jew, who managed to get out of hell in 1940. His first name originally was Siegfried, changed into Fred. When Fred Singer was visiting Germany last year, where he presented his views on climate change, he was branded lackey of the oil industry by our local press. I felt so ashamed then, but at that time did not have any power to protest.

  12. Ad hominem attacks are as reflexive to the AGW crowd as chasing mice is to cats. The resort to ad hominem attacks is also a surefire indication that the attacker knows, at least subconsciously, the weakness of their position.

  13. Clearly, Suzanne Goldenberg thinks it’s more important that the correct PC ratio of races and gender is maintained than that they should know about the science.

  14. Suzanne Goldenberg cannot rationally dispute the facts presented at the ICCC so reverts to tired and irrelevant ad hominem attacks instead. That is also known as an admission of defeat in any intellectual or rational reasoned debate.
    I’d rather be correct than fashionable, and Suzanne has demonstrated that it should not be too long before I am both.

  15. Yes, one can’t escape the conclusion that the “anti-AGW” cohort (if one uses a broad moniker for the people who attended that meeting in NY) are predominantly men of a “certain age”.
    And that’s pretty much true of the scientists or ex-scientists that are vociferously “anti-AGW”. There’s an awful lot of elderly blokes!
    That’s certainly not the case for the scientists that study climate related science, and contribute to body of knowledge that informs our understanding of climate and greenhouse gases. Your selective groups of a few climate scientists rather distorts the reality. I spent 10 minutes looking through some of the papers from climate scientists involved in the IPCC:
    there are actually rather a lot of women. And as with science in general, there is a strong representation of youthful women in climate science (it’s still the case that many major contributions are made by youngish scientists):
    so for example:
    The secretary of the IPCC is a women: Renate Christ
    At least three women chair or are lead authors on IPCC groups/reports:
    e.g. Susan Solomon (co-chair of IPCC Working Group 1)
    http://cires.colorado.edu/people/solomon/
    Gabriele C. Hegerl (IPCC coordinating lead author)
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabriele_C._Hegerl
    Jean Palutikof (managed preparation of the report Climate Change 2007)
    and a very quick look at other IPCC contributors/climate scientists:
    Lorraine Lisiecki
    http://lorraine-lisiecki.com/
    Maureen Raymo
    http://www.bu.edu/dbin/es/index.php/people/faculty/maureen-raymo/
    Rosemarie Came
    http://www.geo.utexas.edu/faculty-scientist.php?id=3142
    Roxana Bojariu
    http://www.ad-astra.ro/whoswho/view_profile.php?user_id=12&lang=ro
    Coleen Vogel
    http://web.wits.ac.za/Academic/Science/Geography/Staff/Coleen+Vogel.htm
    Cynthia Rosenzweig
    http://www.barnard.edu/envsci/dept/rosenzweig/rosenzweig.html
    Judith Curry
    http://curry.eas.gatech.edu/
    Isabel Montanez
    https://www.geology.ucdavis.edu/faculty/montanez.html
    Isabella Velicogna
    http://science.jpl.nasa.gov/people/Velicogna/
    Corinne Le Quere
    http://lgmacweb.env.uea.ac.uk/lequere/
    Sandra Diaz
    Matilde Rusticucci
    and so on….

  16. I’m not allowed to comment or post any rebuttals on the Guardian’s Comment Is Free (cough) section after I mentioned that the temperature data for the 19th century and early 20th century needs to be reconstructed to account for global dimming from the dense smog, and also because I challenged George Monbiot to a debate. I was insulted at often by a small clique and never fought back with anything except science. Yet those who prefer vicious attacks are still allowed to post their insults towards people while my comments can’t make it past the moderation filter. And no, I will not create a new account because my integrity is better off this way and I will hit them where it hurts when my research is done.
    As if their disinformation wasn’t bad enough, the Guardian’s articles exploit the Holocaust by using those slurs (denier, revisionist, death trains, factories of death) against people, yet they have the audacity to call a part of their environmental section ‘Ethical Living’. Very unethical environmental journalism, subsidised by Auto Trader.

  17. Just imagine a world without the contributions of the white man.
    Reporters / People like this one would have burnt Galileo at the stake for being a skeptic of the flat Earth.

  18. Suzanne US environment correspondent:
    “Barrak Obama and Congress are working on legislation to curb the burning of greenhouse gases”
    Oh really? Is this the latest technology to supplant CO2 sequestration? Maybe if we burnt them they would go away. But wait, then shouldn’t Barrak et al encourage the burning of greenhouse gases. Ah, I’m just a Guardian “environment correspondent” and I’m so confused by these Climate Deniers!!

  19. If Suzanne would prefer young athletic men and women of diverse ethnic backgrounds wearing scanty colorful outfits she should go to one of the anti-globalization events in Brazil. They know how to party there too.

  20. So, we old, to the grave and young to power?, World upside down.
    The elders used to lead in the past and teached and enlighten the younger, with tender love as addressing their grandchildren with their experience. Hear, ye youngsters, tomorrow (you will then remember these words) you will be the old ones, perhaps then confined and abandoned.

  21. Just goes to show that the Alarmists are running out of “facts” to defend their position and now have to resort to attacking skeptics based on race, gender, and age. Pathetic really, particularly for a group that prides itself on being tolerant, diverse, and inclusive, but apparently that applies only if you believe what they want you to believe.

  22. What is retirement age, in an epoch where your 401K is now a 201K? Isn’t it somewhere over 80, now 🙂

  23. Suzanne Goldenberg claims to be a journalist, but by the language she uses she clearly identifies herself as a partisan looking to stir up controversy and sell newspapers. Such types are easy to catch in the hypocrisy of applying unequal criteria to both sides of a debate.

  24. Does she believe that when one retires they lose the ability to read. to do research, to reach their own conclusions? What actually happens is the pressure to keep their job by remaining politically correct is relieved. Also, is Good Science determined by the gender and racial balance of a group?

  25. Plenty of white males at the Copenhagen conference-is that also to be decried by the Guardian reporter? Have aatached a blog from there.
    How to Talk about Global Warming with Climate Change Deniers
    Green Manners: This could get ugly…
    By Brian Merchant
    Brooklyn, NY, USA | Mon Feb 09 07:00:00 EST 2009
    AP
    READ MORE ABOUT:
    Climate Change | Green Challenges | Green Manners
    If you’re reading this, then there’s a pretty good chance that you agree that climate change is a prominent threat to human beings and the entire natural world. If that’s not the case, then I look forward to reading your nasty comment, which perhaps shall include a link to the Wall Street Journal’s latest climate change-denying op-ed or a Rush Limbaugh radio broadcast.
    Apologies if that seemed haughty, but it’s tough to have patience with those who willfully deny a process that the near-entirety of the scientific community has cited as one of the gravest threats to our earth. Which brings me to today’s Green Manners: approaching the topic of global warming in the company of climate change deniers.
    Rule #1: Do not sarcastically refer to the WSJ’s op-ed pieces or Rush Limbaugh to demean your audience.
    No, I suppose I got off on the wrong foot here. There are better ways to approach climate change in polite company. See, global warming is its own breed of elephant in the room—it’s not like religion, philosophy, or even politics, about which a person’s views can be respected even if they’re in contrast to yours. No, climate change is happening, plain and simple. But discussing global warming with climate change deniers sometimes seems like trying to convert them to Paganism. They look at you like you’re crazy, maybe laugh at you, or get defensive. So how do we broach the topic?
    Depends. Here are a few of the most common non-scientific qualms people have with climate change, and the suggested course of action for each:
    They say there’s no proof, seems plenty cold out here to me.
    This is what we’ll call your level one denier—they haven’t given the idea much thought, and aren’t overly concerned about it either way. No need to be overly forceful here. You can just quietly highlight some of the main points and perhaps refer them to a study or two—NOT An Inconvenient Truth, unless you’re certain your acquaintance harbors no animosity to the ol’ Gore. (More on this later) Plant a seed and don’t push it—there’s hope here.
    They don’t want to feel bad about driving their SUV, and get defensive.
    Hey, my climate change accepting parents still drive an SUV. But they’ve recognized it’s not ideal, and limit driving it to when they only need to haul a bunch of equipment or people. Even a bona fide TreeHugger drives an SUV. It’s not ideal, but it’s not the end of the world.
    They say it’s an elaborate hoax perpetrated by a group of global warming ‘alarmists’ who are engaged in a scheme to fabricate the apocalypse. They might also mention that we never really landed on the moon.
    Walk away from this one—you’re not going to make any headway here. For whatever reason, this guy’s got a grudge against environmentalism in any form, and will not be swayed by logic. Just nod politely, say you disagree, and leave it be. Then make fun of him behind his back with your friends.
    They say that Al Gore is a windbag.
    They might also call him a hypocrite and say he’s just trying to gain political power. Remind your acquaintance that climate change is not Al Gore, and that they exist independently of one another.
    More Important Global Warming Info to Help Dissuade Deniers:
    The 4 Stages of Global Warming Denial
    Warning: Effects of Global Warming Include Death
    Global Warming and Tornados
    Children Already Bearing Brunt of Global Warming
    Got a gnawing question about green social graces? Drop us a line at etiquette (at) treehugger (dot) com.

  26. Absolutely stunning….
    I have no reasonable comment on this and the mentality of Suzanne Goldenberg without getting snipped
    sigh

  27. Yes well, it’s the Guardian so what else is new?
    I notice the other day George Monbiot in the Guardian was expressing ‘animal panic’ (literally his words) at the thought that if fossil fuel use continues to increase at its current exponential rate for a mere 100 years then the temperature of the planet would increase by a few degrees.
    Fair enough but a few weeks ago he was expressing the same level of panic over the fact that fossil fuels are imminently about to run out.
    So…he is panic stricken that fossil fuels are about to run out AND that the use of those fuels will increase exponentially for at least another century. He is panicking over two mutually exclusive eventualities simultaneously!
    Conclusion: the Guardian never was and never will be a bastion of logic, common sense or even consistency.

  28. Suzanne Goldenberg isn’t much into checking facts or details.
    Not that we’re into labels or profiles but Dr. Willie Soon gave a talk to the deniers.
    I find the phrase ‘past retirement age’ to be most offensive. Continuing to do what one loves to do, regardless of whatever that is keeps a lot of folks going and making useful contributions.

  29. In the UK, we have a popular University course called Science Studies. The reason it is popular is that it doesn’t contain any maths, or science.
    It’s sole purpose is to prove that science is a conspiracy by dead white males to denigrate and hegemonize the ‘wisdom’ of ‘other’ cultural heritages.
    Ms Goldenberg sounds like the stereotypical graduate.

  30. The wit and wisdom of Suzanne Goldberg
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/mar/12/climate-change-sceptic-environment
    Unlike Obama, who owed his victory to millions of supporters and donors, the climate change deniers operate within narrow bands of support: the conservative wing of the Republican party and the extreme end of the Christian Right.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/feb/26/toilet-roll-america
    “American taste for soft toilet roll ‘worse than driving Hummers’: Extra-soft, quilted and multi-ply toilet roll made from virgin forest causes more damage than gas-guzzlers, fast food, or McMansions”
    Gee I wonder how many trees are cut down to supply newsprint for “The Guardian”? Its time a Euro per kilogram tax on newsprint.

  31. I fear this is perfeclty normal. Those who are young, need to feed their children and needs the money. As well as for their intitute (or laboratory) as for themselves.
    For regular, normal non-genious researcher it is impossible to get official grants ( is this the right English word ? I mean money) when one takes an alternative viewpoint about global warming as it is defined by the Religorious intstitutions. I have experienced that at full strength. Being involved (and employed) with textile projects I got officially money as much as I wonat so long I walk along the arguments of the Goracle. But one day I submitted a project called “alternative communication about the impact of Textile industry on the supposed global warming”. After that I did not get any project approved…..and I had to leave the academic world.
    So I am not supprised that people who ask questions about this Goracle fortune-telling are already retired and have noting to loose !

  32. The hate crime that is being perpetrated is against the whole of humanity, or at least those unlucky to be outside of the 100-200 million considered to be sustainable and therefore not harmful to Mother Earth. Thomas Malthus would be proud. Or maybe they would prefer Jonathon Swift’s modest proposal for the rest of us.

  33. foinavon (08:15:25) :
    How many papers are in AR-4 are from the following demographics: African, Japanese, Korean, Taiwan, Brazil, or Russian?

  34. http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2009/03/political-conspiracy.html
    The IPCC would be the quasi-scientific arm of the EU, which is the European Arm of the new world government to be based upon the UN. If you doubt me, it wasn’t I who said it but “one must look to Dr John Sununu’s speech at the Heartland Institute conference earlier this week. Clearly, without equivocation, he stated what we all know to be true. The activism we are seeing is not about global warming. Global warming is not the real target, says Sununu, but just a convenient demon around which anti-growth and anti-development activism can be mounted.”
    Click one the link for the story, and one of the most insightful yet succinct tellings of what is going on underneath the Green mask, and why it matters to everybody…even those bored by climate science and/or politics.

  35. Johng is right: in fact the Telegraph has had nonsensical articles on global warming two days running now. My objections did not make it through moderation.
    They will be firing Christopher Booker any day now.

  36. You could handle this by growing a bad-ass diversity beard, very much in vogue with Wacademics and folks who’s residences tend to favor bus stations and bridge abutments. It’s ok to be Caucasian if you layer in some ‘tude via bad hair or clothes. This has the added benefit of pleasing the AGW crowd and making you appear to be in synch with their world view.
    Bring forth the Patchouli!!!!

  37. As one who inhabits academia, I found Ms. Goldenberg’s comment is not at all surprising. In most higher education institutions nowadays, if one deviates from the preferred orthodoxy within the college/university, the “race, gender, ethnicity” card is always the first rejoinder. This is especially true if the one throwing the ad hominem cannot make an argument based on reason and facts.
    In the past, this worked quite well in putting a stop on people from expressing a contrary opinion. However, I’ve found the best counter is to respond with humor and and out right “laugh in their face”. That they can’t stand in the least.
    You deny AGW?? Why of course you do! You must be a (racist, sexist, general bigot… insert your choice)!

  38. Fair or not, the climate issue is political, and thus one of perception. Public perception, like it or not, is very important.
    Back a few months when I read the ICCC roster of speakers I complained right here in this blog that it looked like a pow-wow for a bunch white Manchester capitalists.
    I urged in this forum to recruit more foreign speakers to give it the appearance of a more global movement. I think the ICCC made some effort, but not enough!
    So now live with the attacks from the media – as unfair as they may be.
    Maybe the ICCC will learn from experience.
    The public relations by the ICCC for this conference was also miserable. Do they even know what media is?

  39. you are trying to argue against facts. many “active” “sceptic” scientists are retired.
    the IPCC will, by it s very nature, be more diverse.

  40. maksimovich (09:46:46) :

    foinavon (08:15:25) :
    How many papers are in ar4 are from the foolwing demographics?,African,Japanese,Korean,Taiwan,Brazil,or Russian,

    No idea maksimovich. Why don’t you explore the question yourself!
    I was just addressing Steven Goddard’s rather selective set of pictures. One of the things that’s apparent in modern science is that there are rather a lot of women participating in the enterprise. So it’s worth highlighting that. There tend to be more in the Biomedical sciences, less in the Physical sciences and fewer still in basic Physics/Maths. But climate-related science, while a physical science (with some biological aspects) has lots of youthful women. I just spent a few minutes looking at some of the recent papers I’d read on climate science, and came up with my snippet of a list! Quite a number of climate scientists in positions of seniority are women it seems.
    In my opinion it’s a useful and interesting to point out that an astonishing number of those that are very publically and vociferously against the science on global warming are elderly men. It seems to be a basic fact of life. I’m sure we could come up with some explanations for that…..I’ve certainly got an idea or two! 😉

  41. foinavon:
    Lorraine Lisiecki:

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/11/081106153633.htm
    “Our study tells us a lot about how the ocean circulation is affected by changes in climate,” she adds. “The ocean does not always follow the climate; it exerts its own impact on climate processes.”
    She studies Milankovitch cycles too. I bet she comes over to the skeptic camp before long. Of course she may already be in it, in her heart. 😉
    An interesting list foinavon, thanks.

  42. foinavon (08:15:25)
    What is the ratio of US/UK in the AR4 say vs other countries.?
    Is this an example of the “excellence ” of Bourbakian mathematics that has seen the seen these countries (and a lot of European) become also runs in the “schools of mathematical physics?
    Would this be the reason that “beautiful minds” such as Dyson understand intuitively,the limiting qualities of “climate science” ie the lack of mathematical theory.
    We know the causes eg Vladimir Arnold address to the ICTP.
    In the middle of the twentieth century a strong mafia of left-brained mathematicians succeeded in eliminating all geometry from the mathematical education (first in France and later in most other countries), replacing the study of all content in mathematicsby the training in formal proofs and the manipulation of abstract notions. Of course,all the geometry, and, consequently, all relations with the real world and other sciences have been eliminated from the mathematics teaching.
    Define the multiplication of natural numbers by the long multiplication rule. The
    commutativity of the multiplication (ab = ba) becomes then a difficult theorem, which one can however deduce logically from the definition. Forcing poor students to learn such proofs, the left-brained criminals had inevitably created the present negative opinion, of society and governments, of mathematics.
    One can only understand the commutativity of the multiplication counting the soldiers by the rows and by the columns, or evaluating by two ways the area of the rectangle.
    All the attempts to avoid this intervention of the real world into mathematics is a sectarian approach, that will be rejected by any reasonable person and will produce an aversion to mathematics, to multiplication and to all kinds of proofs. This “abstract” description of mathematics can be used neither for the teaching, nor for any practical purpose.
    But the left-brained ill people have succeeded in breeding generations of mathematicians,who understand no other approach to mathematics and are able only to continue to teach it the same way. The aversion to mathematics of the ministers who have suffered through the humiliating teaching of this type in high school is a normal and healthy reaction
    Unfortunately, their aversion to mathematics is acting indiscriminately on all of it
    -and can kill it completely. One of the dangerous trends is to eliminate the proofs from the high-school mathematics.The role of the proof for mathematics is similar to that for orthography or even calligraphy for poetry. A person, who had not mastered the art of the proofs in high school, is as a rule unable to distinguish correct reasoning from that which is misleading.
    Such people can be easily manipulated by the irresponsible politicians.
    Mass hypnosis and the disastrous social events may result. L. Tolstoy observed that the strength of a government depends on the people’s ignorance.
    Moreover, he said, the government is aware of this and would therefore always
    fight against the people’s education.I think however that the complete destruction of mathematics and of mathematical education would be a mistake similar to the Galileo persecution.’
    It is obviously too late.eg
    Chinese maths level embarrasses English system
    http://www.rsc.org/aboutus/news/pressreleases/2007/chinesemaths.asp

  43. Gary P
    I’ve been urging people for months now to end their newspaper subscriptions. These news papers want people to reduce CO2?
    Fine, start by eliminating their rags.
    I had a climate-activist paper here in Germany call and ask if I’d subscribe. I told them no because producing and distributing their paper created earth-shattering CO2. I also told them I was thinking starting a campaign telling people to stop reading printed papers – to save the world.
    They were not amused.

  44. The point has been made here repeatedly that the reason there were mostly retired scientists at the Heartland conference is because being retired, they are not in a position to lose their jobs for being seen there.
    Rather than making this an age issue, those who gloat about it in this thread [and we all know who you are], they should instead be protesting the unethical threat against the job security of scientists that prevents their speaking freely without fear of retribution.
    Not protesting those reprehensible tactics, and going even beyond that by being part of the alarmist monkey-piling on younger scientists, makes it clear that those turning a blind eye to this attack on freedom of speech have no ethics.

  45. Is Dr Sallie Baliunas of Harvard’s department of astrophysics an evil old white man???? What’s up with her young oriental colleague?! Everyone knows if you’re female or young or Asian you have to be a trendy green alarmist!

  46. foinavon says:

    In my opinion it’s a useful and interesting to point out that an astonishing number of those that are very publically and vociferously against the science on global warming are elderly men. It seems to be a basic fact of life. I’m sure we could come up with some explanations for that…..I’ve certainly got an idea or two! 😉

    Why don’t you spit it out so we can see what you mean.
    For my part I think it has to do with a couple of things:
    1. Lots of experience in the real world.
    2. No longer caring about pernicious peer pressure.

  47. A protester at the conference (what seemed like a high school girl) said the exact same thing during a Q&A session. Nir Shaviv was taken a little off guard.

  48. In some AGW websites if one were to subsitute the word “deniers” with any ethnic group, one would embark on a trip down memory lane, a very sad and dark trip… the violence and racism exhibited by these groups and now openly inferred by Mrs. Goldenberg in the UK Guardian is cause for much more alarm than prediction of sea level rises. It is reminiscent of pre-bolchevik revolution press in content and people for those who have been so lucky as to read the late Solzhenytsyn. Indeed, the social unrest predicted by the Copenhagen report would have nothing to do with science… i surely hope someone in the UK will take her and this newspaper to court.

  49. Ben Lawson (07:19:56) :
    Why didn’t you continue the quote you pulled? “Aside from a smattering of academics from well-known universities, they are affiliated with rightwing thinktanks, such as the Ayn Rand Institute, the Carbon Sense Coalition, or the scarily named Committee for A Constructive Tomorrow, that operate far outside the mainstream of public discourse.”
    Just more ad hominem smear tactics from a rabid AGW ideologue. Funny, Ben, that you think that actually helps your cause any.

  50. johng (09:40:55) :
    You should read the rubbish in todays’ Daily Telegraph!
    Or perhaps you shouldn’t!
    Where is the ‘science’ supporting this 6C increase and ‘it’s much worse than we thought’ coming from?

  51. People who depend of research grants to make house payments are unlikely to take a skeptical position on AGW.

    Exactly.

  52. foinavon answered my question — there is such a thing as female climate science! There is also an under 40 climate science, to boot!
    Funny, the laws of nature don’t change according to your age, ethnicity or sex, but science does.

  53. The time is ripe for white males to assert that they have just as much rights to be competent, well paid and venerated as anyone else.
    Not more rightful.
    As rightful.
    I’ve got a bit tired over the past 3 years of highlighting sexist behaviour by women. I resigned membership of the Liberal Democrat party in the UK due to overtly sexist comments by a FEMALE senior spokesperson at a winter conference.
    I highlighted a sexist article in the Daily Telegraph this week.
    I’ve highlighted thuggish bullying by women in the place of work.
    None of it has done me much good, I have to say.
    There is just as intense hatred and sexism towards decent men by sexist women now as there was by sexist men toward decent women a generation ago.
    The difference is, we don’t want to turn into women, nor do we wish to wear miniskirts or burn our male-appropriate underwear. We don’t want women to be subjugated as baby-producing housewives, nor do we expect them to drink 15 pints of beer to prove they are worthy work colleagues. We don’t object to being managed by a competent woman, nor do we have any objection to career women being multi-orgasmic, as long as it isn’t on the office table between 9am and 6pm.
    Keep up the good work and called feminist sexist pigs feminist sexist pigs, I say!
    That doesn’t mean that we can’t also think that there are millions of decent, generous, respectful, loving women and mothers out there.
    Does it??

  54. Ben Lawson (07:19:56) :
    Why didn’t you continue the quote you pulled? “
    foinavon (08:15:25) :
    Your selective groups of a few climate scientists rather distorts the reality.

    [snip ]

  55. foinavon (10:18:13) :
    I’m sure we could come up with some explanations for that…..I’ve certainly got an idea or two! 😉

    Is your amateur psychology any better than your climate science? 😉

  56. I’d love to hear how the representation of women and youth in climate science is an indication of the quality of the work rather than the social, political and financial appeal of the work.
    How many young climate scientists would be climate scientists if not for the exponential growth in funding for the field and perceived social nobility associated with the work?
    Does anyone have specific statistics on the growth and demographics of the climate science field?

  57. foinavon (08:15:25) :
    You have just proved why you lack credibility. And John Galt (11:03:35) explains very succinctly, (to use a Hansen expression), why you have been nailed.
    Nice to see you back though: adds spice to the menu!!

  58. Thanks K.Moore for that insight into the mind of that superior being, Mr Merchant. Rarely have I seen such a load of patronising drivel.
    I will probably use it as the basis of a satire at some point when this whole AGW farce has blown over.

  59. Modest Proposal: The Guardian should be able to use its influence to declare London Green. Instead of talking about what everyone else should do, they should actually do it somewhere. Like London. No fossil fuel use, period. Show us how it’s done. Lead by example. Be the first to take the plunge. Remember, time is short, you have to do it NOW (and paying for carbon credits is cheating).

  60. To Both Sides of this Particular Post…. What’s your point?
    Someone posted all the women in the IPCC? What is your point? Women are smarter? Young women especially so? The IPCC is more right because they appear more “inclusive”? Merit of logic, quality of work and group position is based on the demographics of membership? Deniers do not like women?
    Really what is your point.
    As far as pointing out that a picture of the IPCC as white guys, same questions? What is the point?
    Nothing like a good dose of divisive politics to distract from the real world, while entertaining not very substantive.

  61. If you study animal family groups, such as mericats, elephants, chimps, gorillas, wolves, lion prides, immigration of young human males without the extended family, etc, studies show that if the adult males and females that are past child-bearing age are removed from the group, the group disintegrates.

  62. Steven Goddard (11:37:15) :
    “32 out of 34 IPCC lead authors are men. ”
    Thank goodness. More women +more sentimentality +more unnatural fear+more individual rights =loss of collective rights.
    The last one out please switch off the lights.

  63. Several articles today on legalising and taxing marijuana in California and Oregan.
    Sounds like a good way to take money out of criminal hands.
    Then you realise two things:
    1. Legalising it would mean the already establish wealthy companies would take control of it. Many poor people who make cash on the side from selling the stuff would end up poorer and commit more crime than they already do.
    2. It’s bad enough that the youth have already been getting stoned and easy to brainwash by a politically motivated media. Now they could become permanently stoned all day long legally and become even more susceptible to brainwashing.

  64. Mike A. (10:21:33) :
    “Does I.P.C.C. stand for International Party of Cretaceous Communists?”
    or maybe:
    International Piltdown Climate Co-operative.
    —–
    Richard Sharpe (10:36:55) :
    “For my part I think it has to do with a couple of things:
    1. Lots of experience in the real world.
    2. No longer caring about pernicious peer pressure.”
    and a couple or more extra decades of being lied to by politicians and campaigners.

  65. foinavon at 8:15: Of course! (Oh, I dislike addressing disinformation specialists.) “And as with science in general, there is a strong representation of youthful women in climate science.”
    Probably a majority of IPCC “scientists” are young and as you have pointed out many of them are female. I imagine that few older scientists who are well versed in their research areas would give the IPCC the time of day — that is unless they desire to continue to receive grants and to be published. Almost all publications have been taken over by the pseudo-scientists (academic and corporate) who demand the party line. Older scientists on the IPCC will be either financially needy or ego driven, or like James Hansen, not only the latter, but spouting off outside of his area of expertise.
    Regarding the (young) women scientists, the issue becomes more complicated. If they are raising a family (even with husbands) they become even more subject to subtle threats to their job security, advancement possibilities, and being included on a research team. How many universities have young male or female scientists in any area touching climate change who are permitted to work on real science.
    My smallish institution of higher education was pretty much taken over by leftists-marxists-critical theorists. Once they became the majority of the faculty in a department — and well placed deans could stack those odds — all other faculty members voted in were fellow travelers. Applicants with excellent credentials were ignored; course standards declined; and the variety of viewpoints contracted severely. Our current President did not stray far from these leftists ideas throughout his entire career, and a study of his student and work career suggests that he never had to produce much in any area.
    Thank goodness for the older folk who know what standards are, who know how to work, who know the rigors of science and other research fields. They will continue to pursue truths. I think I hear envy on the part of “younger” commenters. With age comes wisdom and the freedom to pursue one’s own goals. More power to age.

  66. “…many, if not most, are past retirement age.”
    Well, at least she didn’t suggest that they pursue a career as Wal•Mart greeters.

  67. Yup,
    medias running mad on AGW, maybe there’s nothing else left
    they could distort.
    Don’t worry, guys and gals, the world allways did look extremely mad,
    just before it entered a time of reason and sane again.
    Here we are, again.

  68. David Porter (11:37:12)
    Not sure what your point is. I’m addressing Steven Goddard’s top post which makes a rather selective depiction of climate science (“Is it a big surprise that most senior scientists are adult white males?”). In the climate field (as in science in general at least outwith the very physical/mathematical sciences), women (and even youngish women without beards!) are rather highly represented in senior positions. That seems to be a truism…perhaps you can explain why pointing that out detracts from my “credibility”!

  69. The Telegraph actually tends to be fairly well balanced. A good piece from Bjorn Lomborg today.
    One of the few current GW articles with comments enabled, However my comments tend not to get by the censors of late and sure enough. I gave support to the article and squeezed in a little diatribe that if wanting to discuss Climate Change Deniers then we need look no further than the fabrication commonly known as the Hockey Stick. 🙂
    Not going to see the light of day it seems.
    Mick.

  70. Ben Lawson (07:19:56) :
    Why didn’t you continue the quote you pulled? “Aside from a smattering of academics from well-known universities, they are affiliated with rightwing thinktanks, such as the Ayn Rand Institute, the Carbon Sense Coalition, or the scarily named Committee for A Constructive Tomorrow, that operate far outside the mainstream of public discourse.”

    So, Ben, does that mean that you endorse the article’s methodology, as long as the excerpted parts are included? To my way of thinking, the added materials merely reinforce the sense that the writer does not want to deal with the substance of the arguments being presented. Whether the presenters are old white men, or merely associates of one or another supposedly disreputable organization, its all the same sort of guilt-by-association argument as far as I can tell. I speak as a good left winger, who can’t stand Ayn Rand, but also can’t stand this kind of politically correct rubbish from the “other side.” Let’s try to deal with this subject on the merits,shall we?
    The skepticism I have heard voiced here, as well as on other sites, has convinced me that, whatever brush you want to smear the ICCC participants with, as a group they are performing a valuable function in our society. They are responding, sometimes with considerable intelligence and insight, to the amazingly bizarre and unfounded “science” that has proclaimed that AGW is a “fact” that is “beyond debate.” This is clearly not the case, or you would not be so engaged in the debate as to defend such disreputable tactics.

  71. The global ice extent area, according to Cryosphere Today is on the line of 1979-2000 average. Will they let it go above?

  72. whoops, I messed up my blockquotes! Here’s how it should have turned out:
    pyromancer76 (12:38:35) :

    foinavon at 8:15: Of course! (Oh, I dislike addressing disinformation specialists.) “And as with science in general, there is a strong representation of youthful women in climate science.”
    Probably a majority of IPCC “scientists” are young and as you have pointed out many of them are female. I imagine that few older scientists who are well versed in their research areas would give the IPCC the time of day — that is unless they desire to continue to receive grants and to be published. Almost all publications have been taken over by the pseudo-scientists (academic and corporate) who demand the party line…….subtle threats to their job security…….leftists-marxists-critical theorists……fellow travelers….leftists ideas …….

    You seem to be pursuing a conspiracy theory notion. Have you got any evidence of these “publications taken over by pseudo-scientists…”? It doesn’t ring true to me at all. Since science is evidence-based there’s abundant scope for young scientists (with and without beards!) to make novel discoveries, find out things that don’t conform to the current view and so on. And these get published. So the notion that all those scientists (women and all) are toeing the party line is just absurd. One cannot make any progress in science by attempting to pursue falsehoods.
    And in fact very many “older scientists who are well versed in their research areas” are more than happy to make their contribution to the IPCC. We could make a list of many of those too if we wished.
    As for your “smallish institution of higher education”, it sounds like you made a dismal choice….bad luck!

  73. Typical liberal response. They walk around with a pack of labels reading “Hater”, “Homophobe”, “Denier”, “Fundamentalist”, etc. When they are presented with a rational argument, they have no rational response, so they riffle through their pack of labels, and slap one on the opponent. Then they say “See? She/He is a {insert label}” and therefore should not be listened to. In fact, all {insert label}s should be silenced!
    This practice is carefully taught and encouraged in our centers of higher (and lower) learning.
    Spare me! If that’s all you’ve got, don’t waste your breath on me!

  74. David, may you be run over by a matriarchal African elephant who just so happens to not like her younger daughter’s choice of mate. Many a male wannabe has been seen peeing as he flees that charging elephant.

  75. Foinavon said:

    As for your “smallish institution of higher education”, it sounds like you made a dismal choice….bad luck!

    I think I have your measure now. Thank’s for being upfront about it.

  76. This is a surprise? Don’t you know that it’s OK for liberals to label and use hate speech, it’s just everyone else who can’t… I’m reminded of that Wizard of Oz song… and I picture the folks of the AGW tribe singing: ” If I only Had a brain!” Oh well. Internal consistency has never been the AGW strong suit.
    On a positive note, I’ve decided to put up a weekly comment on what markets are doing. I think that the Obama speech this week where he basically said “Yeah, it will be onerous, but not very onerous, I’m keeping business in mind” had a small salving effect. We’ll see how much. If you care about stock charts and how I ‘read the market’ I’ve put the rest of it here:
    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/03/13/wsw-friday-march-13th-2009/
    I’ll get back to the GIStemp code soon. I just had to take a break from it and do something more rational for a few days…

  77. To Both Sides of this Particular Post…. What’s your point?

    The point is there was a science conference and the writer could only find fault with the attendees sex, race and gender. There was no coverage of the science, no attempts to refute the arguments, no evidence offered to counter the skeptics except to point out they are a bunch of old white men.

  78. I think it would be an interesting statistical study to try to compile data on the number of times errors artificially increase the observed AGW effect over the number of times that the errors artificially decreased the observed AGW effect.
    I would suspect that you would find an equal distribution of errors above and below, unless somebody is massaging the numbers.
    Two possible sources of error.
    1. Those looking for errors in the data might be searching only for errors that shown increase.
    2. Those in the scientific fields could actually be massaging the data to make their case stronger, e.g. Dr. James Hansen.
    Anybody interested in or have time to take on such a task? I’d be interested in helping to do a study of this nature.

  79. Them met office said this week.
    scientists from around the world gather at a climate congress, our climate scientists are highlighting the necessity for early action on climate change to limit temperature rises to 2 °C and avoid the worst effects of our changing climate.
    In an article published on the Met Office website, Dr Vicky Pope, Head of Climate Change Advice at the Met Office, states: “Even with drastic cuts in emissions over the next 10 years our results project that there will only be around a 50% chance of keeping global temperatures rises below 2 °C.
    “For every delay of 10 years in achieving peak emissions another 0.5 °C will be added to the most likely temperature rise, unless emissions are reduced even more quickly.”
    These findings, along with other new research from the Met Office on the science and impacts of climate change, are being presented at the Climate Change: Global Risks, Challenges and Decisions Congress in Copenhagen this week. The main aim of the congress is to provide an understanding of the latest scientific knowledge on climate change in the run-up to the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen in December 2009.

  80. When I lived in Hollywood some years back, I remember during the election for California’s governor there were Democrat activists canvasing Beverly Drive. They were giving out leaflets which claimed that Arnold Schwarzenegger was a Nazi who wanted to become dictator of California. That nasty bit of character assassination was paired with this photo
    http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal.com/arnold-schwarzenegger.jpg
    …which is a standard elongated bicep pose that was popular in bodybuilding during the 60s and 70s. But activists claimed it was a Nazi salute.
    Then again, activists equated Bush with Hitler for removing Saddam and the Taleban from power.
    It makes me wonder if any of these journalists and activists who evoke Godwin’s Law know just how disgusting Nazi slurs and Holocaust exploitation are or if they have any idea what was going on almost 70 years ago.

  81. 2009 is expected to be one of the top-five warmest years on record, despite continued cooling of huge areas of the tropical Pacific Ocean, a phenomenon known as La Niña.
    According to climate scientists at the Met Office and the University of East Anglia the global temperature is forecast to be more than 0.4 °C above the long-term average. This would make 2009 warmer than the year just gone and the warmest since 2005.
    During La Niña, cold waters rise to the surface to cool the ocean and land surface temperatures. The 2009 forecast includes an updated decadal forecast using a Met Office climate model. This indicates a rapid return of global temperature to the long-term warming trend, with an increasing probability of record temperatures after 2009.
    Professor Chris Folland from the Met Office Hadley Centre said: “Phenomena such as El Niño and La Niña have a significant influence on global surface temperature. Warmer conditions in 2009 are expected because the strong cooling influence of the recent powerful La Niña has given way to a weaker La Niña. Further warming to record levels is likely once a moderate El Niño develops.”
    These cyclical influences can mask underlying warming trends as Professor Phil Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, explains: “The fact that 2009, like 2008, will not break records does not mean that global warming has gone away. What matters is the underlying rate of warming – the period 2001-2007, with an average of 14.44 °C, was 0.21 °C warmer than

  82. Having followed Realclimate for a a good 2 or 3 years now, its great to see a picture of Gavin Schmidt and Raypierre. I just posted the following at Realclimate, though I can be sure they won’t post it. My comments are often censored for being undesirable anyway, even though my questions have always been legitimate and never rude.
    To RC:
    Believe it or not, this is a serious observation.
    Gavin Scmidt, I have just seen your photo on on WUWT. You are overweight. Now, I don’t really want to have a go at you, but there are two points to mention.
    (1) Being overweight means you have a larger ‘footprint’ than average. You are using more of the world’s resources than many of your peers, and more than you need to, especially when you think of the supply chain. The energy use, the water use, and the carbon footprint of all the food you consume. This isn’t fair.
    (ii) You illustrate the fact that we would all like to consume less (food.., or carbon dioxide). But it is far more difficult than we would wish. I’m sure you are eating more than you would reaaly like. And we see, that despite all the scares and drama about over recent years about the need to reduce our carbon footprint, carbon emissions just continue to go up and up. What can we do??!!
    The truth is, I will have much more faith in your AGW convictions when I see you slim and hunky.

  83. Q: “Who makes up the IPCC?”
    A: A small army of entirely political appointees, selected by UN member countries.
    These political appointees’ jobs depend on saying what their political masters require them to say.
    The carrot and stick approach is most often used: if the appointee takes the correct position, then job security, a glowing resume, advancement and a bright future are in store.
    But if an appointee does not give the correct responses, or disputes the IPCC’s methodology, procedures or conclusions, they seriously risk their future prospects.
    The deck is stacked. The dice are loaded. The system is gamed.
    That is why the preponderance of IPCC appointees tend to be younger and more ambitious. They understand their marching orders, loud and clear. Look at Michael Mann. He was an obscure scientist in his early 30’s when he invented his hockey stick chart. It was just what the UN wanted. Now Michael Mann is showered with fame and fortune. Examples like that are not lost on other ambitious IPCC appointees.
    If the IPCC was composed of respected, retired scientists, selected by the rank and file of professional scientific organizations in a secret ballot, rather than being appointed political flunkies, the IPCC’s reports would have entirely different conclusions, and they would predict the climate much more closely than the current ridiculously inaccurate assessment reports.
    The UN political appointee system will never be open and transparent. Since big money is involved, the UN can not, and will not, ever allow honest climate science to be practiced or openly debated.

  84. John Galt (11:03:35) :

    foinavon answered my question — there is such a thing as female climate science! There is also an under 40 climate science, to boot!
    Funny, the laws of nature don’t change according to your age, ethnicity or sex, but science does.

    That’s an odd conclusion to draw John! Obviously there isn’t “female climate science”. There is climate science…and quite a few of its participants are female…and as in all productive scientific arenas many of the participants are young/youngish. It’s usually the insightful and energetic that find stuff out… That’s pretty obvious and straightforward I think….
    We could certainly agree that “science has changed”. After all there weren’t that many women doing science 50 years ago and even less 70-100 years ago. (And of course far fewer scientists have beards these days than in the past-Dr. Pierrehumbert’s splendid effort notwithstanding!).

  85. Rules for Radicals by Saul Alinsky
    Rule 12: pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.
    I was a skeptic regarding his influence, but now must conclude he has an enormous number of acolytes.

  86. Too bad more people of both genders can’t be level-headed like Hansen, Gore, Chu, Ban, Mann, Kerry, ……

  87. Richard Sharpe (10:36:55) :
    “foinavon says: In my opinion it’s a useful and interesting to point out that an astonishing number of those that are very publically and vociferously against the science on global warming are elderly men. It seems to be a basic fact of life. I’m sure we could come up with some explanations for that…..I’ve certainly got an idea or two! ;-)”
    Why don’t you spit it out so we can see what you mean.
    For my part I think it has to do with a couple of things:
    1. Lots of experience in the real world.
    2. No longer caring about pernicious peer pressure.

    You left out that the trend to women and minorities in colleges in proportional amounts didn’t get rolling until the 70s and 80s. And you left out that they still don’t choose the hard sciences in proportionate numbers. That means that most of the people in most technical areas with the most experience will be “elderly” and “white” and “men”. I’ve not seen too many 30 year olds with 50 years of experience..
    The “equality uber alles” folks just don’t want to treat the old white guys fairly and let the the natural demographics catch up as careers advance. They want to promote an agenda ahead of any consideration of merit advancement or career seniority. FWIW, this is embodied in the law of “equality of impact” that says you can sue an employer if they don’t have the right percentage of a group, regardless of reason. I.e. quota’s by any other name.
    Part of why I left business. I could not hire enough non-male technical folks to have an “equality of impact” that was acceptable to the race/gender czars and I had to choose: Freeze my business too small to be stable or grow into a legal suit as my employee count crossed a threshold in the law. This is no joke. At a prior employer (tens of thousands) we had the annual race / gender survey we had to fill out to make sure we had the right quotas, er, impact…
    So this is normal. Attack the ‘impact’ and ignore that to fix it would have required promoting a bunch of people who did not have the experience nor time in grade (and trashing the careers of every young white male for a generation too). But just think how much better they would “feel!”… except, of course, the elderly white males…
    Sidebar: Over 40, IIRC, is another “protected category” (age discrimination). So our Ms. Goldenburg, were she an employee in a major company making that statement about employees would be getting a talking to from her manager and would be scheduled into the “Discrimination in the Workplace” lecture series administered by H.R. with supervision from Legal. I know. I’ve been in it (managers were required to take it very 2 years even if doing a stellar job… I had better “stats” than anyone.) and I’ve scheduled more folks to take it “for cause” than I care to remember. (“Cause” being darned near anything… including saying “Nice hair, new style?” to any gender.)
    But, of course, she gets a pass on the discriminatory remark if the “elderly” happen to be white, male, and at the top of their field… and in a politically incorrect group.

  88. We need to take a legal stand and chalenge the concencus of AGW. Before we are drowned out.

  89. To be honest, despite me making the odd joke here and there about the IPCC, they aren’t entirely to blame. The IPCC plays an essential role and if we can get rid of one problem then we’ll have universal support for the IPCC, scientists will stop attacking each other, journalists can go cover important stuff like contaminated rivers and all those political activists will be disarmed.
    The problem is the historical temperature data. As long as the surface station data going back to the 19th century isn’t corrected to take into account all the urban factors then it doesn’t matter who works at the IPCC or who the scientists are.
    Account for 19th and early 20th century dimming, and then account for late 20th century urban heat island effects. Then create a new historical temperature reconstruction.
    With that done we’ll get a clearer (though still not perfect) picture of how much of the overall warming was real global climate change, not urban warming. With the warming rate cut by around half we’ll see that the climate isn’t that sensitive to greenhouse gases. And then we have to work out how much of the warming is manmade versus how much is natural. Once that is done the IPCC and all governments can formulate more realistic and affordable policies around the issue of climate change.
    Our species needs climatology the way many species use their excellent sense of smell to be able to judge what is going on in their environment. We need to ensure all the associated fields of science are very well funded because in the future policy makers will be relying on scientists to understand what would happen to the climate if, for example, we decided to irrigate a desert, build a damn, eradicate a harmful specie from the chain of life, melt ice on purpose, seed clouds with rain, or any other terraforming project we wish to do on Earth or on another planet.

  90. How many years of global cooling must occur before we can say with authority that the climate “was” warming rather than “is” warming?

  91. PHE,
    One point I was trying to make is that appearances aren’t usually a good way to to judge the quality of a person’s science, though age and experience are obviously very helpful.
    Many young people I talk to believe that the climate always used to be lovely, until their parent’s generation screwed it up. They are lacking the personal experience which guides older people’s view of the world. Once that memory is buried, there is no limit to how superstitious people can and will get about the climate.
    I know people who honestly think that their purchase of a hybrid car is making Polar Bears happier.

  92. Good job, Steven. It must be psychologically exhausting to keep having to push back at the idiocy of the Warmers. But as Burke said: “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.”

  93. I once dated a girl who was the type of liberal some are describing here. She’d label and denigrate anyone who didn’t share her view. One day I called her on it, and pointed out how she was doing the same thing she complained others were doing, but in her case it might be worse because she was doing it intentionally.
    Anyway, the breakup went okay, I got most of my stuff back intact.

  94. Pamela Gray (13:11:39) :
    David, may you be run over by a matriarchal African elephant who just so happens to not like her younger daughter’s choice of mate. Many a male wannabe has been seen peeing as he flees that charging elephant.
    Pamela, I can well believe it.

  95. But, of course, she gets a pass on the discriminatory remark if the “elderly” happen to be white, male, and at the top of their field… and in a politically incorrect group.
    they aren t the top of the climate science field, most of them arebn t in their own. your claim is dishonest.

  96. What I cant believe is that you took a crappy article and made a discussion of it here:) Better to let that stuff die silently and badly. By reposting with a link here you have boosted that websites hits for the day. Not a really good way to send a message for them to knock it off..
    Science has never been about the who… it doesnt take a petigree it takes patience and practice. Its all about how…

  97. Dont know if any of you have seen this website here, but apparently what its saying is IF WE DONT BELEIVE THAT MANMADE GLOBAL WARMING IS HAPPENING, WE ARE THEN SIDED WITH RUSH LIMBAUGH AND HIS CRONIES (well thats what I get from it)
    http://withusorwithrush.org/
    Just thought it was pretty humorous and Laugh Out Loud ridiculous.

  98. Foinavon, I noticed a lot of those names don’t have links… I assume that most or all of those without links are psychologists, sociologists & political science majors?
    The IPCC has to have those professions all sewn up.

  99. “..long as the surface station data going back to the 19th century isn’t corrected …”
    What about ocean temps and acidification
    Ice melt
    Glacier
    Species migration
    Methane
    etc.

  100. @Roger Sowell
    M. Carpenter
    Get them to prove that Global temeratures have increased in the last 11 years (which they have not)
    Get them to prove that average Global sea ice extent has decreased over the same period (which it has’nt)
    Get them to prove that over the last 5 years sea level has been rising, which of course again it has not.

  101. David Corcoran (15:12:47) :

    Foinavon, I noticed a lot of those names don’t have links… I assume that most or all of those without links are psychologists, sociologists & political science majors?

    really David? Only three don’t have links out of the 15 women climate scientists I selected. I just spent 10 minutes looking through some climate science papers that I had at hand to determine whether Steven Goddard’s assessment of senior climate scientists (i.e. men…some with beards!) was correct.
    Since I decided to devote only a short time to that minor task I gave up Googling for links after 12 women climate scientists! However the other three are proper scientists (I found them from their climate science publications) and if you set your Google into motion you can find links to them too!
    …and many other women climate scientists if that’s what you desire….

  102. sod (14:59:11) :

    “they aren t the top of the climate science field, most of them arebn t in their own. your claim is dishonest.”

    Huh? Most of whom ‘aren t the top…’? White males? Or some other group? And: ‘most of them arebm t in their own.’
    ‘…in their own.’…
    …their own what?
    You can’t call another poster dishonest, if you’re not even able to make a lucid statement. Better lay off the sauce, my friend.

  103. Aron (14:43:01) :
    The “urban heat island effect” is a bit of a red herring really. This has been addressed copiously in the scientific literature, and the historical anomaly trend is rather little affected if the entire network of urban sites is left out of the analysis.
    One only needs to make a comparison of the urban centres (which can be identified very nicely from satellite night-time imagery):
    e.g. http://www.ammtechnologies.com/Images/Earth2.JPG
    and the distributions of temperature variation on the Earth’s surface, e.g. during the last 50 years:
    e.g.: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/animations/
    to see that urban heat effects can’t really be that significant. After all “urban heat” can’t be responsible for the very large warming in the Arctic, the Antarctic peninsula, Siberia and the vast northern territories of Canada, Alaska, empty Australia and North and Central Africa, and so on…..

  104. Foinavon or Sod
    Could you please tell me what you constitutes a ‘normal’ climate and which years would you select as representing that ideal?
    thanks for your time.
    Tonyb

  105. What about ocean temps and acidification, Ice melt, Glacier, Species migration, Methane, etc.
    As I said, if we correct the temperature record and get a proper understanding of how sensitive the climate is to GHGs, then some of these will look trivial and the prophecies (ice melt, methane, etc) look unrealistic.
    I’ve looked at the claims of ocean’s becoming acidic and they are misleading. It’s something like an acidification of -0.1Ph every 250 years. Considering that oceans currently have a Ph level of 8.1 (which is alkaline) it will take almost 3000 years or so for ocean Ph to be neutral (which is Ph7, below which is it becomes acidic).
    Since we have been decarbonising our energy sources for more than a century I doubt we’ll ever be harming the oceans. Sometime this century we’ll have a low carbon economy without any pressure from activists (though I am sure they will try to take credit) and the ocean’s will repair themselves soon after.
    All that methane that is supposed to be trapped under permafrost in places like Siberia will remain so. I suspect we’ll see no more than 1.5C warming by 2100 (this will be evident when we do the reconstruction and see how sensitive the climate is). That amount of warming is not going to melt the tundras.
    Species migration happens all the time, just like climate change. The media tends to treat other species as stupid when it suits them to do so, but just about all species are highly adaptable, especially birds, and are able to sense climate changes before humans can. Hell, when the tsunami hit Indonesia a few years ago many of the animals had moved inland long before the first of the big waves hit shore!

  106. The “urban heat island effect” is a bit of a red herring really. This has been addressed copiously in the scientific literature, and the historical anomaly trend is rather little affected if the entire network of urban sites is left out of the analysis.
    The Met Office admits that it has not accounted for the urban heat island effect prior to 1974 though I am weary of how they have accounted for it since. Elsewhere in the world the situation is worse, just ask Anthony.
    The dense urban smog that was common in nearly all cities in the 19th century and only started to clear up after the 1960s would have created a dimming effect that has not been accounted for at all. In the 19th century this would have been particularly bad because as old photos, stories and fashions testify – smog was so thick that it blocked sunlight, made winters extremely cold, allowed people to dress fully in long sleeves and jackets during the summers, caused many instances of cancer and heart disease, etc.
    Under such conditions you could not measure the full extent of the planet’s temperature, especially with so few surface stations. My hypothesis is that temperatures were higher than recorded, therefore the total amount of global warming when taking into account all urban factors is about half of what is currently agreed upon based on contaminated data.

  107. foinavon says:

    After all “urban heat” can’t be responsible for the very large warming in the Arctic, the Antarctic peninsula, Siberia and the vast northern territories of Canada, Alaska, empty Australia and North and Central Africa, and so on…..

    To be clear, the Urban Heat Island effect causes thermometers that are placed in urban areas to read higher temperatures than they would if they were located out of urban areas. Thus it is not causing the warming, it is causing biased temperature readings.
    In my mind there is every reason to believe that the same is going on in Siberia and other parts of the arctic where people are manually reading thermometers.
    As for the Arctic peninsula, you forgot to mention volcanic activity on the peninsula.

  108. Here’s a challenge see if you can spot Gavin in the following tale….also present Santer, Hansen and Mann along with other notable IPCC identities.

  109. Who funds the IPCC what is its budget ?
    A number of countries are feeling the economic pressure of a major downturn this means they are looking closely at every line of budget expenditure, their contrubutions to the UN one of them.
    I will forecast that the UN will get hit where it hurts them most in the next few years, reduced funding, or countries not paying up.
    Which UN programmes are likely to be pruned in the coming budget rounds.
    The reason for the IPCC politicising climate science and adopting such alarmist retoric, becomes a bit more obvious.
    If climate realists can sow some seeds of doubt in the minds of the budget arms of governments about the value and return from current climate funding then something positive might happen.

  110. This is a purely political attack on the part of Suzanne Goldenberg. It has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with science.
    This is a typical political smear. It is a dirty shot below the belt.
    I can see it has sparked others of like political minds to jump to her aid. This only reveals their motivations for being involved in this issue–i.e., politics.
    It also reveals how desperate her side is getting. They aren’t even feigning to care about science in this one. A cooling earth is working against them. So now out come the basest, and transparently political, attacks.
    The gloves come off–and all we see are political fists that were hidden under them!

  111. pyromancer76 (12:38:35)
    Once they became the majority of the faculty in a department — and well placed deans could stack those odds — all other faculty members voted in were fellow travelers. Applicants with excellent credentials were ignored; course standards declined; and the variety of viewpoints contracted severely.
    I noticed in the UK during the 60s-70s that some local councils were taken over using the same technique. It has also been used in Australia. But less successfully in some case so the state governments took control of the local councils lock, stock and barrel and installed their minions to destabilise the conservative local agenda.
    Climate Science: Is it currently designed to answer questions?
    Richard S. Lindzen’s link to the PDF file 0809.3762.pdf, which I download on the 26th of February (from a WUWT topic), also highlights this scenario in the scientific field.
    Yes, this political interference has been around for a long time. Some are beginning to see the light but they are probably older and have the worldly knowledge to understand what they are seeing.

  112. It would save us a lot of time and energy if we would accept that the IPCC is part of an ideology. Representatives of this ideology will use any means available to disqualify any opposition.
    This article is nothing more but hard evidence that they do and I applaud the quick and to the point response to this “below the belly” attack on the ICCC.
    When this ideology grows roots, using our democratic system to introduce legislation that consolidates their power base, we will be in big trouble.
    We are in big trouble.
    http://green-agenda.com

  113. “Jason (08:45:36) : Pathetic really, particularly for a group that prides itself on being tolerant, diverse, and inclusive, but apparently that applies only if you believe what they want you to believe.”
    This is true. There’s a funny YouTube video where a stand-up comedian makes the same point at about the 1:50 minute of the video :
    Richard Jeni – Political Parties

  114. John Philip:

    Well, if pix of climate scientists are your thing…

    Actually, they’re not my thing, John.
    My thing is seeing the university degree and the c.v. of each of them.
    Can you provide those? Since these are all ‘climate scientists.’

  115. @M. Carpenter

    “Get them to prove that Global temeratures have increased in the last 11 years (which they have not)
    Get them to prove that average Global sea ice extent has decreased over the same period (which it has’nt)
    Get them to prove that over the last 5 years sea level has been rising, which of course again it has not.”

    They would concede those points. And dismiss them as irrelevant.
    They would point to the temperature increase since about 1900, and the CO2 rise since 1900, and state there is not only a correlation, but causation.
    They would point to the arctic summer ice extent decreasing over time. (and it has)
    They would point to the sea levels rising over time, and dismiss the recent leveling off as a minor bump on the rising graph.
    Then, they would point to the really apocalyptic events that are most certainly to occur as more CO2 and other horrible greenhouse gases are pumped into the atmosphere: shores inundated, populations dislocated, water shortages, famine, heat waves, tropical diseases, all the rest.
    Still, it would be fun to have one or two of them on the witness stand, and then some substantive experts to testify and discredit what they said.
    Trying to find an unbiased jury might be a problem, though.

  116. You made some typos in the title of this post, Steve.
    “Who Makes Up The IPCC?” should read, “What The IPCC Makes Up.”

  117. Ben Lawson (07:19:56) wrote :
    ‘Why didn’t you continue the quote you pulled? “Aside from a smattering of academics from well-known universities, they are affiliated with rightwing thinktanks, such as the Ayn Rand Institute, the Carbon Sense Coalition, or the scarily named Committee for A Constructive Tomorrow, that operate far outside the mainstream of public discourse.”’
    I’m not sure of your intention in posting that, but I’m glad you did. As I’m associated with the Carbon Sense Coalition I may not have actually read the Guardian article and realised that we are now world famous!
    But it’s interesting how they had to bookend the video interviews of ICCC participants with their own critical comments and more ad hominem.

  118. “Smokey (17:27:20) :My thing is seeing the university degree and the c.v. of each of them. Can you provide those? Since these are all ‘climate scientists.’ ”
    Speaking of which, is James Hansen, “World’s Leading Climatologist”, a climatologist?

  119. dearieme (08:49:11) :
    No doubt Gavin made those very points before you did, and independently to boot.

    hahaha.
    The dearth of geometry teaching in maths is serious however, as noted.
    I’m channelling those useless energies of frustration and name-calling into dreaming into being the skeptics’ wiki we need, alongside NIPCC and ICCC, to correct the record so that even bimbos like Monbiot cannot ignore it, nor his followers, and I’m encouraging others here to do the same. Now THAT is the real female contribution, as far as I’m concerned, an ongoing Internet sit-in at the gates of Greenpeace Common. Outlet for us raging activist grandmothers.

  120. K Moore (09:00:26) :
    Plenty of white males at the Copenhagen conference-is that also to be decried by the Guardian reporter? Have aatached a blog from there.
    How to Talk about Global Warming with Climate Change Deniers
    Green Manners: This could get ugly…
    By Brian Merchant
    Brooklyn, NY, USA | Mon Feb 09 07:00:00 EST 2009
    I have spent an untold number of hours over the recent years, on this site and most of the others like it and many that support the AGW view and I can state, almost unequivocally, that I have never encountered a statement by anyone who supported a skeptical view of AGW that indicated in any way that they believed that the climate was not changing. Quite the contrary, most seem to support the view, as I do, that the climate is and always has been constantly changing. This has been a prime tactic of the AGW crowd from the very beginning of their crusade. If you questioned in any way that we knew exactly why things were happening as they were, you were described as denying that anything was happening at all. You really have to admire the wonderful prescience of Orwell. He may have gotten the date wrong, but he certainly foresaw the Age of the Big LIe we have come to find ourselves trapped in. Unfortunately, because of the complicity of their lackeys in the media, the AGW crowd completely control the language of the discussion, what little of it that is allowed to surface beyond the Internet.
    I suppose I should be heartened that, despite the overwhelming and relentless panic spreading propagandizing of Gore, Hansen, et al, fewer people are buying into the pending catastrophe. What’s disheartening is that none of the politicians, at any level of government, who are legislating us into economic ruin and a high speed ride down Hayek’s ” Road to Serfdom” seem to be among those who have seen the light. If any have they certainly lack the required set of cajones needed stand up against the tide.

  121. In my opinion it’s a useful and interesting to point out that an astonishing number of those that are very publically and vociferously against the science on global warming are elderly men.
    Us sceptics are very much in favour of the science. What we are against is the politicized quasi-religous dogma that appears to be the sole argument of the Warming Believers.

  122. Roger Sowell (17:31:31) :
    @M. Carpenter
    Still, it would be fun to have one or two of them on the witness stand, and then some substantive experts to testify and discredit what they said.
    Trying to find an unbiased jury might be a problem, though.
    ———————————-
    Check out the comments on any Al Gore YouTube video, and you will see where a jury may stand. I think that they really do not want to go there …
    …. although it is probably inevitable.
    They have no idea about discovery and depositions. I’ve been there, done that, and 10 years of litigation is very, very ugly. It’s particularly ugly if your (as in their) truth system is compromised, and even worse if you (as in they) have also caused large quantifiable damages (a given).
    One e-mail can do it !!!

  123. After a while, ones head starts to spin. Argument, followed by counter-argument, statement of fact is then followed by counter-fact! The whole AGW versus Anti-AGW debate has become one, gigantic food-fight!
    Sides have become seriously polarized, stances have firmed into 1914-1918 trench warfare levels, Kind of reminds me of the ‘are you a Mod or a Rocker’ nonsense of the sixties!
    Any argument, backed with a modicum of contrary ‘evidence’ against ones opponents world-view, is rapidly reduced to the level of the playground- ‘Your Momma is fat’
    Few, read beyond the first argument that contradict their previously-held opinions- and those that do, are rapidly confounded by childish insults!
    How did we, allegedly the most intelligent species (according to some observers) ever get to stoop so low?
    The more lucid a commentator becomes as in
    (a) here’s why AGW is correct or
    (b) Here’s why AGW is wrong
    rapidly degenerates into exponentially increasing, vituperative mud-slinging.
    How sad. Maybe we should all focus on simpler, single questions and statements rather than multi-opined broadsides!
    For example:-
    (1) If the Earth gets warmer by x degrees- will our children be better or worse off- give examples of x being negative, zero and positive- give magnitude ranges?
    (2) Is Carbon Dioxide always bad for the Planet- and thus a pollutant or a bonus?
    (3) Does the IPCC represent the entirety of opinion of the scientific community?
    (4) You believe that computer models (GCMs) of the climate-to-come represent
    (a) A clear consensus that accurately predicts the ‘what is to become’ future of person-kind
    (b) Pretty darned close- but just in case they may be right- let’s just assume that they are- and plan accordingly!
    (c) Reckon they’re spot on- Just like long-range weather forecasts. PS what does GIGO mean again?
    I really believe in AGCC- I do- I also believe in NGCC- Natural Global Climate Change- I believe in both- as to how much, each contributes, well I haven’t a clue!
    I strongly suspect that I am not alone in my state of ignorance – and, I feel honoured that I may be sharing the same stage as recent and illustrious Nobel Laureates!
    If I be allowed to dream- let it be that I could close the distance between myself and the aforementioned luminaries in both intellect and self-confidence.
    Until then I remain hopefull!

  124. Further to the list of John Philip and the names of emminent female scientists whose research leads them away from the IPCC doctrine mentioned already by others – I know it is just so much nonesense – but if someone wants to, they could introduce Susanne Goldberg to the folllowing, about whom google searches will reveal their scientific output (but probably not photos):
    Shahinaz Yousef of Egypt;
    Silvia Duhau of Argentina
    Joan Feynman of the United States
    Katya Georgeiva of Bulgaria
    Of course there are many other distinguished femle scientists, economists, mathematicians, statisticians, philosophers, policy analysts, etc who oppose the IPCC doctrine and publish papers that corroborate more sensible accounts of the planet’s climate dynamics.
    What silly nonesense, appraising the quality of one’s contribution to knowledge on the basis of such irrelevant variables as age, gender, ethnicity, religion, skin colour, type of hair, geographic locality, height, weight, or whether your telephone number is odd, even, prime, or nec!

  125. Well, she’s convinced me. After all, these ICCC people are mostly old white males. Being old and white and male makes you wrong. Duh!

  126. “I’ve looked at the claims of ocean’s becoming acidic and they are misleading….Since we have been decarbonising… Sometime this century we’ll have a low carbon economy …All that methane that is supposed to be trapped under permafrost in places like Siberia will remain so. I suspect…”
    Cites?

  127. One of the most respected climate scientists is Dr. Joanne Simpson, who wrote this about the ones who must not be named.
    Dr. Joanne Simpson
    Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receive any funding, I can speak quite frankly. For more than a decade now global warming and its impacts has become the primary interface between our science and society. A large group of earth scientists, voiced in an IPCC[1] statement, have reached what they claim is a consensus of nearly all atmospheric scientists that man-released greenhouse gases are causing increasing harm to our planet. They predict that most icepacks including those in the Polar Regions, also sea ice, will continue melting with disastrous ecological consequences including coastal flooding. There is no doubt that atmospheric greenhouse gases are rising rapidly and little doubt that some warming and bad ecological events are occurring. However, the main basis of the claim that mans release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system. We only need to watch the weather forecasts. However, a vocal minority of scientists so mistrusts the models and the complex fragmentary data, that some claim that global warming is a hoax. They have made public statements accusing other scientists of deliberate fraud in aid of their research funding. Both sides are now hurling personal epithets at each other, a very bad development in Earth sciences. The claim that hurricanes are being modified by the impacts of rising greenhouse gases is the most inflammatory frontline of this battle and the aspect that journalists enjoy the most. The situation is so bad that the front page of the Wall Street Journal printed an article in which one distinguished scientist said another distinguished scientist has a fossilized brain. He, in turn, refers to his critics as the Gang of Five.
    Few of these people seem to have any skeptical self-criticism left, although virtually all of the claims are derived from either flawed data sets or imperfect models or both. The term global warming itself is very vague.

  128. Dave Wendt (17:51:33) :
    “What’s disheartening is that none of the politicians, at any level of government, who are legislating us into economic ruin and a high speed ride down Hayek’s ” Road to Serfdom” seem to be among those who have seen the light. If any have they certainly lack the required set of cajones needed stand up against the tide”.
    Dave,
    I don’t agree with your statement but we could do better.
    http://inhofe.senate.gov/public/

  129. Thanx for that IPCC’s players list. Let’s see, we have someone with a degree in chemical engineering; a “global ecology” major, an astronomy major, a chemistry graduate, someone with a degree in geography, etc., etc. And many of them do not even list their degrees. I wonder what they’re hiding?
    Face it, the UN/IPCC is staffed entirely with political appointees from various countries with the primary agenda of separating the West, and U.S. taxpayers in particular, from $Billions every year — $Billions that would be better spent on our own families.
    The IPCC is thoroughly corrupt. They are dishonest. The best possible thing that could happen would be to cut them off completely from the U.S. taxpayers’ honey pot. Then they could see what it’s like to work for a living like the rest of us — instead of living off of us.

  130. Come on, folks, it’s a piece in “The Guardian!” The only thing noteworthy from that rag is when there’s a “hell freezes over” piece pointing to flaws and overstatements in AGW dogma. What do you expect, and why would you care unless your budgie or parrot can read and has a weak heart?

  131. That was incredibly fast for such a thorough analysis.
    You can click on Pap or Cli to see what they’ve published. Papers usually list affiliation at the time of publication. PhD links to when degree was awarded, by who, and area.
    So, you have proof of:
    “..UN/IPCC is staffed entirely with political appointees..”
    and
    “..IPCC is thoroughly corrupt..”
    and
    “..primary agenda of separating the West, and U.S. taxpayers in particular, from $Billions every year ..”
    ?
    Or proof that ’70’s science classes had programs on the coming ice age?
    And maybe clicking on the about link would clue you in on ‘Global Ecology’ rather than hoping some snarkiness will cover that lack of information.

  132. United Nations, a revolutionary organization?
    Where the IPCC promotes the use Bio fuels to curb AGW,
    as well as a world wide legal commitment to curb CO2 emissions by 80% by 2050,
    another UN department directed at Water Management is against Bio fuels
    http://planetark.org/wen/52016
    What both departments share is the use of ALARMIST LANGUAGE we are used to.
    “The world needs to act urgently to avoid a global water crisis due to increased population, rising living standards, dietary changes and reduced bio fuels production, the United Nations warned on Thursday.
    Obama has made bio fuel production the carrier of US energy independence and the War on Global Warming.
    Unfortunately his policy will produce more CO2 and it will make the USA more dependent on foreign oil imports. But at what costs?
    Another example of failed government policies:
    From: http://www.seablogger.com/?p=13053
    Solonoscopy
    Friday, 13 Mar 09, politics
    The associate editor of an industry publication called US Energy Tribune has written an article that appeared in American Thinker today. It explains, with an abundance of numbers, why imports of oil will continue to increase under Obama’s energy policy, how Congress mandated the impossible with its ethanol legislation in 2007, and what price Americans will pay for the failures of government when the crisis arrives.
    See http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/03/obamas_energy_policy_will_incr.html

  133. Steve Hempell (08:39:56) :

    Suzanne US environment correspondent:
    “Barrak Obama and Congress are working on legislation to curb the burning of greenhouse gases”

    Just as long as they don’t burn the midnight oil.

  134. foinavon wrote
    “Yes, one can’t escape the conclusion that the “anti-AGW” cohort (if one uses a broad moniker for the people who attended that meeting in NY) are predominantly men of a “certain age”.
    And that’s pretty much true of the scientists or ex-scientists that are vociferously “anti-AGW”. There’s an awful lot of elderly blokes!”
    Ha ha bro you would be very VERY SURPRISED TO DISCOVER THE LARGE NUMBER OF YOUNG AND “YOUNGISH” PEOPLE WHO ARE SKEPTICAL OF THE official agenda for the International Church of the Anthropogenic Global Warming.
    Its just that alot these guys at this conference are retired and have time to go to conferences.
    The rest of us….gotta work.
    All that being said…there is a nice simple equation that you might want to take along:
    The greater the AGE….the higher likelihood of WISDOM.
    I would rather trust a fat, balding, old meteorologist who has a GRASP not only of his science, but also HIS lifetime of experience with delving into all science….ANY DAY before I trusted a some young, ipod-clad, know-it-all who hasn’t lived a day outside his la-la-land world of the current and bizarre “politico-science” and the may-or-may-not climate models that have already demonstrate to fail to predict the future.
    Do you have a grandfather or a grandmother that you would ascribe the same derogatory view which you presented above in your interpretation of the conference?? I think not.
    Respect your elders. 😉
    Chris
    Norfolk, VA

  135. “In the UK, profiling like that might be considered a hate crime if it were about any other group other than the one she described”
    ————————————————
    I would not agree with considering Mrs’s Goldenberg’s opinion as a hate crime, because I don’t think her profiling was based on hate.
    Though I would admit, that a British ethics commision might rule otherwise, if equal standards were adopted.
    Mrs. Goldenberg simply presented her audience the knowledge , that her judgements are based on racial, sexual and age discrimination, thus further lowering the standards of her already poor looking newspaper.
    Actually, the sceptic movement is instead open to everyone, not only is good science and support highly welcome, but also sincere and open discussion, the latter in sharp contrast to Mrs. Goldenberg and her’s alike.
    I wonder, why Mrs. Goldenberg did not discuss the recent climate lie spilling from Copenhagen, that almost every aspect of global warming is “worse than expected”.
    This statement is in 100% disagreement with the endlessly repeated statement, that climate science had been settled years ago.
    Logic tells, that one of these two statements must be false, or more likely both are lies.

  136. Lindsay H (16:40:31) : You asked, “Who funds the IPCC …”
    Someone will correct me if I’m wrong but it is a UN sponsored project, is it not? What support is directly budgeted via the UN versus by the individual governments, grant funds, travel support via grants and so on would take an audit. Anyway, the UN is funded 22% by the USA although the UN head just slammed us for always paying late. If I were president we’d pay less but on time. How much less? About 20% less would suit me.

  137. Sorry, I’m holding you to it… you clearly meant 17.6%.
    I think even a penny is too much of our soveriegnty to hand over to foreign interests.
    Mark

  138. Since nobody else has the guts to say it, I will.
    Goldenberg is obviously a bigot who judges people based on the color of their skin.
    She is also a socialist who does not recognize achievement based on merit and results, but based on ideological indoctrination.

  139. Is it true that there were more properly qualified climate scientists at the New York ICCC venue than the IPCC Copenhagen conference?
    In addition. John Levett has a serious point; there do seem to be a lot of economists pushing the catastrophic anthropogenic climate change agenda. Why might that be?

  140. Bill Sticker (22:06:33) :
    Is it true that there were more properly qualified climate scientists at the New York ICCC venue than the IPCC Copenhagen conference?

    or in the IPCC “2500 scientists”?

  141. Bill Sticker (22:06:33) :
    Is it true that there were more properly qualified climate scientists at the New York ICCC venue than the IPCC Copenhagen conference?
    or in the IPCC “2500 scientists”?
    Sorry… forgot to say great post – can’t wait to read your next one!

  142. Goldenberg just lives up to the old saw, “If you want a stick to beat a dog, any stick will do.” Her point, even if true, is irrelevant to whether the ICCC speakers are correct. Of course they are. Anyone looking objectively at the science will conclude that.
    But attacking Goldenberg also obscures the possibility that she may also be right. Skeptics are largely white males. Why? Because they are largely seniors or holders of endowed chairs, who are past being held hostage by a corrupt funding and recognition system. It’s the demographics, stupid! There is tremendous fear pervading academia on this issue that prevents many from speaking out on what is really going on.

  143. Just Want Truth: “It has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with science.
    This is a typical political smear. It is a dirty shot below the belt.”
    The article is called “Meet the sceptics”. It is not specifically about science, but rather about AGW scepticism as a social and political phenomenon. In that case, it is relevant to list some demographic factors of the group the journalist is describing.
    As for political smears, at this very conference Richard Lindzen accused AGWers of “coopting science on behalf of a political movement” and claimed that this process “has had an extraordinarily corrupting influence on science”.
    These claims were echoed by others such as John Sununu. So it looks like at least some sceptics managed to mix politics in with the science. In that case, it is fair to point out the political affiliations of the attendees at a conference where key people are making political claims.
    Suzanne Goldenberg clearly has a point of view and is writing for a particular audience, but her comments were wholly appropriate given the political nature of the conference.

  144. Mr Goddard, your quotation from Joanne Simpson is just a tad selective – no? Here is how the ‘respected climate scientist; continues:
    What should we as a nation do? Decisions have to be made on incomplete information. In this case, must act on the recommendations of Gore and the IPCC because if we do not reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and the climate models are right, the planet as we know it will in this century become unsustainable.
    Naughty.
    Source: http://climatesci.org/2008/02/27/trmm-tropical-rainfall-measuring-mission-data-set-potential-in-climate-controversy-by-joanne-simpson-private-citizen/

  145. Suppose that Suzanne Goldenberg had of written that a group of scientists were irrelevant because they were mainly black, or Muslim, or women? She would likely have lost her job and faced other actions.
    Hatred against white males is apparently considered acceptable by many western governments – i.e. self-hatred. But what really disturbs me is Ms. Goldenberg’s apparent desire to marginalize mature people with experience. Perhaps should would prefer to turn policy over this younger group?
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/02/jim-hansens-newfound-peers-at-the-capitol-climate-action/

  146. The remarkable contradiction we see in the media is that the issue of social decay is frequently raised in programmes examining the modern youth. They often note that the youth do not respect their elders in modern societies as they do in other more traditional cultures, and this is the cause of immoralism and youth crime.
    Then the same media outlets turn around the next day and say that the youth should discard the hard work of older generations and join together to change the world that ‘their parents destroyed’.
    So we end up with more social disconnect between the generations and the youth taken advantage of by a wave of environmental zealots who want to change society so that they can become tomorrow’s elites.

  147. Brendan H:

    As for political smears, at this very conference Richard Lindzen accused AGWers of “coopting science on behalf of a political movement” and claimed that this process “has had an extraordinarily corrupting influence on science”.

    Lindzen is exactly right, and he would have told more of the truth if he didn’t have to work with some of those same corrupt individuals. Anyone who apologizes for these obstructionists coopting science for politics is part of the problem, and is no defender of science.
    To understand how these radicals have corrupted the climate peer review system and other aspects of climate science, see Lindzen’s detailed exposé here: click

  148. John Philip said 2 50 04
    In reply to Steve Goddard -who you said had incompletely quoted Joanne Simpson- you completed it as follows.
    “What should we as a nation do? Decisions have to be made on incomplete information. In this case, we must act on the recommendations of Gore and the IPCC because if we do not reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and the climate models are right, the planet as we know it will in this century become unsustainable.”
    You seem to have accidentally left of the next sentence which was an integral part of this quote. It said;
    “But as a scientist I remain skeptical.”
    To be fair you did give the link but were as selective as you accuse Steve of being.
    Naughty
    Source: http://climatesci.org/2008/02/27/trmm-tropical-rainfall-measuring-mission-data-set-potential-in-climate-controversy-by-joanne-simpson-private-citizen/
    Tonyb

  149. “Suzanne Goldenberg recently complained in the UK Guardian about the ICCC (International Conference on Climate Change) global warming “deniers” :
    The 600 attendees (by the organizer’s count) are almost entirely white males, and many, if not most, are past retirement age. Only two women and one African-American man figure on the programme of more than 70 speakers.”
    It is reprehensible to try to marginalize any group, even grumpy old white men, through racial profiling.
    However, here is a serious human health crisis that demands immediate attention:
    It is probable that Earth is now cooling rather than warming. Nevertheless a huge number of journalists and a handful of scientists fervently believe that Earth is catastrophically warming. This is a strange and worrisome phenomenon.
    Global warming alarmists (“warmists”) are suffering from a newly discovered cognitive disorder called “climate dyslexia”, whereby warming and cooling are confused and even reversed. It is apparent that warmists are emotionally fragile and suffer from delusions, as described in Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841). Warmists suffer undue stress, often believing that Earth is doomed because of the activities of humankind. Warmists shout down and abuse those who try to reason with them and curb their anxieties. Warmists are pathogenic, spreading their baseless fears and even brainwashing little school children through toxic propaganda.
    But warmists are not evil, they are sick and need our help – climate dyslexia is a serious mental illness.
    Since vast sums of money are now being made available by the Obama administration to bail out defunct insurance companies, banks, and automakers, and to run worthless climate computer models, surely a few billion more could be set aside to find a cure for this new affliction. Climate dyslexia can kill – as evidenced by the threats made by warmists against legitimate climate scientists who publicly reject the myth of catastrophic humanmade global warming.
    We have established a non-profit foundation, entitled the Centre to Fight Climate Dyslexia, to combat this scourge on humanity. We will be petitioning Congress for funding. Our mission is to eliminate climate dyslexia within thirty years.
    /Spoof off/ 😉

  150. That is quite a rant, RoyfOMR, and displays a rather stunning ignorance of both the history of “the argument” and the stakes involved.
    In order to understand how and why things are the way they are (and yes, it has become an all-out war, of sorts), it is necessary to understand the history.
    Richard Courtney provides one such history, and gives good insight into how politics was injected into the hypothesis of manmade global warming (which eventually, and conveniently became manmade GCC).
    It is important to understand that the AGW/CC side isn’t really about science at all. They either refuse to debate, or if, in the rare instance they do, they get their a%#! kicked. Indeed, they claim “the debate is over”, and demonize, slander, and ridicule anyone who dares speak against their much-vaunted “consensus”. The subject of this post is just one such instance among countless examples of this.

  151. Let’s call it journo-terrorism, the abject failure of the mainstream media to report the opposing views on so-called global warming to the American people (oops! I mean climate change). Led by their noses, by James Hansen, Al Gore and their enviro-comrades, the public is being fed a pack of baloney. It is so easy to find the truth, but who will find a way to get the media munchkins to search it out and report it. I believe that most of the mainstream media suffers from cognitive dissonance (Fancy words for, “Don’t confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up.”)
    With that in mind, let me share this real life experience I had one morning while having breakfast with a friend in October 2008. I call him “Damascus Don.” He likes that title.
    We were talking about global warming. He said that global temperatures are rising. So I asked how he knew that and he replied, “Thousands of scientists say so.” I asked who they were and he said he read about them in a book and heard mention of them on Air America. I then told him about the Chairman of the IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri, and Secretary General of the WMO (World Meterological Organization), Michel Jarraud, both of whom have acknowledged that global temperatures have not risen so far this century, possibly since 1998. That did not change his mind. “Temperatures are rising,” he said. I then pointed out that the four major satellite temperature tracking systems (NASA/GISS, UAH, RSS, HADCRU) recorded that temperatures have actually dropped about a half degree since 2007. Right over his head. “Temperatures are rising and if we don’t cut back on CO2 emissions, it will be disaster,” Don said. I then asked him if the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) agreed with Pacharui, Jarraud and the tracking systems, would that change his mind. Don replied, “No it would not. There’s no point in you trying to change my mind.” Those were his exact words! Finally, I asked him if the scientists he read and heard about should contact the IPCC, WMO, NASA and NAS to inform them they are wrong. “Yes, they should.” Again, his exact words. This is classic cognitive dissonance, the willful and complete disregard for truth in light of the most compeling evidence. I enjoy talking with my friend, but on this issue he is like many others who knee-jerkedly believe, and with no intent of doing their own homework, that man made CO2 is raising temperatures to the point of environmental disaster.

  152. When Joanne said the part that Steve is accused of omitting she was not expressing her opinion, but saying what policy and decision makers are doing. She then says she is skeptical about the whole process. How can decisions be made on incomplete and contaminated data?

  153. Warmists suffer undue stress, often believing that Earth is doomed because of the activities of humankind. Warmists shout down and abuse those who try to reason with them and curb their anxieties. Warmists are pathogenic, spreading their baseless fears and even brainwashing little school children through toxic propaganda.
    I don’t think Warmists is the right word for them. I have an accurate term that even goes with a logo that they intend to popularise.

  154. “That was incredibly fast for such a thorough analysis.”
    Thank you. Actually, analysis of thieves can be done quite rapidly — when you’re not morally blinded by cognitive dissonance.
    The UN is composed of career kleptocrats who have consistently refused to allow any outside audit of its spending, including how much each of its 100,000+ bureaucrats receives in [totally tax-free] pay and benefits. Our money floods into the UN black hole, and we don’t even get a “thank you.”
    The UN refuses to disclose how much of our money they lavishly spend on salaries and on their trips to Bali and other resorts, with the expensive caviar, brie, lobster dinners, and very expensive hotel rooms — but now UN Sec-Gen Ban Ki Moon has the gall to label the U.S. a “deadbeat” because the taxpayers subsidizing the corrupt UN aren’t handing over our money to him fast enough.
    It’s time to admit that the UN was a mistake and an enormous drain of resources, and to withdraw from that nest of thieves; evict them from their posh, rent-free headquarters at Turtle Bay; start collecting long overdue property taxes from those expensive digs, and fines from long overdue parking tickets that they arrogantly rack up daily and refuse to pay, and use the $Billions saved annually to reward our real friends, instead of lining the pockets of our enemies.

  155. John Philip,
    You mysteriously truncated Joanne Simpson’s next sentence.
    But as a scientist I remain skeptical.
    Very naughty.

  156. “..IPCC budget about 55million usd staff about 140..”
    Actually, you’re off on staffing – “… approved the staffing table for the biennium 2008–2009 at 140.5 (88 Professional and 52.5 General Service) posts under the core budget. In addition, 178 posts were established under fee-based income” http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2008/sbi/eng/03.pdf
    So, 318
    And ‘large chunk’ was %22%

  157. So, again:
    That was incredibly fast for such a thorough analysis.
    You can click on Pap or Cli to see what they’ve published. Papers usually list affiliation at the time of publication. PhD links to when degree was awarded, by who, and area.
    So, you have proof of:
    “..UN/IPCC is staffed entirely with political appointees..”
    and
    “..IPCC is thoroughly corrupt..”
    and
    “..primary agenda of separating the West, and U.S. taxpayers in particular, from $Billions every year ..”
    ?
    Or proof that ’70’s science classes had programs on the coming ice age?
    And maybe clicking on the about link would clue you in on ‘Global Ecology’ rather than hoping some snarkiness will cover that lack of information.
    And the on the newest (and off-topic) screed:
    Cites for any of these? Or are we to accept them on your Ipse Dixit?
    “The UN is composed of career kleptocrats who have consistently refused to allow any outside audit of its spending…”
    “The UN refuses to disclose how much of our money they lavishly spend on salaries and on their trips to Bali and other resorts, with the expensive caviar,…”
    And, you do realize of course, that the list of AR4 scientists isn’t a list of UN scientists, right?

  158. Yes, down with old white men, especially anyone who does not believe in Hope, Change and Environmental Hysteria! 😛
    This is Van Jones’ Power Shift keynote. It comes across as a religious sermon at a mega church where young brainwashed activists are encouraged to wear T-shirts with their own faces on them (to make them believe they have maintained their individuality and are not brainwashed).

    He’s a passionate man but I don’t think he understand the dangerous side effects of his actions. Here a more likable down-to-Earth Van Jones talking about The Third Wave of Environmentalism

    Yes, he said Third Wave…
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Third_Wave

  159. Lucy Skywalker wrote:
    “dreaming into being the skeptics’ wiki we need, alongside NIPCC and ICCC, to correct the record so that even bimbos like Monbiot cannot ignore it, nor his followers, and I’m encouraging others here to do the same.”
    A wiki would be a huge and contentious project. If anybody out there has the time and computer knowledge, here’s a more modest first step, which I’ve suggested before. Forum software like Invision’s Power Board provides a hierarchical tree-structured set of directories to threads that are categorized by topic.
    The first step would be to set up a directory and sub-directory structure within this forum and move (copy and paste) each of the threads in this blog under its appropriate heading. (E.g., Bad Weather Stations, Sunspots, Anomalous (cold) Temperature reports, Flubs and Typos by the Other Side, Arctic Ice, Antarctica, Sea Levels, etc.
    Second would be to curry and prune the threads by removing stuff that’s not worth keeping (about 67%).
    Third, organize the back-and-forth exchanges between participants so that the items immediately follow one another.
    Fourth, merge blog-threads dealing with the same topic.
    Fifth, move the off-topic posts into threads where they belong.
    Once this was done, the forum could be mined to create a wiki and a FAQ and a talking-points document and a point/counter-point list, etc.

  160. To enlarge on my previous comment; does anyone have the breakdown on who was primarily qualified as a ‘climate scientist’ at the Copenhagen IPCC conference, and how many others majored in ooh, lets say another discipline?
    Just asking to gain enlightenment.

  161. I was once pushed by a Green about the funding that the 40 or so thinktanks that Exxon-Mobile has donated money to. Suzanne Goldenberg refers to the same donations and makes it appear to the gullible reader that it is a disinformation campaign.
    Well, I looked at the figure and the reasons for the funding and calculated that on average each thinktank recieved $40,000 a year over 20 years for research and advice.
    That is hardly a financially rewarding disinformation campaign. If those thinktanks wanted to make more money they would earn the same amount selling suits in a retail store. They’d make five times that money selling cars (or about twice as much in today’s recession).
    And they would make about 20 times more money releasing Alarmist articles, books and films.
    So I won’t be applying for an Exxon-Mobil grant anytime soon. I’m off to work as a tattooist or something, way better money :-p

  162. Aron,
    Numbers? Cites?
    And remember that Exxon isn’t the only company or frontgroup funding ‘research and advice’: Western Fuels Association,National Coal Association, American Petroleum Institute …
    http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf
    Of course, if you have the science chops “A think tank partly funded by Exxon Mobil sent letters to scientists offering them up to $10,000 to critique findings in a major global warming study released Friday which found that global warming was real and likely caused by burning fossil fuels.” http://money.cnn.com/2007/02/02/news/companies/exxon_science/index.htm?cnn=yes

  163. Hi Giles,
    Suzanne cites the numbers herself in her article.
    “According to DeSmogblog, an environmentalist website, the 50 or so thinktanks linked to this conference between them have received $47m in funds over the years from Exxon and the Koch and Scaife families”
    The years she is talking about go back to the 80s. So let’s break it down:
    50 thinktanks received $47 million over 20 years. That comes out to $47,000 per annum per thinktank.
    Now let’s suppose each thinktank has at least two members (in reality it is a couple dozen or more). That means each member got $23,500 per annum from Exxon, Koch and Scaife.
    That’s the salary of a McDonald’s employee. If Alarmist predictions were based on solid science, why would anyone contest truth for so little money when there is vastly much more money to be made out of writing scary articles and books or making disaster movies?
    Al Gore has made more money in a few years than all those thinktanks put together over two decades.

  164. Stevn Goddard your 05 59 47
    I was way ahead of you correcting that with my 04 22 03.
    Pay attention at the back there 🙂
    Tonyb

  165. First off, oil companies produce products that we demand, and they produce them at very cheap prices for us. Therefore, those who criticize fossil fuel companies are very hypocritical, unless, of course they don’t purchase or use petroleum products. And the biggest hypocrite of all is: click
    The Gore family has always been up to its eyeballs in political corruption: click
    Then there’s Greenpeace and similar groups — who all take bundles of corporate cash, while jumping up and down and pointing the finger at oil the companies, which at least produce something of great value: click
    And of course people like James Hansen, who are presumably paid by taxpayers to provide unbiased science, but instead cash in big time from groups and individuals with a heavy AGW agenda: click
    And finally, RealClimate and climateprogress are funded by the same person who as a teenager herded his fellow jews into boxcars during WWII, and has now converted to being an international Communist: George Soros. Which of course completely discredits those propaganda sites that accept gobs of Soros cash. Unlike oil company grants, there are always strings attached to Soros money.
    Alarmists constantly point at tax paying companies like Exxon Mobil and shout, “they’re giving grants to scientists!” while turning a blind eye to the subversion of climate science by really big payoffs [Hansen alone has pocketed over three-quarters of a million dollars from pro-AGW groups — that we know of].
    See? It’s those big bad energy companies — pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

  166. Mr Goddard,
    Joanne’s scepticism was already well established by your quote. Tell me, you apparently thought highly enough of Dr Simpson’s views to reproduce a lengthy, if curiously sub-edited quote and describe her as a respected client scientist. Do you also endorse her view that even if there is room for scepticism, as there always is, we need to act on emissions, because if the scepticism turns out to be unfounded, as nearly the totality of the climate science discipline agree is likely, the the result is an ‘unsustainable planet’ ?

  167. “…instead cash in big time…”
    How many of those ‘sources’ would hold up in fact-checking for a print publication? Really, blog comments as a resource?

  168. The 47M is what is identified.There are think tanks that are secretive of their funding sources and amounts. There are donors who cover tracks through frontgroups. Obviously, that amount spread over that many years isn’t enough to sustain those groups.

  169. I don’t believe in the idea that we have an unsustainable planet. As long as there is a demand there will be the means to supply, science and technology will make sure of that the way it has done. That’s why Malthus and others like him have always been wrong.
    Neither do I believe the subversive Marxist adage that is being spread on forums “We buy shit we don’t need!”. Certainly we can do without a lot of things. We can do without butter on toast. We can do without milk or juice, drink water instead! We can do without socks. We can do without underwear. We can do without cutting our hair. We can do without toothpaste. In fact, we can do without almost everything apart from living in a cave near a stream and having some wild game to kill. But then you’d have a very painful life and be dead by 20.
    (I especially like the other popular comment that activists are taught to post on internet forums “Why are kids playing computer games! They should climb trees instead!”. Because climbing trees is boring after you’ve done it twice and kids die when they fall from them.)
    We buy “shit” we want, not necessarily need, because it increases the quality of life, stimulates our minds and keeps people employed. Otherwise we’d just be sitting around breeding and dying, which is what was happening in India and China during much of the 20th century. The result, population boom and mass poverty.
    One of the real problems that exists is overproduction. Too often producers and manufacturers overestimate demand and that results in a lot of goods (from food to cars) that can’t be sold. They need ultra-modern monitoring systems to be able to gauge demand more precisely. That will put less stress on resources and cut company expenses, which means more affordable products or better salaries.

  170. They are all well documented “Giles“, me boy. There are pages and pages of links from different sources all verifying the same thing. Go ahead, have a look. Too bad you’re so uncomfortable with the inescapable conclusion. But there it is.
    Follow the money. Cui bono? Both those who are paid off, and those paying off. Everyone else loses. It’s the pro-AGW money that has thoroughly corrupted your pals over at RealClimate and climateprogress, Hansen, Suzuki, Mann, etc., etc. They all take outside money. That’s why the alarmists shout the alarm about oil companies — to take the spotlight off the fact that their pals are doing much worse and being sneakier about it.
    Hansen has denied taking the payoffs. But if others are slandering him by making direct accusations of taking what amounts to bribes at taxpayer expense, then he should sue like anyone else would if they were falsely accused.
    So why doesn’t Hansen take legal action? The answer is simple: the discovery and deposition process would undoubtedly uncover a lot more that we don’t know about. So Hansen takes the hits, and pockets the loot. And pounds the AGW/catastrophe drum as if getting more loot depended on it.

  171. The 47M is what is identified.There are think tanks that are secretive of their funding sources and amounts. There are donors who cover tracks through frontgroups.
    Then you’ll have to prove that, Giles. The purpose of a thinktank is to accept research grants, do research and then advise companies and governments about the direction they should be taking. There’s no dark sinister plot in that unless they were advocating fascism.
    What you said applies more to Greenpeace who are not open with their accounts despite receiving upwards of $200 million a year. Or various bodies within the UN. Or Al Gore who said he was going to spend $300 million on a campaign to spread awareness of global warming. Where would he get $300 million from and why won’t he answer that when asked???

  172. Wallowa County is peppered with outdoorsmen and women who can recount with very good accuracy the extremes of temperature, both hot and cold. These extremes are nearly always coupled with negative effects on income, which makes them so memorable to the populace (if you can call it that) here. People older than 50 will tell you, everyone of them, that they do not recall a colder time than this. Those that have memories and are in their 90’s (my boyfriend’s aunt is celebrating her 99th on Sunday and has an elephant’s memory) tells us that it was this cold in March in the earlier part of the last century when she was a child. This would explain why record cold temperatures are being recorded all over in areas that have records going back to the 30’s. So far I have seen one that recently broke an 1890’s to present temperature record.
    As to the cause, MSNBC would have us believe it is the invisible global warming monster we must defeat (visions of the devil anyone?). My back-door observation tells me it is because the Pacific is colder than it has been in a long time. Should we believe in a forked tail devil out to get us unless we sacrifice to the Algoricle, or should we question this cultish sect and go with meteorologist after meteorologist telling us to bundle up, it is cold outside? Or we could all just go outside, everyone in the upper part of the US, right now, and check for ourselves.
    [checking back door weather…nipply cold with snow on the ground…wear a coat]

  173. Giles Winterbourne (10:35:01) :
    The 47M is what is identified.There are think tanks that are secretive of their funding sources and amounts. There are donors who cover tracks through frontgroups. Obviously, that amount spread over that many years isn’t enough to sustain those groups.

    Oh no!!! Sounds like a conspiracy theory. I thought the denialists held the patent on those. Welcome to the club. And, if you would, provide a complete listing of the money donated by the think tanks and donors. Then be sure to reduce the total $ by the amount given to research beneficial to your mantra, like biomass research, reforestation, and any others you may find.

  174. ” Our typical response is that we never discuss our funding” http://www.co2science.org/about/position/funding.php
    For one example….
    “There are pages and pages of links from different sources all verifying the same thing. ”
    And it’s too much work (or research) to actually make a link?
    Heavy on the assertions, light on exegesis. For the last several days.

  175. John Philip,
    If we get hysterical about every possible threat we face, there isn’t much room left for anything else.
    How about 30,000,000 people living on the San Andreas fault around Los Angeles? The fault has meters of stored displacement accumulated from the last couple of hundred years.
    The fact that a few well known people are hysterical about AGW, does not equate to sound policy decisions.

  176. Real Climate’s bandwidth is funded by a PR firm called Environmental Media Services (EMS) as part of their Science Communications Network.
    The registrant of Realclimate.org is Environmental Media Services.
    The realclimate server is located at 2403 Sidney St Suite 510 Pittsburg PA. RealClimate’s EMS server is located in the same place.
    Here is Whois Search Results:
    Domain ID:D105219760-LROR
    Domain Name:REALCLIMATE.ORG
    Created On:19-Nov-2004 16:39:03 UTC
    Last Updated On:30-Oct-2005 21:10:46 UTC
    Sponsoring Registrar:eNom, Inc. (R39-LROR)
    Status:OK
    Registrant ID:B133AE74B8066012
    Registrant Name:Betsy Ensley
    Registrant Organization:Environmental Media Services
    Registrant Street1:1320 18th St, NW
    Registrant Street2:5th Floor
    Registrant City:Washington
    Registrant State/Province:DC
    Registrant Postal Code:20036
    Registrant Country:US
    Registrant Phone:+1.2024636670
    Registrant Email:betsy@ems.org
    Admin ID:B133AE74B8066012
    Admin Name:Betsy Ensley
    Admin Organization:Environmental Media Services
    Admin Street1:1320 18th St, NW
    Admin Street2:5th Floor
    Admin City:Washington
    Admin State/Province:DC
    Admin Postal Code:20036
    Admin Country:US
    Admin Phone:+1.2024636670
    Admin Phone Ext.:
    Admin FAX:
    ZoomInfo on Betsy Ensley:
    #Betsy Ensley, Web Editor/Program Coordinator: Betsy joined the staff of EMS in April 2002 as a program assistant for EMS’s toxics program. She manages BushGreenwatch.org…
    Betsy is paid by MoveOn.org — which is funded by George Soros.

  177. “There’s no dark sinister plot in that unless they were advocating fascism”
    Really? How about pure and simple disinformation?
    Even a biased thinktank needs to review ALL the literature, analyze, verify, and develop thinking based on the research. To ignore data….. That wouldn’t pass muster if the purchasers were wanting to really know what was happening in the field.
    The really egregious piece is that the practice started with tobacco / cancer denying and has continued; often with the same participants.

  178. Giles” just doesn’t get it at all.
    The problem is the fact that taxpayer-paid government bureaucrats are being paid by outside individuals and groups with a heavy pro-AGW agenda they want pushed. And they’re getting what they’ve paid for.

  179. RealClimate – Your point is..?
    “Although our domain is being hosted by Environmental Media Services, and our initial press release was organised for us by Fenton Communications, neither organization was in any way involved in the initial planning for RealClimate, and have never had any editorial or other control over content” http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/about/
    Proof otherwise?

  180. “How about pure and simple disinformation?”
    I believed in catastrophic global warming for a decade or more. As I accumulated evidence, grew wiser and became apolitical (I was a very typical brainwashed liberal, now a no nonsense libertarian) it seemed obvious to me that no catastrophe was coming and that this global warming hysteria is a multi-faceted scam preying on the ignorant.
    So tell me, Giles, how did I become a skeptic if the Alarmists are telling the truth?

  181. “Hansen, Suzuki, Mann, etc., etc. They all take outside money”
    “…taxpayer-paid government bureaucrats are being paid by outside individuals…”
    Examples?
    Cites?
    “Hansen has denied taking the payoffs. …amounts to bribes at taxpayer expense, then he should sue like anyone else would if they were falsely accused.
    So why doesn’t Hansen take legal action? ”
    Maybe because the only place that discussion is happening is in the comment threads of a few blogs?

  182. The really egregious piece is that the practice started with tobacco / cancer denying and has continued
    Giles, when scientists denied tobacco caused cancer they claimed they had a consensus and that the science was indisputable. They also claimed a consensus against the idea of plate tectonics. They also claimed a consensus that there was an Aryan race superior to other races. Now they claim a consensus that the world is going to go up in flames unless you allow government regulators and carbon traders to monitor your daily activities.
    You got your tobacco analogy from other activists (I’ve seen it before, it’s boring to mimic) without questioning the validity of it.

  183. Giles Winterbourne (11:55:06) : “Although our domain is being hosted by Environmental Media Services, and our initial press release was organised for us by Fenton Communications, neither organization was in any way involved in the initial planning for RealClimate, and have never had any editorial or other control over content”
    Proof otherwise?

    How about showing yours. You have made more than one allegation about funding implying editorial control of other organizations. If funding is a priori proof of control then it also works against RC despite what they claim. Or does your logic only apply to anti-AGW organizations?

  184. Yep, Aron and DAV, I gave “Giles” plenty of citations and all he can parrot is, “Cites… cites?”
    Something tells me if I refuted every last thing he said with peer-reviewed chapter and verse, it wouldn’t ever be enough. Why? Because it is a tactic of true believers to endlessly question, and then when they’re faced with an answer, they move the goal posts by asking different questions. The cite pest gets plenty of links, but they’re never enough.
    Climate realists [AKA: skeptics], on the other hand, only have one central question: where’s your real world proof, aside from your always-inaccurate computer models? Show us how CO2 makes global temperatures rise.
    It really galls the always-wrong alarmist contingent that the planet itself is refuting their failed/falsified “CO2 causes global warming” conjecture: click1 and click2

  185. Smokey,
    Repeated request for citation is an old discussion board trick used to tire or frustrate an opponent. If the person making requests was as knowledgeable as they claimed to be they wouldn’t have to ask for citation so often.
    When citation is requested give it to them, but if they continue to ask then tell them what I said above and include that no matter how much citation you give it won’t change their mind until they see things apolitically.

  186. IMHO, what needs to be addressed here is the behavior of the pro-AGW sites, which are losing hits to WUWT [you know who you are]. This site lets everyone have their say, so it can not be classified as pro- or anti- anything. It’s primarily about climate science. Through reasonable discussion, the truth emerges. The problem is that certain argumentative tactics are employed by a few people in order to cause problems, rather than trying to find answers.
    Many of us have tried to post very reasonable, polite and factual comments with peer-reviewed citations at sites like Realclimate, but if the comments don’t toe the Party line, they are never allowed to be seen on the thread. They are censored. Yes, the truth hurts them that much, that they’re willing to defenestrate free speech.
    I realize we’re kicking booty here with one hand tied behind our backs, but giving equal courtesy to people who seem to have their On/Off switch wired around to where they incessantly bird dog posts, and never, ever answer questions asked, seems unfair to the great majority of people wanting to get an honest understanding of the issues.
    What I’d like to see is an agreement with the AGW believer sites that they won’t censor the comments made by skeptics. They do it all the time, which just means they’re propaganda sites masquerading as science sites. No wonder WUWT kicked butt on RC by 10 – 1.
    Otherwise, I’d like to see WUWT the way it was before the alarmist contingent moved in. The obstruction tactics escalated about the time WUWT won the “Best Science” award and its popularity skyrocketed. It’s clear that there’s a lot of jealousy and hatred coming here from the losers. But they read WUWT every day, and they post here. Some of them are deliberately sowing dissension. It is a tactic.
    Now it’s my turn to ask my question once again: Please provide us with solid, real world, reproducible evidence that CO2 is causing global warming. If you can. With plenty of citations. Empirical evidence, not computer generated “what-ifs.” Because the AGW/CO2 hypothesis is the central, make or break question in the entire climate/global warming debate.
    I’m waiting.

  187. “I gave “Giles” plenty of citations”
    No, really. Just count them up. And you still haven’t shown evidence for your posts of
    14:08:24
    20:18:45
    “So, you have proof of:
    “..UN/IPCC is staffed entirely with political appointees..”
    and
    “..IPCC is thoroughly corrupt..”
    and
    “..primary agenda of separating the West, and U.S. taxpayers in particular, from $Billions every year ..””
    For your ‘…provide us with solid, real world, reproducible evidence that CO2 is causing global warming.”
    * IPCC http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/
    * IPCC-FAQ: http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/FAQ/wg1_faqIndex.html
    * EPA-Basic Info http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/basicinfo.html
    * EDF-Basic Science http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2008/01/09/basic_science/
    * The Discovery of Global Warming http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html
    Knock yourself out.
    And you still haven’t shown evidence for your assertion: ‘coming of the Ice Age programs’ in schools.
    ‘cite pest’: You mean like the English teacher, Science teacher, History teacher, Business teacher all asked for? Show what informs your thinking.

  188. Somehow ““Hansen, Suzuki, Mann, etc., etc. They all take outside money”” without proof even after asking isn’t ad hom, but quoting 3 examples of Exxon using the same thinktanks or scientists as Reynolds did is? Quotes were from the paper Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air: How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco’s Tactics to “Manufacture Uncertainty” on Climate Change (http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf) which they footnote and document.

  189. Giles Winterbourne“, you are a funny guy! I asked for solid, real world, reproducible evidence that CO2 is causing global warming. Instead, I get those comedy links. And as usual, more questions intended to evade my original question.
    OK, by the numbers, those lame “citations”:
    1. BZ-Z-Z-Z-Z-ZZZT!! The discredited hockey stick graph is on the very first IPCC page. Please.
    2. Without any solid evidence, the next link simply assumes that climate models are accurate; and that sea levels are rising; and that natural variability doesn’t explain the climate. BZ-Z-Z-Z-Z-ZZZT!! Nice try, and thanx for playing. Vanna has some lovely parting gifts for you on your way out.
    3. That link is by and for politicians. It proves exactly nothing, it’s just a biased Q & A page with no backup. So… BZ-Z-Z-Z-Z-ZZZT!!
    4. A blog post is your presumed authority?? Stick with the “Best Science” site Giles, me boy, and forget those wannabe sites. They’re for losers, so not many folks click on them. Besides, it’s still just another biased Q & A page, therefore: BZ-Z-Z-Z-Z-ZZZT!!
    5. A guy shilling a book is supposed to answer my CO2 question?? [Or, I could conveniently buy his CD Rom if I prefer. heh.] BZ-Z-Z-Z-Z-ZZZT!! See Vanna for some valuable coupons.
    Giles, please just try to answer a straightforward question: will an increase in CO2 cause runaway global warming? Yes or No? As repeatedly stated, this is the central question in the AGW debate. Don’t forget to provide your falsifiable, real world evidence.

  190. I don’t see any serious discussion on how the information on those sites is in error; rather, just some bad attempts at humorous rejoinders that don’t touch on the subject. Do you think those comments would fly on any science site? Really?
    ‘Hockey Stick’ Perhaps you haven’t read WG1 Chap.6 Multiple studies, with a variety of proxies. Basically the same hockey stick. http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch06.pdf
    No substantive critique about History of Global Warming? Why not? To make it simpler for you (http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm) is the basic CO2 is a GHG chapter. Figure out what’s wrong in your eyes and report back.
    “First, they have not come up with any plausible alternative culprit for the disruption of global climate that is being observed, for example, a culprit other than the greenhouse-gas buildups in the atmosphere that have been measured and tied beyond doubt to human activities. (The argument that variations in the sun’s output might be responsible fails a number of elementary scientific tests.)
    Second, having not succeeded in finding an alternative, they haven’t even tried to do what would be logically necessary if they had one, which is to explain how it can be that everything modern science tells us about the interactions of greenhouse gases with energy flow in the atmosphere is wrong.” John P. Holdren http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/08/04/convincing_the_climate_change_skeptics/

  191. And STILL NO ANSWER to my straightforward question about CO2 causing runaway global warming. Provide replication/falsifiability, please.
    And I have plenty of cites, as you must be aware. But I’ve repeatedly asked, so you first.
    Quit dodging the question.

  192. Smokey: “Lindzen is exactly right, and he would have told more of the truth if he didn’t have to work with some of those same corrupt individuals.”
    Lindzen has a curious way of damning with faint praise. Take this example:
    “Perhaps the most interesting example is Wally Broecker, whose work clearly shows that sudden climate change occurs without anthropogenic influence, and is a property of cold rather than warm climates. However, he staunchly beats the drums for alarm and is richly rewarded for doing so.”
    Nice insinuation to make about a scientific colleague.
    The people who are quickest to point the conspiracy finger at AGW are also the ones who squeal loudest when the likes of Suzanne Goldenberg correctly identify their political leanings.
    Goldenberg’s identification of the age, gender and political leanings of the ICCC attendees also highlights the narrow representation of sceptic ‘big guns’. By and large the scientists are the same old suspects, padded out by supporters whose main focus is the ideology, much like Inhofe’s list of 650 septics.
    AGW sceptic science as practised by the current crop has no future because it’s not attracting young, vital minds.

  193. Steve – I have yet to advocate hysteria. There may well be a few well known people ‘hysterical’ about AGW as you say – yet there are also many calm and rational scientists, actually an overwhelming majority, who are deeply concerned about the scale of the potential threat and the impotence of the political response to date. Witness the recent Copenhagen Congress – over 80 sessions nearly all chaired by academics in the fields of climate science or economics and qualified to Doctorate or Professorship level. Compare and contrast with the Heartland Institute’s gathering, speaking in the climate science ‘tracks’ to make up the numbers we have Syun Akasofu, David Evans, Piers Corbyn, Don Easterbrook and of course, Christopher Monckton. None of whom has or will be published in the field. Objectively speaking, one concludes …. ?
    How about 30,000,000 people living on the San Andreas fault around Los Angeles? The fault has meters of stored displacement accumulated from the last couple of hundred years.
    Your number seems high, representing as it does about half the population of the UK., but let us assume it is correct, it is a lot of people and yet, according to the IPCC and this body, inter alia, it is dwarfed by the number of people, which runs into the billions, who will face water stress if even the most optimistic projections of the IPCC are realised. These people are not helped by hysteria, clearly. But equally, in my view, the complacency that infuses your posts long ago ceased to be an option.

  194. I always love this:

    Water vapour is the most abundant and important greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. However, human activities have only a small direct influence on the amount of atmospheric water vapour. Indirectly, humans have the potential to affect water vapour substantially by changing climate. For example, a warmer atmosphere contains more water vapour.

    How does the atmosphere know whether it was warmed by CO2 and should allow more water vapor in, or that it should turn it away because the increase in temperature was already due to water vapor? Where is the increase in absolute humidity, hasn’t it been measured, and wouldn’t that be all over the news if confirmed? My mind is wide open, but AGW proponents just call me names instead of showing me satisfactory evidence.

  195. Brendan H:

    Lindzen has a curious way of damning with faint praise…

    Yes-s-s!! He sticks the knife into the vital organ where it belongs.
    Lindzen is no dummy.

  196. John Philip:

    “Your number [of 30 million] seems high…”

    Educated folks should know that the San Andreas fault extends from southern California up into north of San Jose, in Northern California. Surely you knew that too… Right?

  197. ” yet there are also many calm and rational scientists, actually an overwhelming majority, who are deeply concerned about the scale of the potential threat and the impotence of the political response to date. Witness the recent Copenhagen Congress – over 80 sessions nearly all chaired by academics in the fields of climate science or economics and qualified to Doctorate or Professorship level”
    Can you name three concrete proposals that the Copenhagen Congress came up with to mitigate climate change? Is there an action plan that has been endorsed by these scientists? Do these scientists believe that by turning this over to the politicians that the earth will be saved?
    I have seen no comprehensive step by step plan or even some type of an attempt to put together an action plan. The only thing I have heard is, turn this over to the politicians.

  198. Smokey: “Lindzen is no dummy.”
    I don’t think he is a dummy, just two-faced with his faux respect for his colleague’s achievements while, as you say, turning the knife.
    Lindzen’s anecdotes and accusation of corruption smack of professional jealousy and are very unbecoming in a man who has otherwise had a distinguished career.

  199. “Can you name three concrete proposals that the Copenhagen Congress came up with to mitigate climate change?”
    http://climatecongress.ku.dk/speakers/
    Dr. Balgis Osman-Elasha, Professor Daniel Kammen, Professor Qingchen Chao
    Each have specific proposals tailored to their country or region and economy. Low Carbon / Renewables, Adaptations, New Technology Implementations. Most are functioning at this point and just need larger scale. Several other speakers there also. Perhaps reading their presentations would be profitable.

  200. Giles Winterbourne said
    “No substantive critique about History of Global Warming? Why not? To make it simpler for you (http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm) is the basic CO2 is a GHG chapter. Figure out what’s wrong in your eyes and report back.”
    Not only did i read that ages ago but I bought Callendars extensive archives.(5000 records) I suggest you read them before citing this document as proof.
    Callendar cherry picked old co2 records (read Beck on this) which I have also researched. He matched it to highly selected temperature records to make his hypotheses. Even then he believed there were only 200 weather stations world wide up to 1938 that could be called reliable, and far fewer as you go back in time-around 50 in 1850. Charles Keeling admitted he was influenced by Callendar and used his figures.
    Just before Callendar died there were some very cold winters and he admitted he might have got it wrong and was no longer confident about his theory as to the amount of AGW. Just before Keeling died he admitted the 19th century co2 scientists were more accurate than he had thought-who generally measured higher co2 levels than Callendar chose to use.
    I know of no one that disputes co2 could warm, but the figure is a fraction of a degree-well within natural variability- not many whole degrees. That can only be achieved with exotic and unproven feedbacks fuelled by unreliable computer models.
    As Smokey says, show us with an A to Z precisely how we get to the sort of temperature rises predicted by a doubling of co2.
    Tonyb

  201. Brendan H, Prof. Lindzen has no reason to be jealous of others. He is at the very top of his field. Rather, it is those others who are jealous of Dr. Lindzen, and they are understandably upset when he exposes their devious shenanigans.
    If you can refute the examples that Dr, Lindzen gave, I would be interested in hearing your experience in the matter.
    TonyB, I will be most interested in seeing if anyone attempts to refute your key paragraph:

    I know of no one that disputes co2 could warm, but the figure is a fraction of a degree-well within natural variability – not many whole degrees. That can only be achieved with exotic and unproven feedbacks fuelled by unreliable computer models.

    That simple statement boils the whole discussion down to its key element.

  202. Interesting that out of all the scientists, we get two who (according to unacknowledged resources) had deathbed recanting of their life’s work. Sounds like some ghostwriting to me.
    Unfortunately, their research holds up. Additional research replicates their findings. Advancements in measuring, access to broader databases all support their research.
    Also, by tossing out some spurious claims about two, you’re ignoring all the research compiled by IPCC.
    Sorry, “Second, having not succeeded in finding an alternative, they haven’t even tried to do what would be logically necessary if they had one, which is to explain how it can be that everything modern science tells us about the interactions of greenhouse gases with energy flow in the atmosphere is wrong.” John P. Holdren http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/08/04/convincing_the_climate_change_skeptics/

  203. Roger Knights (08:14:15) :
    Lucy Skywalker wrote:
    “dreaming into being the skeptics’ wiki we need, alongside NIPCC and ICCC, to correct the record so that even bimbos like Monbiot cannot ignore it, nor his followers, and I’m encouraging others here to do the same.”
    A wiki would be a huge and contentious project. If anybody out there has the time and computer knowledge, here’s a more modest first step, which I’ve suggested before.

    Roger, thanks. I used to be daunted by the notion of a wiki being a “huge and contentious project” but have had a lot more thoughts about starting it simple. Have a look here and do contact me direct. I’ll ponder your thoughts too, meanwhile.

  204. Interesting that out of all the scientists, we get two who (according to unacknowledged resources) had deathbed recanting of their life’s work.
    Make that three. Al Gore’s mentor Roger Revelle denounced alarmist visions of the future before he passed away. Al Gore responded the way he usually does to his critics. He insulted Revelle by saying he must have been senile.
    So if you disagree with Gore you are either a flat earther, creationist, Holocaust denier, criminal, paid by big oil, senile or (in Lovelock’s case) have forgotten science.
    It won’t be long before Al Gore accuses critics of being in cahoots with Xenu. That way he can get the Scientologists on his side too (he already has a few from Hollywood).

  205. Giles Winterbourne (02:28:49) :
    Also, by tossing out some spurious claims about two, you’re ignoring all the research compiled by IPCC.
    I have waded through the chapters 8 9 and 10 of the IPCC report. Have you?
    I have over thirty five years experience in fitting models to data, in another field ( particle physics). My not so humble opinion is that the whole caboodle of models on which the IPCC report is based should be sent back to the very basic drawing board: change of basic premises.
    There are many things wrong,.
    A basic one for me is that in these models, where there are a large number of parameters there is no error propagation. Instead, different runs around basic fits are shown to simulate the chaotic intitial conditions of any climate situation, and then used instead of errors. In addition, different models are presented on the same plot again as if they constitute an error envelope. This is not only poor science, it is intent to deceive the reader. If one follows individual models one sees that all are bad fits, except the cloud of spaghetti forces the eye to fool the brain that the fit is “adequate”.
    Even if one simple parameter, the albedo, is varied one sigma the whole fit from the model, the temperatures which have been fitted, will move 1C making nonsense of the whole plot.
    A second crucial one, is that the complicated system of partial differential equations that determine the time propagation of climate is treated as if it has solutions amenable to perturbative expansion : the mean is substituted for many variables entering into the grid calculations. The mean is the first order in a perturbative expansion, except that in the chaotic climate system it is absolutely certain that the real solutions will diverge, because it is the higher order terms that will kick in. That is why, even though there is a good fit for back data, the minute they try to predict the future, it diverges after a limited number of time steps with a vengeance.
    The only way for modeling climate in my opinion has to go through something similar to what Tsonis et al are doing, simulation of the chaotic equations directly.
    It is really very sad that, as in the link you provided, science it depicted as a matter of voting.
    Nobel prizes my eye, look at the current economic situation, all the nobels in economics led us here.
    It is the science that is crucial and unfortunately not enough physicists have bothered to look at the mess that is the IPCC proposition. Fifty years from now people will be wondering how the politicians could have fallen off the cliff on this issue like lemmings. Though I guess it is simple: they follow the money.

  206. anna,
    Where have you published your concerns? What discussions have been published?
    et al,
    Now we’re up to three deathbed recantings. Unattributed…. Though if you’re talking of the Singer / Revelle et al paper, there’s significant debate about his actual participation. And his comment – if it is his comment – reflects partially the state of learning at the time.
    With all three, the science has advanced significantly. Would the ‘Leap’ paper be the source for a discussion of geo or bio-engineering ? Would you accept its claim that solar energy is a viable choice?
    And in any case, this argument has become stupid. You are using one or two unattributed comments in an attempt to invalidate hundreds, no, thousands of papers discussing research that reaches one conclusion. That you can’t support an alternative theory further indicates the weakness of your position.

  207. anna v (04:16:35) :
    That is an excellent explanation/summary of what is wrong with the models (although I’ll have to take your expert opinion for it; models are not my thing). I spent years doing chemical analyses in triplicate and working out errors to prove differences (successfully). It is a chore. Re-runs of models are ‘lazy science’. If you do an experiment ten times and get the same trend ten times, but the trend is smaller than the sum of the errors, the result is meaningless.

  208. With all three, the science has advanced significantly
    Giles, so if the science has advanced, as you say, significantly (a grand word) then why can’t those IPCC scientists do the following:
    1. Correct data for the first century of temperature monitoring. Nearly all the data collected in or near urban areas is contaminated by very dense urban fog that did not clear up until years after the Clean Air Act was passed.
    2. Correct data for the last half a century contaminated by the urban heat island effect. The Met Office claims to do some adjustment for UHI after 1974 but not prior. That’s for CET data only. For the rest of the world I am not aware of any adjustment taking place and if they are doing so, how accurate their methods are.
    3. Remove all low quality surface stations from the temperature record.
    If they do that they’ll see that the warming has been less than currently stated and that it isn’t a catastrophe for the the world.
    Then there is the question of remaining smog and other effects of urbanisation. If cities like Shanghai and Los Angeles or countries like India and Bangladesh go low carbon they’re going to see warming of about a degree or maybe a couple of degrees because removing the smog that hangs over their cities will allow the full extent of sunlight to penetrate to ground level and heat up all the concrete, metal, asphalt, rivers and lakes.
    So urban warming is unavoidable. Cities are going to experience the temperatures that existed a millennium ago, but the difference is they have more urban infrastructure to absorb that warming and make it feel hotter. Currently air pollution is preventing them from feeling the heat. They need to start adapting at the same time as air pollution is being cleared up, but politicians and scientists are so hung up on carbon dioxide that they are sending the wrong signals to the public and private sectors.
    What I’m saying with all this is, that most of the temperature rise we have seen over the last two centuries are because of us coming out of the Little Ice Age, clearing up smog which has allowed more and more sunlight to penetrate to ground level, and building up our cities which absorb and retain more heat.
    In the countryside, in the mountains and in the troposphere we do not see anything close to what the cities are feeling. Global warming therefore should be renamed Urban Warming, and then that should be the focus for organisations like the IPCC. How do we make warming cities more manageable and easier to live in as temperatures increase?
    With that angle we can apply advanced climate science and urban planning. Without it the IPCC is simply acting like a bunch of Hollywood actors in a sci-fi disaster movie.

  209. Roger Knights (08:14:15) :
    Lucy Skywalker wrote:
    “dreaming into being the skeptics’ wiki we need, alongside NIPCC and ICCC, to correct the record so that even bimbos like Monbiot cannot ignore it, nor his followers, and I’m encouraging others here to do the same.”
    A wiki would be a huge and contentious project. If anybody out there has the time and computer knowledge, here’s a more modest first step, which I’ve suggested before. Forum software like Invision’s Power Board provides a hierarchical tree-structured set of directories to threads that are categorized by topic.

    I’ve sort of started such a site just recently. It’s not a wiki, but it does include both blogging and forums, completely integrated, along with a Data Repository content section where referenced items can be stored. I mainly started it so that OT threads form places like WUWT, which have no associated forum, can proceed.
    It’s a brand new site, in its infancy, so feedback is desired. For anyone interested in helping this new site develop by participating, the url is http://whatcatastrophe.com

  210. Aron (03:20:19) :
    So if you disagree with Gore you are either a flat earther, creationist, Holocaust denier, criminal, paid by big oil, senile or (in Lovelock’s case) have forgotten science.

    I don’t think Gore saying that “Lovelock has forgotten more about science than he [Gore] will ever know” is an insult. It’s typically a way of characterizing how much knowledge the person who has forgotten more than the other will ever know has. Maybe Gore meant it as some sort of jab, but if he did, he doesn’t know what the phrasing actually means.

  211. Gore said, “James Lovelock has forgotten more about science than I will ever learn. But in analysing political systems he is perhaps allowing his … frustration … to obscure some of the opportunities for change in the political system.”
    In other words, Lovelock knows science, but I know politics.

  212. “If they do that they’ll see that the warming has been less than currently stated and that it isn’t a catastrophe for the the world.”
    So, why haven’t one of the ICCC scientists done that? Or maybe they did.

  213. So, why haven’t one of the ICCC scientists done that? Or maybe they did.
    They have not done any of what I said. You’ll find not one IIPCC scientist who has adjusted for smog/dimming for the first century of temperature recording.
    Neither have they taken into account many other variables in their models and temperature reconstructions, which is raised on sites like this often.
    Quite the opposite of what you said about them using significantly advanced methods, they are still using crude and primitive methods that exaggerate the climate’s sensitivity to CO2 and other GHGs.

  214. @anna v (04:16:35) :
    Nice summary, anna, too bad it was over Giles head. I think his entire comment on it shows he really isn’t after honest discussion:

    Giles Winterbourne (05:14:53) :
    anna,
    Where have you published your concerns? What discussions have been published?

  215. Giles Winterbourne (05:14:53) : anna, Where have you published your concerns? What discussions have been published?
    Giles, your constant “cite please!” only makes you look foolish. The purpose of requesting cites is so that the discussion has a common ground. Anna was commenting on your cites to WG1. You obviously possess or have access to the WG1 papers because you linked them.
    You already know what she would say in any paper she would have published because she told you. Why would you need to see it in print along with other discussions? You need to have someone else tell you your opinion on what she has to say?
    The correctness of science has little to do with the number of published papers. It isn’t a popularity contest so, in the long run, it really doesn’t matter how many are for or against. To paraphrase Einstein in response to a large number of attacking papers from WWII Germany, “Why so many? It would have only taken one to prove me wrong.”
    Of course, you could be implying that if it wasn’t published (apparently elsewhere as WUWT doesn’t seem to count), it is irrelevant. Well OK, but doesn’t that apply equally well to anything you have to say?

  216. Let’s try that again; with a bit closer reading:” So, why haven’t one of the ICCC scientists done that? Or maybe they did.” 08:32:01
    “They have not done any of what I said. You’ll find not one IIPCC scientist who has adjusted for smog/dimming for the first century of temperature recording.”

  217. “Nice summary, anna, too bad it was over Giles head.”
    Actually, my comment of 05:14:53 was a complement for anna v; If she has put that much work into the research, thinking, and writing, then it should be published.

  218. “Anna was commenting on your cites to WG1.”
    It looks like her comments are directed to chaps 8-10. I pointed to chap 6

  219. Giles Winterbourne (09:33:17) : Actually, my comment of 05:14:53 was a complement for anna v; If she has put that much work into the research, thinking, and writing, then it should be published..
    Very well then but your terse and seemingly unresponsive answer left the impression you were completely overwhelmed. You had nothing else to say other than “wow”? You saw no flaw in her argument? It had no impact on your apparent opinions? It didn’t make you think that the WG1 links might not be so good after all? Discussion over?

  220. Ah I see, Giles.
    Well, nobody has done it because of the size of the task. Here we see laziness on both sides of the debate, but more so on the IPCC side because they have no excuse with the amount of money and data they can receive.
    In what spare time I have I am trying to get a grip on how much of a cooling effect 19th century to mid 20th century dimming had on temperature data. But I don’t have a budget for it, it is a hobby at the moment. How come none of those well funded .gov scientists with their advanced modeling and powerful computing farms haven’t done it if they are honest and have integrity?
    Anthony has done a huge amount of work on the issue of surface station data contaminated by UHI. Again, well funded scientists could have done the work he has so why haven’t they? I suggest you read the FAQs at surfacestations.org

  221. Giles Winterbourne (02:28:49) : said in reply to my post
    “Interesting that out of all the scientists, we get two who (according to unacknowledged resources) had deathbed recanting of their life’s work. Sounds like some ghostwriting to me.
    Bearing in mind YOU quoted the ‘scientist’ it is a bit rich then stepping back and trying to make out their work was unimportant!
    You can buy the Callendar archives as I have bothered to do (he was a very interesting man and greatly helped the war effort) you can read Keelings autobiography as I have done (he sounds a nice man) However Keeling had absolutely no expertise as a climate scientist when he went to mauna loa. Callendar was a former steam engineer, not a scientist, and enthusiastic amateur meterologist. Can you imagine what Gavin would make of an amateur who published a sceptical article that was widely lauded?
    Anyway, if you’d like to read all that you can then see that after further consideration of the work they did when young, they both had second thoughts.
    Incidentally, don’t bother to spend your money on the Nasa reconstrctions of 2000 years of past temperatures-it was obviously put together in a hurry and is a poor piece of work. I’m still hoping to get my money back:)
    Mind you theres a fabulous book about the Vikings in Greenland (700 pages). I can give you the details if you are at all interested in learning about previous warmer periods. Then we can move on to my favourites, the Romans, who used to march their garrisons over Alpine passes now covered in ice. How do yo think Hanibal got across the Alps with Elephants-in thick snow and sliding over a glacier ? Clue: It was warmer and there wasn’t so much snow and ice as now.
    Look forward to your route map citing chapter and verse the precise step by step guide as to how doubling co2 brings us to an increase of up to 4.5C
    Tonyb

  222. Giles Winterbourne (09:39:28) : It looks like her comments are directed to chaps 8-10. I pointed to chap 6
    Oh. Are you saying the chapter stories are independent of each other and refuting 8-10 does nothing toward refuting the message because CH6 was all that was needed?
    You do realize that the IPCC Report is a political white paper and the WG1 papers were amassed by the authors as evidence for their recommended assessment, don’t you? It wasn’t intended as a scientific venue. Are you aware that the majority of participants were political hacks and not scientists? The report was designed to convey a story and the panel members were free to pick and choose the content. You do understand this, yes?

  223. “Bearing in mind YOU quoted the ’scientist’ it is a bit rich then stepping back and trying to make out their work was unimportant!”
    No, not really. I cited 5 resources for Smokey’s request “provide us with solid, real world, reproducible evidence that CO2 is causing global warming.”
    * IPCC http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/
    * IPCC-FAQ: http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/FAQ/wg1_faqIndex.html
    * EPA-Basic Info http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/basicinfo.html
    * EDF-Basic Science http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2008/01/09/basic_science/
    * The Discovery of Global Warming http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html
    And the only comments have been about one page of one resource. And none really on the topic they were addressing.
    Given that, all I can assume is that anecdotal comments on 2 or 3 scientists is the best that can be done. And I’m not seeing anything that points to what informs your thinking.

  224. It wasn’t intended as a scientific venue. Are you aware that the majority of participants were political hacks and not scientists? The report was designed to convey a story and the panel members were free to pick and choose the content. You do understand this, yes?
    Sorry to repeat, but where are you getting that from?

  225. Anna commented:
    “I have waded through the chapters 8 9 and 10 of the IPCC report. Have you?” Only a hostile response from Giles. But no answer to her question.
    TonyB said:
    “Look forward to your route map citing chapter and verse the precise step by step guide as to how doubling co2 brings us to an increase of up to 4.5C.”
    No answer from Giles. [Excellent question, BTW.]
    I asked: “provide us with solid, real world, reproducible evidence that CO2 is causing global warming.” But those five “resources” cut ‘n’ pasted by Giles are worthless and did nothing to answer my question. Re-posting them doesn’t make them any better. So again, no answer from Giles.
    And I’ve kept regularly asking this same question:
    Provide us with solid, real world, reproducible evidence that CO2 is causing global warming using empirical, falsifiable evidence, not computer generated “what-ifs” or non-testable opinions. Because the AGW/CO2 hypothesis is the central, make or break question in the entire climate/global warming debate.
    No answer from Giles. He avoids that question like the plague.
    Instead of always talking past everyone, and pasting useless links that answer nothing that was asked, just answer the direct question or admit that you can’t.
    Instead of looking at the very strong evidence posted above showing that the funding path for Realclimate’s financial support leads straight to George Soros, don’t give your non-response: “Proof otherwise?”
    It appears that no one can satisfy Giles, who incessantly demands answers from others, and quotes their words, then argues with the selected quotes.
    Giles me boy, you are fast wearing out your welcome. You don’t debate, you obstruct. It is a deliberate tactic with you.
    Before you start asking your endless questions again, or demanding ‘proof otherwise?’ in response to proof, try to man-up for a change and answer the question that have repeatedly been asked of you by many others. If you can. The questions are in this post and throughout this long thread. We’re waiting.

  226. Giles Winterbourne (10:40:06) : Sorry to repeat, but where are you getting that from?
    Sorry. I thought you actually read your sources otherwise you wouldn’t be asking. It’s all there were you linked. As you are the “cite” expert, you should be well aware of the content. I suggest actually reading those links before continuing.
    You really don’t understand how foolish you look, do you? It’s more than a little apparent you cry “cite please!” every time you are dumbfounded. What exactly are you after anyway? Discussion doesn’t seem to be it.
    In any case, I futher suggest you don’t ask again. You may be surprised to learn most of us here, unlike you, have actually read the IPCC papers. You aren’t telling us anything new. We are far more interested in YOUR thoughts than someone else’s. It’s becoming increasingly clear you have no opinions which haven’t been dictated, hence the constant “cite please!”
    Quit wasting your time and show some original thought. Quit before you get further behind.

  227. I guess your summing up of the entire body of research in AR4 as ‘worthless’ pretty much explains your position of anti-scientific propaganda.
    That you couldn’t respond with any type of information that supports your assertions further points to an inability to explain your thinking.
    Good luck in your further research. Let us know when it happens.

  228. Hello Giles
    I suspect you have been reading too much RealClimate propaganda. You seem very keen on theory rather than facts, and refuse to answer the simple question as to how doubling co2 brings us a temperature increase of up to 4.5C
    The only one to attempt this is Miskolczi who calculates .24c here;
    http://landshape.org/enm/greenhouse-effect-in-semi-transparent-planetary-atmospheres-by-miskolczi-a-review/
    As you seem to believe there are thousands of IPCC scientists, please quote me the step by step guide from just 5 of them. I am sure Steve McIntyre will be very excited that someone has at last managed to answer the question he has been asking for some years over at Climate Audit. So we all eagerly look forward to a different answer to Miskolczi
    As you appear to be so credulous about accepting unsubstantiated theory I suspect you are a fan of Dr Mann. Our understanding of the past and its climate -as it affected real people living in the real world, not a virtual version- was thought to be comprehensive before Dr Mann demonstrated that he knew better, by the production of his hockey stick, and stated that “the medieval warm period is an outdated concept.” That obviously means the person that wrote the following can be disregarded as a sceptic.
    “From ancient civilisations through Bronze age cultures, Greeks Roman, all flourished in times of benign climate and perished when climate turned against them.
    Yet the historical climate records of the western hemisphere suggests that around AD 950 temperatures increased and the climate changed at precisely the same time as the Mayan collapse far to the north. Leif Eriksson sailed through the Labrador sea between the new settlement of his father Eric the red in Greenland and North America, becoming the first European to set foot on what we called Vinland. This began the global climate shift known as the mediaeval warm epoch …it clearly seems to have been a shift in the global climate pattern recorded in North America by the first Europeans there. Up until around 900 the north Atlantic sea routes from Scandinavia and Iceland to the new communities in Greenland had been completely frozen over and impassable and at the end of the warm epoch, around 1300, temperature began to fall and sea ice again blocked the routes. After the warming epoch temperatures fell again at the beginning of the 14th century.”
    Curiously however, the author is much feted, as he is none other than Al Gore in his rather good book ‘Earth in the Balance’ dating from 1992. His numerous climactic references demonstrate the earth has been warmer than present at various times, for example during the MWP. Yet this book is ignored, whilst many hang on to his every word for his ‘An Inconvenient truth’-roundly condemned by a British High court judge whilst banning its use in British schools without amendments on nine scientific errors
    . http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7037671.stm
    Perhaps you believe all the doomsayers Giles, who are convinced we have four years or so to save the world? Anyone remember the book ‘5000 days to save the Earth’ by former editors of the Ecologist, now time expired without anything happening, but the precursor of the current clutch of doom sayers-from Prince Charles to James Hansen?
    http://www.theecologist.info/page38.html
    That catastrophe always seem to be happening or is imminent, is documented here, with details of dozens of the warming and cooling scares over the past 100 years .
    http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2006/fireandice/fireandice.asp
    Climate science theory that works in a controlled laboratory experiment or on a computer model, may not produce the same results in a real world situation. Those who believe otherwise are disagreeing with the IPCC themselves, for Kevin Trenberth, one of their lead authors wrote,
    “…the startling climate state in several models may depart significantly from the real climate owing to model errors.”
    Another independent study demonstrates that models perform poorly, even at a climatic (30-year) scale which caused this observation
    “In essence, the study found that climate models have no predictive value.”
    http://www.atypon-link.com/IAHS/doi/abs/10.1623/hysj.53.4.671
    Water vapour and clouds are acknowledged to play a crucial part if the climate is to be accurately modelled, but as the IPCC themselves admit numerous times, it can’t be achieved;
    “…cloud feedbacks remain the largest source of uncertainty…”
    “In climate research and modelling we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non linear chaotic system and therefore that the long term predictions of future climate states is not possible.”
    Perhaps you are a fan of Dr Hansen who believes the sea is going to rise a metre by 2100? To attain a 1 metre increase by 2100 means an average rise of nearly 11mm a year (only 91 years remaining). There is simply no real evidence to show this is happening. Except on computer models.
    The idea of a ‘global sea level’ to record the 24/7 movement of the ocean as it impacts on 1 million kilometres of coastline is as equally bizzare as that of a global temperature, let alone the over reliance placed on satellite data going back only to 1994.
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/category/sea-level/
    To prove a trend, records going much further back need to be examined and these show rather different things-that levels rise and fall over time.
    Newlyn in Cornwall
    http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/resids/170-161.gif
    and Helsinki. http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/resids/060-351.gif
    The following link leads to a graph produced by the Dutch Govt and confirm sea levels are stable and are somewhat lower than during the MWP.
    http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=61
    The greatest sea level expert in the world is Prof Morner who says: “The mean eustatic rise in sea level for the period 1850-1930 was in the order of 1.0-1.1mm/year,” but that “after 1930-40, this rise seems to have stopped (Pirazzoli et al., 1989; Morner, 1973,2000).” This stasis, in his words, “lasted, at least, up to the mid-60s.” Thereafter, “the record can be divided into three parts: (1) 1993-1996 with a clear trend of stability, (2) 1997-1998 with a high-amplitude rise and fall recording the ENSO event of these years and (3) 1998-2000 with an irregular record of no clear tendency.” Most important of all, in his words, “There is a total absence of any recent ‘acceleration in sea level rise’ as often claimed by IPCC and related groups.”
    He concludes: “When we consider past records, recorded variability, causational processes involved and the last century’s data, our best estimate of possible future sea-level changes is +10 +/- 10cm in a century, or, maybe, even +5 +/- 15cm.” See also Morner (1995); INQUA (2000).”
    Being ‘in the business’ I agree with Professor Morner that sea level is not really doing very much generally (with exceptions either way in some places)
    http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldeconaf/12/12we18.htm
    The above link dissects the data and Morner stresses that observational data contradicts the theoretical interpolated and massaged data that is used by the IPCC.
    You seem curiously reluctant to discuss history Giles. Perhaps you believe everything that is happening today is unprecedented-like a warmer arctic than in the past and therfore don’t accept that Arctic ice melt happens every 60 years or so?
    As everything is ‘unprecedented’ we can therefore safely discount that the Vikings in Greenland could possibly have lived in a warmer arctic culture 1000 years ago. We will therefore want to forget the physical evidence and also ignore a very interesting book about them called ‘The Viking world’. It is a very scholarly and highly referenced book running to some 700 pages and deals with all aspects of them. It is good because it does not have an axe to grind, but deals matter of factly with all aspects of Viking culture and exploration.
    There is a large section on their initial exploration of Greenland, the subsequent establishment of their farms there, everyday life, how they gradually lost access to the outside world as the sea lanes closed through ice, a record of the last wedding held in Greenland and how trade dried up. It also deals with Vinland/Newfoundland and it seems that it was wild grapes that helped give the area its name, it being somewhat warmer than today. The book ‘The Viking World’ is Edited by Stefan Brink with Neil Price Published by Routledge ISBN 978 0 415 33315-3
    I suggest you borrow it from the local library as it costs £175!
    Perhaps we should also ignore what you must think is the obviously faked Pathe newsreel flm of adventurer Bob Bartlett who regularly travelled far north in a melting arctic in the 1920 and 30’s and became something of a matinee idol at the time. There was an enormous interest about unprecedented global warming as this-and contemporary newspapers- report. Remember that this diary extract is dated Wednesday, 10th August 1932 not 2002
    “The ship rolled heavily all night and continues to do so….
    The glacier continues its disturbances. No real bergs break off but great sheets of ice slide down into the water and cause heavy seas. About noon, the entire face of the glacier, almost a mile in length and six or eight feet deep slid off with a roar and a rumble that must have been heard at some distance. We were on deck at the time for a preliminary report like a pistol shot had warned us what was coming. The Morrissey rolled until her boats at the davits almost scooped up the water and everything on board that was not firmly anchored in place crashed loose. But this was nothing to the pandemonium on shore. I watched it all through the glasses. The water receded leaving yards of beach bare and then returned with a terrific rush, bringing great chunks of ice with it. Up the beach it raced further and further, with the Eskimos fleeing before it. It covered all the carefully cherished piles of walrus meat, flowed across two of the tents with their contents, put out the fire over which the noonday meal for the sled drivers was being prepared, and stopped a matter of inches before it reached the pile of cement waiting to be taken up the mountain. (for a monument)
    http://www.heritage.nf.ca/exploration/bobbartlett.html
    Melting glaciers? Sounds strangely familiar doesn’t it
    Being able to disregard the past also enables us to ignore the fact that that the iceberg that sank the Titanic in 1912 came from a melting glacier. Or that the Royal Society mounted an expedition to the arctic in 1817 in response to thirty years of reports from whalers of melting ice. Presumably the extensive records of the Hudson Bay co revealing constantly changing sea ice extent over hundreds of years should also be ignored?
    So let’s forget the past altogether Giles, let’s forget that arctic ice melt is not unprecedented. Let’s disregard the nonsense of relying on the extraordinary concept of one global temperature, or the tiny numbers of stations used to represent this ideal in 1850, or the constantly changing number, location, and methodology of those reporting over the last century. Let’s believe the IPCC figures for UHI is really only a fraction of what we can actually feel when we visit an urban area or is mentioned in tv weather forecasts. Hey!, lets even forget that Callendar and Keeling had second thoughts about the hare they started running.
    Instead, let’s all wait patiently for the information you are about to post about precisely how co2 doubling causes the rise of up to 4.5C. Not the theory- the actual step by step proof of the hypotheses.
    By the way, whilst you’re at it you can answer another question that irrationalists try to avoid.
    Please tell me what constitutes the ‘normal’ climate of the earth and the years when it occurred?
    I claim first media rights for the co2 exclusive Anthony, then you can have the next go.
    Tonyb.

  229. Giles said in reply to me.
    “Given that, all I can assume is that anecdotal comments on 2 or 3 scientists is the best that can be done.”
    Giles, this must be the first time in the history of the English language that a comment made by the actual person concerned is considered anecdotal.
    Tonyb

  230. TonyB (12:49:47) : 1) Instead, let’s all wait patiently for the information you are about to post about precisely how co2 doubling causes the rise of up to 4.5C. Not the theory- the actual step by step proof of the hypotheses. … 2 ) Please tell me what constitutes the ‘normal’ climate of the earth and the years when it occurred?
    Tony, wanna make a side bet (to be donated to Anthony) you don’t get a sensible answer to either question? Are you in or out? And, no Giles, “it’s all in the IPCC reports” just won’t cut it — be specific.

  231. Giles, this must be the first time in the history of the English language… ”
    2: based on or consisting of reports or observations of usually unscientific observers http://www.merriam-webster.com my bold
    Interesting list of resources…. But you might want to check how many would be considered college (or HS) level acceptable. As well as the trotting out of typical tropes.
    It has been fun.

  232. Smokey: “Prof. Lindzen has no reason to be jealous of others.”
    As I said, he comes across as resentful of his colleagues, as evidenced when he “sticks the knife” as you accurately describe.
    As for the accuracy of his accusations and anecdotes, Lindzen’s argument is the standard one: that careers and funding depend on acquiescence to AGW. This claim is difficult if not impossible to confirm or deny, since a growing field such as AGW research will attract people and funding. A full account of any corrupting effects of the popularity of AGW would require an independent enquiry.

  233. Lucy: “I used to be daunted by the notion of a wiki being a “huge and contentious project” but have had a lot more thoughts about starting it simple.”
    A major initial hurdle for an AGW sceptic wiki would be gaining agreement on some fundamental aspects of climate, such as the greenhouse effect, the present state of the climate and the reasons for warming/cooling.
    In this respect, I notice that at the recent sceptic’s conference Richard Lindzen dismisses the notion of the sun as the primary driver of the current climate. As I understand it, he adopts the null hypothesis for the recent global warming, although he accepts an anthropogenic contribution to CO2 levels and agrees that increased atmospheric CO2 has had some minor warming effect.
    However, the sun as primary driver seems to be a favoured position among sceptics, while a small faction seems to dispute the greenhouse effect as a whole, and the cosmic ray notion has the support of others.
    Gaining a coherent foundation statement, much less a consistent scientific line from the varieties of AGW scepticism would be a major achievement.

  234. Brendan H:

    A full account of any corrupting effects of the popularity of AGW would require an independent enquiry.

    An independent inquiry has already been done.
    The Wegman Report to Congress has described much of the same internal corruption within the climate peer-review and funding process that Prof. Lindzen recounts.
    As expected, the AGW crowd attacked the internationally esteemed Prof. Wegman, an acknowledged expert in statistical analysis. Prof. Wegman responded to the critics in detail: click.
    The first recommendation of the Wegman Report states:

    Recommendation 1. Especially when massive amounts of public monies and human lives are at stake, academic work should have a more intense level of scrutiny and review. It is especially the case that authors of policy-related documents like the IPCC report, Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis, should not be the same people as those that constructed the academic papers.

    But as Wegman et al. reported in great detail, the same small clique that writes the endless succession of peer-reviewed papers is the same clique that acts as the gatekeepers.
    In other words, the clique approves each others’ submissions, and bars publication by others. The payoff is grant money and status, which is funnelled primarily to members of the clique.
    The downside is that it ends up being propaganda; only one side gets published, and the other side is effectively silenced. That’s why outside submissions on climate studies are forced to go to geology journals and the like. They are deliberately barred from being published in climate and mainstream science journals, just as posters here are barred from being published on sites like Realclimate.
    The climate science system of peer-review and publication has been gamed, and the losers are the taxpaying public and scientific truth. Honest science results from the transparent application of the Scientific Method. But there is no transparency when the gatekeepers have an agenda and control the peer-review and publication system.
    I would think that anyone interested in honest science, and in a fiduciary duty to taxpayers, would welcome the exposing of these corrupt shenanigans which are endemic especially in the climate sciences. The corruption is out of control. When big public money is at stake, the taxpaying public should have more reporting of this nature, not less. Or do you think otherwise?

  235. Brendan H (16:09:57) :
    Lucy: “I used to be daunted by the notion of a wiki being a “huge and contentious project” but have had a lot more thoughts about starting it simple.”
    Gaining a coherent foundation statement, much less a consistent scientific line from the varieties of AGW scepticism would be a major achievement.

    Thank you Brendan. I agree it will be a major achievement, which I suspect is why although it seems like a natural idea, it has taken so long to mature and surface. The interesting thing is, it’s folk like Giles, whose endless spamming drivel that claims to be reasonable, who make me say “publish and be damned” or rather, “I’m damn well going to make the thing work” so that the Gileses can easily be pointed to agreed default statements of skeptics science and skeptical scientists in ways they cannot refute or ignore or keep denying or slandering.
    I suspect a lot of us feel like that.
    Jeff Alberts, I’ll visit as soon as I can manage, thanks.

  236. Lucy Skywalker, more power to you re the wiki. I have signed up with your forum, but it/they will not send me the notification that I can join — perhaps it is my internet name. Anyway, the reason I was trying to contact you is that, in addition to recommending WUWT, I have sent your primer to a number of people. I am interested in the citations about updates to the primer. We should know when and how the basic-information-new-debates info changes. Perhaps you do this and I have not been a careful reader. Is there any reasonable way to separate your wiki from the Green World Trust? Thanks.

  237. TonyB 12:39:00 3/15, You just gave an inspired lecture. I think you have shown Giles how hopeless is his pursuit of pseudo-science/propaganda. He obviously is paid to troll. Imagine his success — how many times was his name mentioned? Nevertheless, his scientific assertions were proven worthless over and over again — a great education for those new to WUWT. It can be irritating, but I think Anthony has figured out how to deal with trolls; few other blogs have done so this ingeniously.

  238. Smokey: “The Wegman Report to Congress has described much of the same internal corruption within the climate peer-review and funding process that Prof. Lindzen recounts.”
    No it doesn’t. The Wegman report simply traces professional relationships among a section of climate researchers, those involved in paleoclimate reconstructions. The paleoclimate scientific community is small so there’s a high likelihood that practitioners will have some professional interaction.
    The Wegman Report does not establish anything like “corruption”, and in a Congressional hearing in 2006 Wegman admitted that the social relationships claim was a hypothesis and should be taken with a “grain of salt”.
    http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_house_hearings&docid=f:31362.wais
    Importantly, the general shape of the hockey stick has been replicated in a number of studies since the original reconstruction.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

  239. Lucy: “I agree it will be a major achievement, which I suspect is why although it seems like a natural idea, it has taken so long to mature and surface.”
    Well, best of luck. If you’re going to get the science right and give the wiki some authoritative credibility, you will need the backing of sceptical climate scientists, or at least their peer review. Have you approached any and, if so, what are their thoughts?

  240. pyromancer76,
    I completely agree with you re: TonyB’s excellent post @12:39:00.
    Giles is almost certainly a troll. But I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt — if he will provide a complete and detailed response to TonyB’s points. All of Tony’s points.
    As the saying goes, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. The ball is in Giles’ court now. It’s time for Giles to put up or shut up.

  241. Giles
    I have been patient with you, but I increasingly believe that you don’t read your own links, let alone anyone elses
    You said in reply to me.
    “Interesting list of resources…. But you might want to check how many would be considered college (or HS) level acceptable. As well as the trotting out of typical tropes.”
    * First quote in my post was from Al Gore, so I am happy to discount that.
    * The next one re the Vikings were from 900 academics in history, so shall we leave that one?
    * The next one was from the editors of the ecologist so lets get rid of that one.
    * Perhaps you’d better tell Prof Morner to his face that his renowned work is only college level work according to Giles.
    * So sea level info from NOAA is nonsense
    * The comments by Kevin Trenberth of the IPCC is nonsense
    * The report by the Dutch govt nonsense
    * The variation of global weather stations compiled by Nasa is nonsense.
    Then you said
    “Given that, all I can assume is that anecdotal comments on 2 or 3 scientists is the best that can be done.”
    To which I replied
    “Giles, this must be the first time in the history of the English language that a comment made by the actual person concerned is considered anecdotal.”
    To which you posted this link giving the meaning;
    “2: based on or consisting of reports or observations of usually unscientific observers http://www.merriam-webster.com my bold”
    If you want to classify Callendar and Keeling as unscientific observers I move that we strike all their works from the record.
    So we’ve disposed of three major pillars of AGW (Callendar, Keeling and Gore) plus Noaa, Nasa, the IPCC, Kevin Trenberth AND you still haven’t told me how to get to a 4.5c increase through a doubling of co2 OR what period in our history had a normal climate.
    It seems to me Giles that you have very nicely brought the entire edifice of ‘scientific’ AGW crashing to the ground.
    Smokey, Pyromancer 76, Brenda H, Lucy, in fact ANYONE. Now Giles has done our job for us – and in the process demonstrated that some people will believe what they want to believe – including disputing all the evidence they have been claiming is from a ‘consensus’ of scientists working on a ‘settled’ science- what on earth shall we talk about now on this blog?
    Smokey what did you do at the weekend?
    TonyB

  242. TonyB,
    If you’re not quoting those genius peer-reviewed IPCC scientists George Monbiot, Fed Pearce and Suzanne Goldenberg of the Guardian then all that science you posted is a waste of time 😉
    You see, these days the youth have it so easy that any small thing like CO2 which rocks their popcorn buckets is a threat to their way of life. They’re willing to surrender their liberty and all reason for any socialist paradise that promises them that the popcorn bucket will be green and sustainable forever. Then they can sit and eat popcorn all day long without worry because the government is looking after them…and at them!
    And to think that within living memory there was a generation that worried about threats like Stalin’s tanks and Hitler’s bombs. These people died on the beaches of Normandy for what? What idiots they were. A trace gas is so much more threatening!!!

  243. Smokey what did you do at the weekend?
    Reminds me of bees and wasps here. Young wasps provide older wasps with sweet food. Yes! But at the end of summer, when bees have stored their honey for the coming cold winter, wasps have no more young to feed sugar to the older ones, so they come raiding. I’ve finally banned a poster on our forum who displayed similar characteristics to Giles here. Not before he’d posted 189 times. And he did sharpen my wits for a while.

  244. Brendan H wrote:
    “AGW sceptic science as practised by the current crop has no future because it’s not attracting young, vital minds.”
    But:
    “Nothing is so dangerous as being too modern; one is apt to grow old-fashioned quite suddenly”
    –Oscar Wilde

  245. Brendan H wrote:
    “A major initial hurdle for an AGW sceptic wiki would be gaining agreement on some fundamental aspects of climate, such as the greenhouse effect, the present state of the climate and the reasons for warming/cooling.
    …………………
    “Gaining a coherent foundation statement, much less a consistent scientific line from the varieties of AGW scepticism would be a major achievement.”

    On the contrary, skeptics don’t need to present a unified face in order to attack CAGW theory–they only need to poke holes in it and weaken it enough so that the case for immediate mitigation is unpersuasive. I.e., so that it would prudent to wait for another five or ten years while more data is gathered and the issue is more fully debated. If the global temperature continues to plateau or to decline slightly, as it has since at least 2002, that would falsify the AGW hypothesis. (Or at least would require such severe contortions to “save the case” that its proponents would reveal themselves to have been “crying wolf” with their prior predictions. And, given their alarmist bias, would likely be continuing to do so.)
    Smokey has often said that the skeptic’s side has nothing to prove–it’s the believers who must prove that the 30-year warming that’s been observed falls outside the range of natural variation, and that the upward trend culminating in about 1998-2001 will continue, rather than pause or reverse. (The burden on “catastrophic” believers, who predict an accelerating warming based on a tipping-point effect, and claim that huge taxes are needed for mitigation, is much greater.)
    Decadal periods of natural variation have been observed earlier in the 20th century (warming from 1900 to 1940, cooling from 1940 to 1970). And of course there were century-long periods of natural variation earlier in the past millennium: the Medieval Warm Period, followed by the Little Ice Age. It’s not necessary for skeptics to have a well-founded theory about the cause(s) of such variations. Rather, the burden is on warmers to explain why the current upward “zig” differs from those in the past, which were followed by downward “zags,” and which were not caused by AGW.
    The IPCC attributed the current warming trend to CO2 by a process of elimination. I.e., it could think of no natural cause for the trend other than CO2. But that method of reasoning also fails to account for the earlier upward “zigs” by anything other than man-made CO2, which is absurd. So the Insisters are in the same pickle as the Resisters: they can’t explain natural variation either. Therefore, it’s not incumbent upon us skeptics to do so. Getting to the bottom of climate change is apparently something that will take centuries to get a handle on. It would be presumptuous to do more than throw out a few hypotheses at this point.
    Indeed, it seems to me that there needn’t be any external cause for the variation–variation might be generated internally as the means by which a system’s stability is attained. A tight-rope walker maintains his balance because he constantly counterbalances himself back-and-forth against his balance-pole. If he were forced to eliminate his wobbling and walk steadily, he would fall. (I owe this insight to an essay by a Hungarian author in a book of his odd-ball essays published within the last ten years whose title I’ve forgotten.) Similarly, in a dynamical system with long-term feedback loops and natural counter-balances and counter-counter-balances, multi-decadal zigs and zags are probably (IMO) part of an overall equilibrium. When they were not–when the zigs were extensive and multi-century extremes ensued–they were anyway not due to man-made CO2, so there’s no need for cap-and-trade.
    FWIW, I think the skeptics can plausibly account for the recent warming trend as a combination of the following, in order of importance:
    1. A rebound from the Little Ice Age. (See the paper by the University of Alaska professor on this topic.)
    2. Oceanic oscillation cycles that were mostly set to Warm for the latter third of the 20th century. (See Roy Spencer’s paper.)
    3. Urban Heat Island effects, which increased the slope of the apparent warming in the 20th century in the industrialized world beyond the reality of what actually occurred.
    4. Bias, largely unconscious, in collecting, adjusting, and correcting temperature data by the data’s guardians. (For instance, mistakes on the warm side might not get “corrected” as readily as mistakes on the cold side, because the former sort of mistakes wouldn’t seem suspicious.)

  246. Lucy Skywalker: Thanks to the link to your site. I particularly like point C of your proposal for your site’s structure, which reads:
    “deconstructing the common “straw man” arguments that scientists use to discredit and discount skeptics’ issues. Possibly, this section could be the way to start to organize the whole project – a kind of FAQ to “answer the answers””
    I wish I had the energy and time and expertise to contribute more to your project than making suggestions from the sidelines. I sure hope you get the help you deserve. (Here’s the link to her site again: http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Wiki.htm )

  247. I’m going to close out my participation on this thread with a quote from Al Gore:
    “The denial of global warming is persistent. After all, the denial of evolution is still common, probably more in my country than here [in the UK]. It’s fed by garden-variety denial: it’s unpleasant, people don’t want to think about it. It’s fed by a huge amount of funding from carbon special interests who have been financing these phoney, pseudo-scientific reports and they have a self-interest in sowing doubt. Doubt is their product. It’s also fed by an ideological opposition and, coming out of the 20th century, the battle against excess statism in various forms became a deeply held view – and I share that view if it’s stated properly – but some take it such an extreme that anything which implies a new regulation, or a new role for government, is automatically attacked with great veracity. And all these streams have come together to keep the denialism going, but they’re becoming less and less relevant.” http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2009/mar/16/climate-change-al-gore
    Good Luck in your wiki endeavor. I’m off to teach Science classes.

  248. Aron
    “H.L.Mencken 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.”
    I think we have lost touch with our history and believe that everything is unprecedeted if WE weren’t there to experience it, have an over reliance on theoretical science as a substitute for real knowledge, have forgotten we are a part of a natural and chaotic world because of our ability to control our immediate climate in home, car and office through precisely regulated heating and cooling, and have become more credulous as H L Mencken realised
    Tonyb

  249. TonyB,
    You’ll see from Giles’ last comment that he looks to be abandoning this site. Like most from the pro-AGW point of view, he has learnt his arguments (by rote) reasonably well. He parrots IPCC and RealClimate mantra, and sounds quite convincing. He demands responses from the peer-reviewed literature (a good way of limiting the argument given the pro-AGW bias in the lit).
    But as soon as you ask him to respond to some actual difficult questions – questions which aren’t on the standard list and don’t have a standard reply – questions that need some understanding to respond to – he dodges the questions, makes his excuses and leaves. Suddenly his demands for a constructive argument ring rather hollow.
    Back on the original topic and Steve G’s follow up (which were very interesting), I note the wiki page (citing 32 of 34 lead authors) is not complete, but a sub sample. (There are actually a lot of lead authors of the IPCC report!) To verify these stats weren’t biased through the grey wiki process, I selected the co-ordinating lead authors (which should represent the most senior) of IPCC AR4, link here. Of 22 CLAs, I managed to confirm the gender of 21 of them through googling their CVs and photos. 1/21 are female (Hegerl). (The last unknown is Prof. Jiawen Ren from China, who I could not locate on the web – if anyone can positively confirm M/F I’d be grateful). This yields 4.8% female, as compared to 5.9% estimated from the wiki page, suggesting the wiki page seems reasonably unbiased.
    I’ll use Steve’s 5.9% assumption (and round it up to 6% to give the pro-AGW folks the best chance), and see what the probability of finding 2 or less presenters in a group of 70, assuming they are from the same group. I use the binomial distribution and assume each sample is independent. I’ll set a p-value of 5% suggesting the population from which they are drawn is different.
    The results are:
    P(no females in 70) = 1.32%
    P(one female in 70) = 5.88%
    P(two females in 70) = 12.9%
    So the probability of seeing 2 or fewer female speakers of 70, assuming the ICCC conference speakers are sampled from the same distribution as the IPCC co-ordinating lead authors for IPCC AR4 WG1, is 20.1%. This fails the statistical test, meaning the null hypothesis (they are from the same distribution) is accepted for this small sample.
    (Of course, I have not taken into account the uncertainty in the estimates of the underlying distribution, which would widen the confidence intervals even further, and make rejection of the null even less likely).
    There are other compelling explanations for the demographic of the ICCC conference; unlike the IPCC conference, the taxpayer will not be footing the bill for travel etc. to the ICCC conference, so the worldwide travel (and curiously carbon footprint) of the ICCC conference will be much less, with many more “locals”. Retired people are more likely because they don’t have to worry about their career being destroyed by calculated smears from environmental activists (and mainstream media outlets).
    In summary, Suzanne Goldenberg’s analysis shows her very weak grasp at statistics, and a strong tendency to smear anything that disagrees with her narrow worldview.

  250. Giles 06 01 38
    So it is OK to quote Al Gore as an oracle when you agree with his warm words, but to ignore them when you don’t agree with his factual message of previous warm periods as quoted verbatim in my long post?
    I am from the UK. Have you actually ever looked at the unsmoothed Hadley CET data back to 1660? Even in the LIA there were periods around as warm as now. If co2 is a driver it is an extremely weak one.
    I note you haven’t answered my two questions. Can we assume you don’t know the answer? Can we also assume you haven’t been able to find it on any of the irrationalist blogs?
    Personally I welcome your involvement here and hope you stay around, but if you pose questions you must also be willing to answer them or we will draw our own conclusions from your silence.
    Hope to come across you elsewhere on this blog.
    tonyb

  251. Giles is off to teach “Science” class (as in reading a Guardian column on the bog) so moving on…
    In George Monbiot’s error filled rebuttal of David Bellamy today, he makes the claim that Michael Mann’s hockey stick has been vindicated time and time again…..and then shockingly claims….that manmade global warming ended the Little Ice Age
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/mar/16/monbiot-bellamy-climate-change-denier
    Here are some excerpts of Monbiot’s great scientific learning.
    The most likely explanation is that the Little Ice Age came to an end as a result of manmade climate change. (no citation given, seems unaware of dates, and seems unaware of solar activity)
    The first hockey-stick paper, produced by Michael Mann et al has been vindicated by several subsequent studies
    But you cannot deduce from this that CO2 is not the driver of global warming today. The evidence shows comprehensively that it is. (no citation given)
    Time for everyone to leave a few comments on that page to teach Monbiot a few lessons.

  252. Thanks for the kind words from various people.
    I suspect Giles was an English Teacher out of his depth, rather than a science teacher. Recalling my English lessons I remembered he was a character from Thomas Hardy ‘The Woodlanders’ where Giles was the ‘personification of a wood god’ and I seem to recall my English teacher telling me he was also some sort of puritan. So rather a good name (or perhaps his mother just liked Hardy!)
    I think the episode shows that there are three areas where blind faith can take over objective reasoning (whereby you arrive at a position after having thought about it). Those include religion, politics and philospohical life style choices.
    However, those who have such blind faith in the AGW story are every bit as irrational as those on ‘our’ side who just don’t believe the AGW saga because they don’t like rules, the govt, Al Gore, or haven’t thought about it much, but are just sure ‘THEY’ are wrong.
    It is useful to distance ourselves from this grouping as they tar everyone with the same brush with their off the cuff comments. I am sure Giles came over here thinking we were all knuckle dragging neanderthals who just hadnt ‘thought’ what we were doing and could be ‘saved’ if things were explained slowly to us.
    We should be aware that those such as Mary Hinge and Joel Shore are of much sterner mettle and believe in the science, and personally I always welcome their posts here, but find them often unwilling to engage on history.
    Their mantra is that ‘this time its different’ in order to minimise the increasingly obvious reality that todays climate is not ‘unprecedented’.
    However, historical precedent is obviously important or Dr Mann and others wouldn’t be trying so hard to to subvert it. 🙂
    Tonyb

  253. Buncha ancient Boomers. Why am I not surprised? Yeah I know, wisdom supposedly comes with age and all that. But Xers are now in our 40s and late 30s. So it’ not like we’re still kids. Some of my brethren are already grand parents.

  254. Roger Knight: “On the contrary, skeptics don’t need to present a unified face in order to attack CAGW theory…”
    That sounds like an argument for natural variation without specifying any particular cause. That position would probably be the best bet for sceptics, but the devil is always in the details.
    For example, some supporters of natural variation, such as Richard Lindzen, also accept that recent increases in atmospheric CO2 are man-made and have caused some warming. However, others like Roy Spencer seem more doubtful about the composition of the increase, while Tim Ball argues that pre-industrial levels of CO2 may have been higher than today.
    So it might be difficult to gain agreement on some fundamental aspects of climate science.
    The sceptic wiki proposal also includes the possibility of an evaluation of “current theories both inside and outside the official position”, and a “space for original research…”. These are very ambitious aims.
    I like your tight-rope walker analogy, though, except that if the balance pole were to become, well, unbalanced, the tight-rope walker could find himself at an unwelcome tipping point.

  255. I have been visiting and appreciating your blog for some time and your contributors almost always provide solid scientific fact to counter the propaganda spewed out by the AGW alarmists.
    It is possible however that some may be overlooking a most important point. AGW is not a science based debate, it is a religion. In some ways we are fortunate to be around to observe the birth of a new global religion; it hasn’t happened since Islam was founded more than 1400 years ago.
    Just like the believers in any religion, the believers in AGW do not need or care for scientific debate. Their belief is faith based and, as such, is threatened when the bright light of scientific inquiry is shone on it.
    So when genuine scientists offer evidence that contradicts their views, they’re not listening.
    Think of the case of the Shroud of Turin. For centuries the faithful were convinced that the Shroud was indeed the burial cloth of Jesus Christ. When carbon dating proved that it was a medieval construction, it did not stop a significant number of the faithful continuing to revere the Shroud as they always had done.
    The same is true of many of the adherents to the belief in AGW. It doesn’t really matter if their claims are proven wrong either by science or experience, (note the failure of the earth to continue warming since 1998) their faith is unshakeable.
    The only way to combat these folks is on religious grounds by, for example, pointing out to them that their beliefs are anti-human and anti-social. Ultimately, their argument leads to the conclusion that there are just too many people in the world, the corollary of which is that the solution to the problem must be genocide.
    When they understand that they are intellectually the equivalent of Hitler, Stalin or Pol Pot, say, they might become more inclined to listen to science and abandon the whole AGW circus.

  256. “I am sure Giles came over here thinking we were all knuckle dragging neanderthals (sic)who just hadnt (sic) ‘thought’ what we were doing and could be ’saved’ if things were explained slowly to us.”
    Actually, not so much. The major point of curiosity and research was what science would be cited. My classes later analyzed comments from several sites; science, newspaper, and those of this genre for resource quality and logical fallacies.
    I think you misread the character analysis on GW, or misremembered your Lit teacher. By a long shot.

Comments are closed.