Who makes up the IPCC?

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.

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

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.”

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?

http://news.aol.com/article/climate-changes/376821

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.

Potkettleblack

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.

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.

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.

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!!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

But the head of the IPCC is an Indian! That makes the whole organization more diverse.

You should read the rubbish in todays’ Daily Telegraph!

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.

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

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.

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!!!!

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)!

OT? ….from “Dalton Minimum Returns”
http://ncwatch.typepad.com/dalton_minimum_returns/2009/03/sun-influence-under-estimated-.html

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! 😉

[snip – none of that labeling here, please don’t do it again, Anthony]

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

I would recommend Mrs.Suzanne Goldenberg to read the following with careful and attention:
http://www.spunk.org/texts/places/germany/sp001630/peter.html

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!

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.

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.

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?

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.

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 ]

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?

32 out of 34 IPCC lead authors are men.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:IPCC_lead_authors

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.

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.

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.

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.

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”!

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!).

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

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

@M. Carpenter (14:19:20) :

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

That may not be easily done. see link below:
This Link

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

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.”

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.

foinavon (12:49:39) :
Don’t worry about it foinaven….it’s just a personal thing.

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.

“..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.

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….

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…..

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!

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.

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.

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!

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.

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

“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?

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.

Well Foinavon, your list of leading IPPCC people is intresting… Christ, Gabriel and Solomon, humm? perhaps it is a religion.

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!

OOoops!
Central to the list is, of course, Ivanka Charvatova of Czechoslovakia

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.

…………..and there is Karin Labitze (http://strat-www.met.fu-berlin.de/labitzke ). Also, Jean Grove (deceased); Jane Blizard (deceased) ………….to be continued…………

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.

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

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.

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

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?

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!

Her statements are pure racism.

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.

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/

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.

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

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.

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?

“..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%

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

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.

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

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.

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

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’ ?

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.

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]

” 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.