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 I
CCC. No doubt Ms. Goldenberg considers the adult white men in the I
PCC 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.
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
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!
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!
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!
“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?
OOoops!
Central to the list is, of course, Ivanka Charvatova of Czechoslovakia
“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.”
Compilation of 619 contributing authors in AR4 –
http://www.eecg.utoronto.ca/~prall/climate/AR4wg1_authors_table.html
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.
Sorry, forgot the link
http://climatesci.org/2008/02/27/trmm-tropical-rainfall-measuring-mission-data-set-potential-in-climate-controversy-by-joanne-simpson-private-citizen/
…………..and there is Karin Labitze (http://strat-www.met.fu-berlin.de/labitzke ). Also, Jean Grove (deceased); Jane Blizard (deceased) ………….to be continued…………
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/
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.
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?
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.
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
Steve Hempell (08:39:56) :
Just as long as they don’t burn the midnight oil.
from $Billions every year
I think you’re grossly understimating their goal.
Mark
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
“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.
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.
20% less isn’t what I meant, and you know it. So I’d suggest just paying 2%.
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
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.
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”?
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!