Big day today folks. The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists will move the hands on their famous “doomsday clock”.
Here’s my guess. Climate scientist Steven Schneider will be speaking. We know what he is all about. The Copenhagen Climate Conference failed in December and there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth. My prediction is that these alarmists will move the clock closer to midnight, citing the Copenhagen “failure” as pushing mankind closer to the brink of “climate disaster” or some such phrase.
Plus, we’ll get to watch them turn the hands of the clock live via webfeed. Such stunning visuals. Yawn. I’ll save you the suspense. In 2007 it was set to five minutes to midnight, to reflect the failure to solve problems posed by nuclear weapons. Today I’m guessing they’ll mention Copenhagen’s failure and list climate change as the next global threat and set it to 4 minutes to midnight. Or…maybe 3, if Steven Schneider scares them enough. UPDATE: my guess was wrong: they moved it back to 6 minutes see here
From the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists press release:
Hands of the “Doomsday Clock” to be moved in New York City and seen live on web for first time ever
8 January 2010
… News Advisory for January 14, 2010 …
Factors In Change to Include Nuclear Proliferation, Weapon Stockpile Shifts, and Climate Change; Bulletin of Atomic Scientists Will Open Event to World With Real-Time Streaming Web Broadcast.
NEW YORK CITY///NEWS ADVISORY///January 14, 2010///The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (BAS) will move the minute hand of its famous “Doomsday Clock” at 10 a.m. EST/1500 GMT on January 14, 2010 in New York City. For the first time ever, the event will be opened up to the general public via a live Web feed at http://www.TurnBackTheClock.org.
The last time the Doomsday Clock minute hand moved was in January 2007, when the Clock’s minute hand was pushed forward by two minutes from seven to five minutes before midnight.
The precise time to be shown on the updated Doomsday Clock will not be announced until the live news conference in New York City takes place on January 14, 2010. Factors influencing the latest Doomsday Clock change include international negotiations on nuclear disarmament and nonproliferation, expansion of civilian nuclear power, the possibilities of nuclear terrorism, and climate change.
News event speakers will include:
- Lawrence Krauss, co-chair, BAS Board of Sponsors, foundation professor, School of Earth and Space Exploration and Physics departments, associate director, Beyond Center, co-director, Cosmology Initiative, and director, New Origins Initiative, Arizona State University.
- Stephen Schneider, member, BAS Science and Security Board, professor of environmental biology and global change, Stanford University, a co-director, Center for Environment Science and Policy of the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, and senior fellow, Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment.
- Jayantha Dhanapala, member, BAS Board of Sponsors, president, Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs, and chair, 1995 UN Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty Conference;
- Pervez Hoodbhoy, member, BAS Board of Sponsors, professor of high energy physics, and head, Physics Department, Quaid-e-Azam University, Islamabad, Pakistan; and
- Kennette Benedict, executive director, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.
Founded in 1945 by University of Chicago scientists who had helped develop the first atomic weapons in the Manhattan Project, The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists subsequently created the Doomsday Clock in 1947 as way to convey both the imagery of apocalypse (midnight) and the contemporary idiom of nuclear explosion (countdown to zero). The decision to move the minute hand of the Doomsday Clock is made by the Bulletin’s Board of Directors in consultation with its Board of Sponsors, which includes 19 Nobel Laureates. The Clock has become a universally recognized indicator of the world’s vulnerability to catastrophe from nuclear weapons, climate change, and emerging technologies in the life sciences.
TO PARTICIPATE IN PERSON: Attend the live news event on January 14, 2010 at 10 a.m. EST, at the New York Academy of Sciences Building, at 7 World Trade Center, 250 Greenwich St, 40th floor, New York City. The event will be limited to credentialed members of the news media. For security reasons, all attendees must RSVP in advance by contacting Patrick Mitchell, (703) 276-3266, or pmitchell@hastingsgroup.com.
CAN’T PARTICIPATE IN PERSON?: Reporters outside of New York City who are unable to attend the live news event in person can watch and listen to the news conference via a live Webcast by registering by 945 a.m. EST on January 14, 2010 at http://www.TurnBackTheClock.org/media. A streaming audio replay of the news event will be available on the Web at http://www.thebulletin.org as of 6 p.m. EST/2300 GMT on January 14, 2010.
I am in wholehearted agreement with Nobel prize=clock=BS type comments.
Fear stoking.
They set the fire, they put fuel on it and now they’re desperately stoking it (piling on the fear) to keep it going.
If that doesn’t work they’ll put fuel on some other fire to take our minds off this one.
Meanwhile, the guys at the top rake in the cash and get to further their (globalist, unelected) agendas. Excellent for them!
I think they think they can just do whatever the hell they like. They think they can tell us out and out b*llsh*t lies and we’ll go along with it all.
And I think they’re going to try and stick to their lies.
“If those “Atomic Scientists” were smart they would have invited the Governator in full T2 attire along with Nancy Pelosi (as Sarah Connor) to rave about SkyNet and the end of the world. Now that would have been stimulating!”
Thank you SO much for that . . . now I can’t get the image of Nancy Pelosi in a tank top and tight jeans out of my mind. The goggles, they do nothing!!!
John Hooper (10:00:12) :… If only we on the skeptical side could come up with just one [nobbled laureate]. Unfortunately, we … have to make do with … eccentric old codgers like Chimp Monckton.
I object to your use of “we”. You do not speak for me. You don’t speak like a skeptic. That needs evidence. Evidence needs science quoted. Something that Monckton does superbly. It also needs encouragement to test evidence and believe nothing. Again, something that Monckton does superbly. Just watch him talking to the Norwegian warmist in Croakenhagen.
” Sean Peake (12:29:47) :
Hooper: What makes a Nobel so special? Gore got one, so did choo-choo Pachauri and Obama for all their outstanding achievements. Seems the prize is rather tainted and is better off being filled with chocolate.”
If there’s a more prestigious scientific award – let’s ignore the peace prize for arguments sake- what is it? We have to acknowledge the fire power on the other side is awesome. To pretend otherwise really is being a being a denialist.
But really, my point is, yes Al has all the firepower on his side, so who do we have that’s good enough to bring them over to our way of thinking?
Do we have any Nobel Laureates? Or if you’d prefer recipients of some other scientific prize you value more highly?
“Smokey (12:21:18) :
Aside from the fact that Moncktion [that’s LORD Monckton to anyone who attacks him with an ad hominem comment, because he’s a better man than Hooper] has forgotten more honest science than a Hooper will ever learn”
Okay so we have an eccentric lord, who’s doing a fine job of getting his head around a few of our stronger talking points. But really, we can’t kid ourselves, this is how he’s seen outside the tabloids:
http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/01/12/hamilton-viscount-monckton-of-benchleys-over-egged-cv/
We all love him. He’s our Michael Moore. But we need a whole string of people a heck of a lot more credible than Chris if we’re going to win over the broadsheet media to our way of thinking.
Whether your like or not.
“evanmjones (12:55:22) :
As for predicting the future, it appears obvious that we should carefully seek out the opinions of Nobel laureates and scientific organizations — and assume the opposite. At least if past experience has any meaning at all.”
No, we have to change their minds. Big difference.
Chris Monctkon isn’t going to do that any more than Michael Moore was going to convince Republican voters that George Bush was lying about WMDs.
John Hooper (13:11:58) It’s over buddy! and it’s your fate, you just believed them. Ok. they gave you some bucks to live, but believe me, they will abandon you, if you are lucky enough…ya know how maffia works. Is somebody knocking at your door already? ☺
Now, let’s see.
This clock goes forwards, then backwards, then stays still between presentations.
I always knew these wonks didn’t understand thermodynamics.
Church used to scare with HELL…now these guys are trying to scare us with a funny clock…..no words, they will kill us all by laughing!
They don’t even realize they have a pendulum hanging over their heads, and, believe me, they are indeed in a pit!
Like all alarmist theories, the setting of the clock is an arbitrary deal… whatever “seems right.” When the real D Day comes there won’t be enough warning to set anything.
No, we have to change their minds. Big difference.
True enough. But “recent events” (heh! heh!) have made it possible to look at both sides of the issue in public. That alone makes it possible for the arguments of either side to stand or fall on their merits.
Chris Monctkon isn’t going to do that any more than Michael Moore was going to convince Republican voters that George Bush was lying about WMDs.
Bush admitted he was wrong about WMDs, the first time I ever heard a president owning up to an error of that kind. But that’s beside the point.
Consider that Monckton has had a fair amount of hands-on formal debate on the subject. He has always swung the crowd in his direction, at least moreso than it was at start. That demonstrates his ability to convince the undecided, if not so much the heavily committed.
You may not cotton to his style, but that is not to say he is ineffective. Michael Moore, OTOH, plays mainly to his own crowd and does not appear able to convince those “in the middle”.
Oh happy day! We got an extra minute!! I am going to celebrate by setting off these fireworks with this big, shiny, red button!!!
“Lucy Skywalker (13:11:25) :
John Hooper (10:00:12) :… If only we on the skeptical side could come up with just one [nobbled laureate]. Unfortunately, we … have to make do with … eccentric old codgers like Chimp Monckton.
I object to your use of “we”. You do not speak for me. You don’t speak like a skeptic. That needs evidence. Evidence needs science quoted. ”
Oh I’m a skeptic alright. But I’m not just skeptical of the Global Warming lobby, I’m skeptical of the opportunistic witch trial assembling in these forums. Vis a vis the misleading piece on Australia’s Kevin Rudd yesterday.
Anthony knew fully well that story had very little to do either Kevin Rudd or Climate Change, but used at it as a political opportunity to “pile on.” I’m not defending Rudd’s position – I can’t stand the man – but this story was misleading and in my mind completely undermines Anthony’s integrity.
It reminded me of Baghdad Bob declaring victory as we watched US forces secure the airport. Sometimes you do better to say nothing at all.
Our only advantage in this debate is to hold the higher moral ground. Once we lose that, we lose it all. Google tobacco and climate denial and see how backing the wrong horse in the face of scientific opposition works out for your credibility.
If you blindly side with everything that opposes the so-called consensus just because you find it convenient, then you are no more scientific than the worst of the scaremongers.
So, forgive me for not toeing the line here. We might indeed turn out to be right in the long run, but right now our troops are weaker than theirs, particular at the front of house. It’s easy to understand why a team of Nobel Science Laureates might have more credibility than an eccentric English Lord with a BA in literature and a diploma in journalism.
And denying it only makes us look deluded.
“evanmjones (14:19:05) :
You may not cotton to his style, but that is not to say he is ineffective. Michael Moore, OTOH, plays mainly to his own crowd and does not appear able to convince those “in the middle”.”
Oh I do agree he can be effective. And I do think we’ll soon see governments fall for supporting AGW, just as we saw an enormous political backlash against those who supported the Iraq War. But in both cases the underlying issue will not go away.
The electoral majority can be sold any cock and bull if you keep it simple and emotive.
At the moment we seem to be floating the theory that there’s a massive conspiracy involving every scientific body in the world, that’s managed to either corrupt the scientific community at large or fool them somehow. A conspiracy that’s obvious to laypeople in these forums, but beyond the comprehension of Nobel Science Laureates.
We must not overestimate our progress in this campaign.
To John Hooper
The wonderful thing about science is that it explicitly does not use your logically facile argument of “appeal to authority”. Authority is central to subjective studies such as religion. However, a simple scientific experiment can bowl over an entire century’s worth of Nobel Laureates.
The results of the actual measurement of the Earth’s climate itself stands testament to the failure of the CO2 models, no matter how many Nobel Laureates may claim otherwise.
Salvador Dali Clock;
http://www.artknowledgenews.com/files2009b/Salvador_Dali_Clock.jpg
“Cadae (14:55:32) :
To John Hooper
The wonderful thing about science is that it explicitly does not use your logically facile argument of “appeal to authority”. Authority is central to subjective studies such as religion. However, a simple scientific experiment can bowl over an entire century’s worth of Nobel Laureates.
The results of the actual measurement of the Earth’s climate itself stands testament to the failure of the CO2 models, no matter how many Nobel Laureates may claim otherwise.”
That sounds very nice. But if we’re so quick to dismiss every scientific institution in the world, and all the science behind them, including the one that put man on the moon, why should anyone believe the small handful of lesser credentialed “scientists” we put forward?
The clock may be closer to midnight but most likely due to the US using NATO to ring fence Russia by getting bordering countries to join NATO, and siting ABM systems close to Russia. If Russia feels it is about to lose the ability to nuclear retaliation it may be forced in to a first strike.
Imagine if Canada and Mexico joined a Russian military alliance, and Russia sited ABMs in Canada and Venezuela! Remember the fuss over Cuba!
To me, usually if something is valid then it should also be valid if the situation is reversed.
Note that I am in no way supporting Russia, I am just someone concerned for my own skin!
Cadae (14:55:32) :
To John Hooper
The wonderful thing about science is that it explicitly does not use your logically facile argument of “appeal to authority”. Authority is central to subjective studies such as religion. However, a simple scientific experiment can bowl over an entire century’s worth of Nobel Laureates
Hey John Hooper, do you have any simple scientific experiment to prove your ideas?, you don´t and you know it. Believing it is not the positive method of science, you should revisit JA Marie Comte.
John Hooper (15:42:55) :
“Cadae (14:55:32)
That sounds very nice. But if we’re so quick to dismiss every scientific institution in the world, and all the science behind them, including the one that put man on the moon, why should anyone believe the small handful of lesser credentialed “scientists” we put forward?
Superb question, Mr Hooper!
I’ll attempt an answer but I’ll not be surprised when you shoot me down in flames. That won’t stop me trying though.
I think that ten, or so, years ago the case for AGW was very strong. The science and the data were very much in step. The politicians then came on board and, with their support, so did the money.
Not a bad thing, by itself, but it did skew the stage IMO.
Funding is Fun. If you’re getting it, of course. Otherwise it’s pants!
The Earth, and its climate so I’ve been informed, is v complex. I’ve also been told that Climate falls into a sub-category of complexity that can be predicted exactly to a Zip or Post code fifty years hence!
The data, continual warming following a temperature multiple-decadal slump, has recanted somewhat, recently.
My informants are Humans; not that different from those who jostle to the bar at any Scientific convention wanting a drink.
They pay in cash!
Freeman Dyson has serious credentials.
I notice John Hooper avoided addressing my point that we have the President of the World Federation of Scientists on our side. One of the most eminent physicists alive today.
Gore? Don’t make me laugh.
To put John Hooper’s appeals to authority in perspective, they’re like singing the praises of Bernie Madoff, who was Chairman of the Board of the NASD, gave enormous amounts of money to charity, and heavily funded the Democrat Party. Very impressive. What does it matter if he was a little dishonest? He still had all those credentials.
The same logic goes for the AGW “consensus.” What does it matter if Hooper’s authorities run away from any honest debate, or the fact that they’re given big bucks if they blame natural climate fluctuations on human activity?
Hooper says, “why should anyone believe the small handful of lesser credentialed “scientists”?
Indeed, why should we? There is no climatologist more eminent than the internationally esteemed Prof Richard Lindzen, who Chairs the Atmospheric Sciences department at M.I.T. By Hooper’s own brand of “logic,” Lindzen should have the final word over all of Hooper’s “lesser” credentialed “scientists.”
Posting lists of people and organizations who agree with him is simply a red herring argument, intended to distract from the fact that actual global temperatures are almost exactly where they were 30 years ago: click1, click2
And to distract from the fact that the IPCC models have no predictive value: click1, click2
And from the fact that the CRU routinely faked its data: click
And from the fact that comparing recent Decembers to all Decembers going back to 1928 shows about the same temperature parameters: click. Where’s the hokey stick?
And from the fact that temperature and CO2 trends continue to diverge, proving that CO2 has slight if any effect on the temperature: click1, click2
And that NASA, the CRU, satellite data, and the 3,300 ARGO deep sea buoys all show global cooling: click1, click2
Instead of listing only those who get very well paid to sell AGW [and who have already been trumped by a much larger list of skeptical scientists rejecting the AGW scare], it’s best to simply look at what’s happening in the real world: as the beneficial and harmless trace gas CO2 rises, the planet has been cooling.
It simply does not matter who believes in the CO2=CAGW conjecture, or what their credentials are. The Scientific Method requires that for any hypothesis to replace the current theory of natural climate variability, it must falsify, or explain reality better than natural variability. The CO2=CAGW hypothesis has failed to do that, despite many $billions expended in global warming studies.
Occam’s Razor requires that extraneous entities must be kept out of explanations: Never increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything. In other words, the KISS principle. Adding in a minor trace gas goes beyond what is necessary to explain natural climate fluctuations.
Appeals to authority are always used by the AGW crowd just as they were used against Albert Einstein, who responded to 100 letter signers who said his theory of relativity was wrong: ”To defeat relativity one did not need the word of 100 scientists, just one fact.”
AGW believers are big on appeals to authority, because they have no empirical evidence to support their beliefs. They use peer reviewed papers hand-waved through to journals by friendly referees, who strategize on ways to keep skeptical papers from being published. Those AGW studies then reference other studies by AGW believers, which in turn reference them back, in an endless circle of rent-seeking grant applications. And of course, they have their always-inaccurate computer models, which are no more “evidence” than their peer reviewed tree ring studies that claim to know the temperature to within a tiny fraction of a degree a thousand years ago.
The real world facts support the scientific skeptics. That’s why AGW believers use what they’ve got: appeals to authority.
John Hooper
The problem with stating that every scientific body in the world supports AGW is two-fold. First, as others have pointed out, science is not a democracy or a popularity contest. I would also add that the CRU e-mails have revealed just how few individuals are required to secure a stranglehold on these scientific institutions, and we need to keep the focus on their loathesome attempts to subvert the peer review process and gain control of the voices of the scientific community.
Second, the scientific method is well established and has a proven track record. The AGW hypothesis is based almost exclusively on modeling liberally spiced with cherry-picked records (Yamal, anyone?) with many inconvenient facts that simply have not been adequately addressed: the significant increase in global temps prior to large CO2 emissions in the 20th century, the MWP, a decade of stable global temps, 4+ years of stable sea levels, 2 consecutive years of increased minimum arctic sea ice extent, record (albeit a short one) antarctic sea ice extent, multi-decadal global polar bear population increases.
Your caution about not drinking the kool-aid is appropriate. I agree that we should leave off the discussion of the dangers of second hand smoke, autism-inducing vaccines, peak oil and whatever else and focus on the one issue at hand. AGW is not a proven quantity. The real science does not support it and until it does I do not accept it.
From their announcement, it seems that we gained a minute because we have a democrat for president. His diplomatic style, consisting of offering unclenched fists while apologizing for America’s wrongs, seems to have done the trick. I have no idea how that relates to Atomic or Climate science, however.
Sorry to get all political here, but the Doomsday Clock is nothing but political ballyhoo.
A Doomsday Clock cannot be reset, so this is a Doomsday Hysteria Meter.