The 4th International Conference on Climate Change – Chicago, Il., USA
Consensus? What consensus?
by Roger Helmer MEP
I’m writing this in the Marriott Hotel in Chicago, where I’m attending the Heartland Institute Climate Conference (and I’ve just done an interview with BBC Environment Correspondent Roger Harrabin).
Ahead of the interview, I thought I’d just check out the Conference Speaker’s list. There are 80 scheduled speakers, including distinguished scientists (like Richard Lindzen of MIT), policy wonks (like my good friend Chris Horner of CEI), enthusiasts and campaigners (like Anthony Watts of the wattsupwiththat.com web-site), and journalists (including our own inimitable James Delingpole).
Of the 80 speakers, I noticed that fully forty-five were qualified scientists from relevant disciplines, and from respected universities around the world — from the USA, Canada, Mexico, Russia, Sweden, Norway, UK, Australia and New Zealand.
All of them have reservations about climate alarmism, ranging from concerns that we are making vastly expensive public policy decisions based on science that is, to say the least, open to question, through to outright rejection of the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) model.
Several of these scientists are members or former members of the IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
But how do 45 sceptical scientists stack up, you may well ask, against the 2500 on the official IPCC panels? But of course there aren’t 2500 relevant scientists on the IPCC panel. Many of them are not strictly scientists at all. Some are merely civil servants or environmental zealots. Some are economists — important to the debate but not experts on the science. Others are scientists in unrelated disciplines. The Chairman of the IPCC Dr. Ravendra Pachuari, is a Railway Engineer.
And of the remaining minority who are indeed scientists in relevant subjects, some (like my good friend Prof Fred Singer) have explicitly rejected the IPCC’s AGW theory. Whittle it down, and you end up with fifty or so true believers, most of whom are part of the “Hockey Team” behind the infamous Hockey Stick graph, perhaps the most discredited artefact in the history of science. This is a small and incestuous group of scientists (including those at the CRU at the University of East Anglia). They work closely together, jealously protecting their source data, and they peer-review each other’s work. This is the “consensus” on which climate hysteria is based.
And there are scarcely more of them than are sceptical scientists at this Heartland Conference in Chicago, where I am blogging today. Never mind the dozens of other scientists here in Chicago, or the thousands who have signed petitions and written to governments opposing climate hysteria. Science is not decided by numbers, but if it were, there is the case to be made that the consensus is now on the sceptical side.
Roger Helmer MEP Follow me on Twitter: rogerhelmerMEP
Paul Daniel Ash says, May 18, 2010 at 7:19 pm:
“Dave Wendt says: the burden of proof would seem to be yours
Really? So Anthony can make any statement he likes, and it’s merely accepted? Anything that doesn’t confirm your preconceptions, however, is rejected out of hand. This is skepticism?”
You were the one suggesting that those on the list were supporters of the “consensus” view. From what I’ve seen participation in the IPCC process is not any proof of support of the conclusions offered.
BTW, before berating others for not reading the lead post, you might want to note that ctm is its author, not Anthony
@Paul Daniel Ash
BTW, I neither refute nor reject the claim, I realize that’s his opinion. Also, I don’t see where the post is attributed to Anthony. Whomever the writer, you realize, as I realize, there is no way of knowing all the hearts of all the climate scientists in the world. I think the point of the statement was, as I’ve pointed out several times in the past, there are only a handful of alarmist scientists that are submitting papers and putting out statements. The rest, I presume and hope are real scientists that condemn group think and remain skeptical as a true scientist should. Personally, I’d be very interested in seeing a list of more than 50 certified scientists engaged in CAGW alarmism and advocacy.
This post is by Roger Helmer MEP, noted at bottom, I think I’ll fix that.
Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
May 18, 2010 at 6:55 pm
Gail Combs says:
May 18, 2010 at 6:20 pm
You’re laboring under the illusion that Wren cares about the science.
_______________________________________________________________________
Amino, I tutor the neighborhood kids and others (for free) so I am in the habit of answering questions, when asked. It is up to the other person whether they “listen” or not. Also I learned in the Quality field that for every letter of complaint there are another hundred who did not bother to write, so my answers are for those other 100 too.
(There is always the hope that enough pounding will finally get through a thick skull.)
I wouldn’t argue with anyone scared enough to sign their posts with the nom de plume of “barefootgirl”. Sign your name or sign off little girl.
I’ve done research and published it. I know the funding and publishing game personally, and it stinks. I also understand the difference between raw data, homogenized data, and statistics, and have done an ANOVA with nothing but a Safeway calculator. I think that gives me enough credentials to talk about climate statistics under my real name (and not “strawberry shortcake”, or “graydancer”). How about you?
About climate, I’ve studied climate (I prefer the term “weather pattern variation”) as a hobby. Doesn’t make me any kind of an expert but I think I have something to say on the subject. Doesn’t matter. I believe that if you have the braincells to swim with the sharks, you should use your name. And I think the subject is important enough to sign my name to my posts. So if “barefootgirl” can’t do that, she needs to go back to the sandbox with all the other toddlers.
Paul Daniel Ash says:
May 18, 2010 at 7:19 pm
Dave Wendt says:
the burden of proof would seem to be yours
Really? So Anthony can make any statement he likes, and it’s merely accepted? Anything that doesn’t confirm your preconceptions, however, is rejected out of hand.
This is skepticism?
_______________________________________________________________________
ARGGHHhhhh, You are arguing over a statement made by a politician??????? Please get real guys.
not at the top it says “by Roger Helmer MEP”
see: http://rogerhelmer.com/
Smokey,
Given your glowing review of the Oregon (OISM) petition, you might want to read an actual scientist’s view from 2003 of how it was handled ( http://bobpark.physics.umd.edu/WN03/wn080803.html ):
This is from Robert Park, a notable physicist in the area of superconductivity, the founder of the American Physical Society’s Office of Public Affairs, the author of the book “Voodoo Science: The Road from Foolishness to Fraud” and someone who, unlike you, is willing to take on the abuse of science without regard to ideology. (He has been just as harsh on liberal Senator Tom Harkin when he supported the creation of an Office on Alternative Medicine within NIH.)
So, basically, what you had was a Soviet-style election: Bombard scientists with deceptive propaganda and only record the “Yes” votes. And, now we have Smokey defending it. I guess that old saying is true: Politics makes strange bedfellows!
@ur momisugly Jimbo said: (May 18, 2010 at 3:23 pm): “Will you admit that the majority of climate scientists care about the next funding tranch? If the AGW hypothesis is shown to be wrong they are out of a job or wil have to quickly shift to another field. Many will have a big problem paying their mortgages. :o(“
Yes, most scientists need to secure grants to do serious research. No, they won’t lose their jobs if AGW is shown to be wrong. Most have tenure: Linzden still has his job. Understanding weather and climate will still be important areas of research.
Since the basis for AGW arose gradually and is based on many lines of research, if it is shown to be wrong this will likely be a gradual process as well. Individual papers do in fact point in different directions. No one has been fired for showing that Antarctica is cooling or that black carbon (soot) may be a major factor in Artic warming. But most of the evidence points toward GHG as a major factor in current warming and is projected to be of increasing import.
Since you are concerned, rightly, that money can buy influence, aren’t you at least a little concerned that corporate interests may be trying to do just that?
Dave Wendt says:
You were the one suggesting that those on the list were supporters of the “consensus” view
No.The assertion was
I’m not claiming to have disproved his assertion that the names on that list are most – if not all – either “not real scientists” or people who have explicitly rejected the conclusions of the report.
I’m saying it’s a strong claim that requires strong evidence.
That seems to me a shockingly uncontroversial premise.
Joel Shore, as usual, [snip ~ ctm]
His silly implication that educated people are totally ignorant of what they are downloading, printing, signing and mailing in doesn’t pass muster. And his comment about “Soviet style” elections is right out of the psychological projection manual for useful fools.
“Bombard scientists with deceptive propaganda and only record the ‘Yes’ votes”?? Please.
That is simply more alarmist projection. If it weren’t for projection, Joel wouldn’t have anything to say.
James Sexton says:
If I state there are only 100 stars in the sky, you wish for me to name them so you can then refute me? What a ridiculous line of thinking
If you stated that, of all the lights in the sky, only a hundred are stars and the rest are planets or asteroids or fireflies… then, yes, I – and anyone claiming to be a skeptic – would ask for some support of that claim.
None of you – well, none except Graeme W – is uncomfortable with just taking this guy’s word on faith?
charles the moderator says:
This post is by Roger Helmer MEP, noted at bottom
I read “I’m writing this in the Marriott Hotel in Chicago” at the top and assumed that Anthony had written the post. That was a careless assumption.
Reply: I am partially responsible. I put this one up at Anthony’s request and did not add the obvious attribution at the top with I have since corrected. I have now also captioned the picture. ~ ctm
The author is An MEP from the UK who was attending the conference! He was stating an opinion. I was introduced to the numbers game for Catastrophic Climate Change by the Alarmist Camp. At that time years ago I had to be picked up off the floor as I was suffering from uncontrollable fits of laughter. That was about my same reaction when I walked by a booth at a convention and read the company name ACCUWEATHER. I realize it is not nice to say derogatory things “Now” but at that time in my life the word “OXYMORON” came to mind and I said it out loud! I was reminded of that when I found a web site called “Realclimate” and finally realized what the word meant because RC really defines the term OXYMORON!
So Paul daniel and Barefootgirl the numbers game has no value in scientific research and proves SQUAT about what is observed.
The IPCC left the world of reality when they failed to follow their own procedures and continued to claim following after the evidence showed the opposite. Before that they were providing What if scenarios rather than science, rather like guessing games.
#
#
Pamela Gray says:
May 18, 2010 at 7:49 pm
I wouldn’t argue with anyone scared enough to sign their posts with the nom de plume of “barefootgirl”. Sign your name or sign off little girl.
I’ve done research and published it. I know the funding and publishing game personally, and it stinks….
__________________________________________________________________________
You are correct Pamela, if the “science climate” barefoot girl was working in was all sweetness and light, she would not be as cautious about using her own name. She is worried about the retaliation she faces for visiting the site of an “an arrogant, ignorant blowhard” as one of tamino’s commenters, Derecho64 put it .
Just visiting that site is enough to convince anyone “Climate Scientists” can be a vindictive bunch. Thank goodness Anthony runs a much more polite site. (Thank you moderators)
My apologies. I missed that it was something written by a politician. I had originally thought it was written by Charles (I’d checked the name at the top of the post and had missed the attribution at the bottom). Now that Charles has fixed the post so it’s clear who wrote it, I can safely ignore the whole thing.
I don’t take anything a politician (or former politician) says as being ‘truth’.
Wow, lots of responses, what fun. Yes, I am a climate scientist, raised in engineering (BS and MS) and a PhD in physics. So at least that should meet with many of your “hard” science requirements. Coming from engineering, I like to be accurate, because in that field you have to be. I work with satellite data, trying my best to convert the raw satellite data into geophysical variables that are useful for studying earth system processes. I have met Roy Spencer on a number of occasions when I was on the AMSR-E science team.
Since none of you who have written responses are actual scientists, it is clear you don’t understand even the least bit as to how it works. Remember, Roy Spencer was a NASA scientist, so he too got your hard-earned tax dollars for his work. But working for NASA instead of a University also meant he earned at least 120K, while University scientists earn way below that, unless they earn tenure and even then it’s on the low side compared to NASA scientists.
I have been a scientist for well over 20 years and I will tell you that all of your conjectures about scientists, how the funding works, who believes in AGW and who doesn’t is so far off base it is rather laughable to me. Also, what climate scientists actually believe and what you THINK they believe is also way off base. Yes there are a few “alarmist” scientists out there. I have sat on panels with Jim Hansen, given talks with Michael Mann, I know where they are coming come. And while I don’t agree with alarmism, I also see the value of folks like them pushing the issue, just like I see value in skeptics questioning the issues. It all works to help us further our research and understanding of the climate system.
I think it would be great to see skeptics address the real issues, rather than rely on inflamatory statements or cherry picking of data, or outright false statement to raise skeptism. It’s true that the media does a great dis-service to climate science. And while you can rip on media coverage (which most climate scientists also do), how many of you actually bother to read the scientific articles? Smokey, since you are retired to you bother? Or do you simply take whatever Roy Spencer says as “truth” while ignoring all the other studies? Do you critique his science methods the same way as you do others? Seems doubtful from what I’ve read on this web site the last month or so.
BTW…climate science is not just about CO2, it is about understanding the Earth system, including the land surface, the oceans and the atmosphere. If you do a search on climate science papers, you will find that most titles of papers do not mention CO2 in their titles. CO2-induced warming is a tiny fraction of climate science funded today.
Please…do some searches on grant announcements, journal titles, etc. and do your own assessment as to the nature of climate science being funded and summarized in peer-reviewed papers. I have no political agenda here (same with most climate scientists), but yes I am a vegetarian to answer another bloggers question.
Consensus in group opinions and decisions is a concept that has started dominating since democracy became a consensus 🙂 choice of decision making, of any sort.
Before that, it all dependent on who was top cat in any discipline, from politics to church.
Consensus is what is necessary in committees, otherwise no decisions would be taken. People get fed up with dithering, which is what happens if one delegates a decision to a committee, and consensus was invented, where dissenting people mumble grumble under their breaths but shrug and wait to get their own on another subject, so that some progress can be made. It is another lesson of democracy: some progress is better than no progress.
When there is no democracy in decision making bodies, take the formal church for example, gross violations can occur. In science one gets Lysenkoism, in recent times.
In science one uses the famous Piltdown man example , where the scientific community was led up the garden path. In the beginning of the century it was not consensus that was responsible so much, as the “schools” dominated by grand professors and working more or less in a feudal manner.
Another not so well known example is the “Folsom man” discovery that showed the early presence of man in the Americas. The discoverer is honored now,
http://www.folsomvillage.com/folsommuseum/georgemcjunkin.html . There were stone age tools found among fossils of 10000 year antiquity,
but the dominating figure in anthropology at the time, whose strong thesis was that the Americas did not have stone age populations, imposed his opinion until 1925, though the discovery happened in 1908.
I discovered this little known delusional story in science through a collection of Tony Hillerman, in The Great Taos Bank Robbery: And Other True Stories of the Southwest .
Unfortunately the book is at the vacation cottage and the name of the professor is hard to recall a, H*r**ik something, who was dominating the field strongly. The anthropological community must be sort of ashamed of the story, since very few links to it come up and I could not find the fellow. It is what will happen to the AGW crowd in a few decades.
In my discipline, particle physics, where research moves fast and where groups of people are necessary to be able to experiment, both have manifested in my lifetime: consensus and schools of thought. If you are building a cathedral or a Parthenon, consensus is necessary for any work to be done in a coherent way by the great number of people that are involved. A top direction is also needed to conceive the plan.
The balance is what is necessary, and is what has been lost in the climate community due to its being high jacked and seduced by political interests.
Willis Eschenbach says:
May 18, 2010 at 6:47 pm
Willis, I am a member of MANY climate listservs that send out announcements of conferences. And I can tell you there was not one mention of ICCC on any of those. Is it sent out to AGU, AAG, GSA, IGARSS members? Nope. What about ARCUS, CLIMLIST? Nope. So how do you think it will reach climate scientists? Why not include those on the meeting next year. That should be interesting…
Jimbo says:
May 18, 2010 at 5:51 pm
barefootgirl says:
May 18, 2010 at 4:54 pm
well first off, even your beloved Roy Spencer believes that CO2 in the atmosphere has increased during the last 100 years. And even Roy believes that w/o the natural Greenhouse gas affect, the Earth would be much colder than we are.
—
REPLY: You are a naive teenager. I don’t deny any of this. AGW says that the late 20th century warming was MOSTLY caused by the extra Co2 produced by man. This is the issue for you to prove!!!!!!!!!! You can’t prove it!!!!!! If so show us here right now. We are waiting.
REPLY: Jimbo….where do you get that? Sorry but point me to journal papers that state that all of the late 20th century warming was do to CO2 (or mostly). That is simply not true…climate scientists do not believe that. We know that BOTH natural and anthropogenic factors are influencing climate. And realistically there are not enough climate model simulations available to filter out natural climate variability. Nor can you in observational data isolate one factor from the other (only in climate models can you begin to attempt to do this, but like I said there are not enough simulations to statistically do this).
sigh, as I stated earlier, I neither accept nor reject his statement. But, I’ll play your game.
You state “If you stated that, of all the lights in the sky, only a hundred are stars and the rest are planets or asteroids or fireflies… then, yes, I – and anyone claiming to be a skeptic – would ask for some support of that claim.”…..perhaps, yet, were I an astrologer, even an amateur, I’d probably be able to list 101 known stars from the top of my head and refute the claim with out the necessity of support. Oddly, that doesn’t seem to be the case here.
Again, I can only name about a dozen or so that I know to fully embrace the CAGW fantasy, so I can’t outright refute his assertion. Also, I doubt that he’s reading this thread, so it would be of little use to ask him for his list of 50 or so. Further, for me, there’s a “care factor” involved. I don’t care about the issue enough to be worked up about it. You, on the other hand seem to be perturbed by his assertion, yet also seem unable to refute it. While I agree, his choice of words probably aren’t the best for this group, as pointed out earlier, he’s a politician. I doubt he’s actually conducted a poll, or did a study of any kind. In some circles, the precision of words carry less meaning and the bombastic nature of words are more useful.
It does kinda suck though, doesn’t it? When one asks for support only to be denied access to the information. I can see where that might cause a bit of ire. Thank goodness Mr. Helmer didn’t use public money and do years of calculating to come up with that premise and then pass laws based on his assertion else you’d really have cause for anger for being denied access to his methods and numbers. It probably also sucks for you to realize, in spite of Mr. Helmer’s lack of strong evidence, that the consensus which many try so hard to believe has been consistently over stated and not at all relevant to the CAGW discussion. I don’t care how many cling onto the notion. It could be 50, or it could be the 620 number, or even as much as the Oregon petition and be 31,000 or even 300,000 it doesn’t make the CAGW notion correct, or incorrect for that matter. It is incorrect for many different reasons on many different levels, but a show of hands………next, we’ll vote if 3+2 is really 5.
Graeme W says:
May 18, 2010 at 8:55 pm
“…..I don’t take anything a politician (or former politician) says as being ‘truth’.”
__________________________________________________________________________
I think that is one statement most people would agree to, no matter what their philosophies. The older I get the more I dislike politicians.
Coalsoffire says:
May 18, 2010 at 3:18 pm
He bristled and said I was completely wrong. “The water budget never changes,” he said. “It’s all about the increase in CO2. The amount of water is fixed. Fixed. Fixed and so it can’t effect any change in the climate. Only CO2 is changing.”K>>
Whoa. So you had a PhD candidate from Leeds doing climate research who said that water is fixed and can’t effect any change in the climate? So there’s no water vapour feedback after all? Please tell me you got his name and he can be quoted. Please, please please….
Pamela Gray says:
May 18, 2010 at 7:49 pm
What hostility Pamela. Why not demand the same from Smokey? The reality is that there are some “crazy” folks out there and since I have two children I’m raising, I don’t need to encourage any more death threats from “crazy skeptics”. Yes, I have received some and I’m finding a lot of other climate scientists have as well. Don’t know why it has to turn hostile, but for some folks out there, there is a lot of anger even though the majority of climate scientists have absolutely no political agenda. We were funded before the media jumped on the AGW bandwagon and we will still be funded afterwards. Good work is always valued. But given your hostility, you are one of the folks that I would prefer to not have my name revealed to. I like to steer clear of fanatics.
@ur momisugly Paul
“sigh, as I stated earlier, I neither accept nor reject his statement.”……should read “as I had meant to state earlier.” Apparently, my head got ahead of my fingers and in my earlier post, it came out “refute nor reject”…..which, of course, carries an entirely different meaning.
*ahem* For those who post Wikipedia citations onto WUWT, please note the following:
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/05/14/exclusive-shake-wikipedia-porn-pressure/
Porn on Wikipedia? Someone should tell Dr. Pachauri, maybe he can peddle e-book versions of his classic work on climate science, “Return to Almora”!