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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Graeme W
“I don’t take anything a politician (or former politician) says as being ‘truth”
Me
“I don’t take anything a climate scientist says as being ‘truth”
Can a climate scientist be telling the truth?
Smokey says: May 18, 2010 at 4:24 pm
But maybe Tinkerbell was right, and all that is necessary is to believe. Don’t forget to clap your hands.☺
Too rich! I had just read the same reference to ‘belief’ by climate scientists, went for a glass of milk, thinking of making a reference to getting stuck on reviving Tinkerbell. No need, you’re on the ball as usual Smokey. Are you also in Colorado? I am retired too, I’ll buy you a beer some time.
barefootgirl;
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>>
Wow. You see barefoot, I’m not a scientist. I don’t even have a degree. Nothing. Nada. If you assume for one second that this means I “don’t know how it works” you are being very very very foolish. I know more about research funding than most of the scientists I’ve sold technology to over the years. (GASP! Not only does he not have a degree, he’s one of those awful SALESMEN!) I’ve helped a few write their grant applications. (I need them to get their grants funded so I can sell them stuff) I’ve been involved in high performance computing in the research sector going all the way back to pdp11’s. Despite having no degree, I know what logarithmic means. With no degree, I can still explain Stefan’s Law and show people how to do the calculations. I can read AR4 and when I get to the section where it says that there is a linear relationship between forcing and temperature I can scratch my head and go… no, not how it works. When I get to the section where it says that CO2 forcing “increases logarithmically” I start laughing. Oh, and being one of those gawdawfull salesmen, I know a snowjob when I see one. AR4 is a blizzard.
So if you really have all those degrees that you claim you have, good on you. If you are doing honest science, then good on you. But don’t for one second believe that just because I’m not a scientist I don’t know how things work, or that I don’t know what logarithmic means.
And BTW, I have kids too. And a mortgage. And I will lose business because of my views on AGW. Despite which, my name is on my comments, I don’t hide.
@ur momisugly barefoot
“Since none of you who have written responses are actual scientists”.
Given your earlier stated desire to be “accurate”, you care to share how your were blessed with this obvious stroke of inherent knowledge? Your whine about being painted with the wrong brush, is well laughable. If you believe the Manns and Hansens of the world are of any value whatsoever, then your very misguided. Mann outright misrepresented his graphs to the world. Nice science. Under Hansens leadership, historical temps are simply adjusted to fit his premise. Another piece of work. These two statements I gave are not situations that are subject to interpretation. These things have been shown. Of course, I could go on, but I’m sure you’re familiar with the fraudulent behavior and fraudulent acts of other notable “scientists”. Another part of your whine tickled me when you referenced how the media misrepresents scientific work. I don’t ever recall seeing a correction made by an alarmist over what the news reported. You and your entire field of study has been deafening silent when they get it wrong, so please forgive the assumptions, but many of us believed scientists had a sense of responsibility to get it right. My bad.
More on the sense of responsibility…….perhaps you live in a vacuum and don’t realize all those laws and regulations being imposed on the populace in the world in response to the alarmism? Here is a cause and effect that isn’t as difficult as climate. Economies are being ruined by this science. Livelihoods are being wrecked by the laws. And the worst most egregious effect, people are literally starving. The starving occurs for many reasons, but the knee jerk response to the alarmism is one of them and has caused much pain and suffering in various parts of the world. You sense hostility? I’ve no doubt. Were I you, I’d separate myself as far away from the Hansens and Manns of the world. Even an inaction has an effect.
Gail Combs says:
May 18, 2010 at 6:20 pm
Wren says:
May 18, 2010 at 5:26 pm
“The most obvious way for warming to be caused naturally is for small, natural fluctuations in the circulation patterns of the atmosphere and ocean to result in a 1% or 2% decrease in global cloud cover. Clouds are the Earth’s sunshade, and if cloud cover changes for any reason, you have global warming — or global cooling.
“……How could the experts have missed such a simple explanation? Because they have convinced themselves that only a temperature change can cause a cloud cover change, and not the other way around. The issue is one of causation. They have not accounted for cloud changes causing temperature changes.”
============================
Maybe I don’t understand the cloud theory, but unless there is a cloud trend, how can the global temperature trend be effected?”
______________________________________________________________________
Here are some articles on the subject:
Spencer: strong negative feedback found in radiation budget
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/07/spencer-strong-negative-feedback-found-in-radiation-budget/
Spencer: Clouds Dominate CO2 as a Climate Driver Since 2000
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/13/spencer-clouds-dominate-co2-as-a-climate-driver-since-2000/
This is a bit easier to read and understand:
The Thermostat Hypothesis
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/14/the-thermostat-hypothesis/
This one is also interesting:
Pielke Sr. on Revkin’s question
Update To Andy Revkin’s Question In 2005: “Is Most Of The Observed Warming Over The Last 50 Years Likely To Have Been Due To The Increase In Greenhouse Gas Concentrations”?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/06/pielke-sr-on-revkins-question/
======
I couldn’t find anything in these articles that address the question I raised.
I don’t understand how the long-term warming trend of the past century can be attributed to clouds unless there is a trend in clouds. Has there been a trend to fewer clouds. more clouds, different kinds of clouds? And if there has been a cloud trend, what’s driving it?
Paul Ash: We aren’t taking words on faith. We’ve been at this for a while, and have seen the alleged IPCC consensus debunked over and over, while the CAGW believers keep repeating the same mantras, ignoring the evidence in favor of computer models. We are familiar with many of the “experts” associated with the IPCC reports. A less representative sampling of real world political demographics scarcely exists.
Joel Shore: With regard to the Oregon Petition supposedly being fraudulent, please note that after CAGW scaremongers initially spread this rumor, the entire project was repeated, and still managed to get over thirty thousand signatories in North America alone: nearly ten times and total number attached, however vaguely, to the IPCC reports. And most of them are hard scientists, not philosophers, psychologists, economists, behaviorists, or political scientists, who feature heavily in the IPCC list. If the petition were taken worldwide, the number would easily double or triple.
Most of the “scientists” connected to the IPCC reports were mere reviewers, and a great many of them have complained that their negative reviews were ignored. Many others have demonstrated how meaningless their own positive reviews were, since not ONE bothered to check quotations, summations, and footnoted references to see if the literature drawn upon for the IPCC claims actually said what the IPCC authors claimed it said, or if it even existed in the first place. This is peer review? These experts couldn’t be bothered to look up a quotation or cross-check a reference? Clearly, a great many of them just wanted their names on the reports to boost their own careers and status, and didn’t give a flip what the reports or summaries said or didn’t say.
As more and more of the fakery and dishonesty of the summary writers becomes well-known, and as the weather continues to defy CAGW, I believe there won’t be even fifty IPCC scientists willing to leave their names on its Sibylline Prophecies.
To j ferguson et al: Pachauri’s stellar academic credentials must look great on the jacket of his new semi-autobiographical porno novel. The fact that he proudly poses with this book says a great deal. Of course, we have to accept his claim that he actually wrote it, instead of paying a ghost writer or using a computer bodice-ripper writing program to churn it out. Several such programs exist, and if Pachauri knows anything, he knows how to use trashy computer programs to achieve a desired result.
davidmhoffer says:
May 18, 2010 at 9:39 pm
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…
———
The world’s water supply is fixed at 332.6 million cubic miles, according to the source below. I’m sure that’s an estimate that could be off a little, but it seems likely the supply of water is fixed :
http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/watercyclesummary.html
Of course water affects climate, but the question is how can a fixed supply of water cause long-term warming?
Wren,
Uh….that has got to be the biggest troll strawman tossed around in a long time.
Uh, Uh, Uh…maybe uh by changing the relative proportion of each phase in which it exists, and perhaps uh, inducing albedo changes? Hmmm…
barefootgirl says:
May 18, 2010 at 9:21 pm
“I think it would be great to see skeptics address the real issues, rather than rely on inflammatory statements or cherry picking of data,”
Wine all over my keyboard AGAIN! I seem to recall the “Cherry Picking” is an art form of the AGW camp!
Wren says:
May 18, 2010 at 10:41 pm
I don’t understand how the long-term warming trend of the past century can be attributed to clouds unless there is a trend in clouds. Has there been a trend to fewer clouds. more clouds, different kinds of clouds? And if there has been a cloud trend, what’s driving it?
Have a look at measured global cloud cover:
http://bbso.njit.edu/Research/EarthShine/literature/Palle_etal_2006_EOS.pdf
Well, whatever is driving it, it must not be CO2, since it was falling until 2000 and is going up now. CO2 has been merrily rising the nonce.
See also more current albedo measures: http://bbso.njit.edu/Research/EarthShine/literature/Palle_etal_2008_JGR.pdf
Fig 2.
Wren says:
May 18, 2010 at 5:49 pm
“But modern science is usually right, and the AGW skeptics don’t have a Helicobacter pylori.”
What’s more to the point is that alarmists can’t demonstrate the ulcer.
As to modern science usually being right, when it becomes non-modern science at some time in the future, let’s look back and see how much of it is still right then.
If science were ever “right”, there’d be no point doing any further research, would there? Pray tell me one scientific theory that has ever been irrefutably right, incapable of revision or reinterpretation.
You see, this is the fundamental error of the CAGW people. They think that they are RIGHT and that RIGHTNESS becomes fixed at a certain point in time. This is why it isn’t science, but religion. In science, there is no RIGHT; at best, there’s only what the strongest evidence supports. As to consensus, it’s tiresome to point out again and again that consensus, as a rule rather than an exception, changes with time, but that truth, whatever it is, remains the truth.
Are you RIGHT to think AGW is occurring, and is anyone RIGHT that even if it is, it is a bad thing? I don’t know. You don’t know. Nobody knows. If we all remembered that, climate science might actually make some progress and proselytists like you might actually start to engage with the notion of doubt.
I repeat: where is the ulcer? Where is the actual thing you can point to that proves beyond a shadow of doubt that AGW is occurring, and that it is harmful? Show me that, and I won’t need to show you my H.Pylori.
Mind you, since it is you who is claiming the ulcer exists, the responsibility is for you to first show it me, and to produce the cure. Don’t simply claim there is an ulcer and prescribe a draconian solution (e.g. stomach excision) that might well kill the patient. Expect the patient to say: “Bugger that for a bag of chips”, I want a second opinion”.
What barefoot girl does not seem to understand is that ALL humans are political and economic animals, including the ones who happen to work in science. A naked ape with a PhD is still a naked ape.
And given the current education system, a PhD just ain’t what it used to be.
No consensus in Germany, that’s for sure:
http://pgosselin.wordpress.com/
Wren;
Of course water affects climate, but the question is how can a fixed supply of water cause long-term warming?>>
Sad thing is I think the question is serious. OK Wren, when the IPCC says that positive feedback from water vapour will triple the warming effects of CO2, what is it that you think the water vapour is made of? You asked a question back there about trends in clouds and how that might be connected to warming. I doubt that we have enough data on clouds for anywhere close to long enough to trend anything about them, but that aside, what is it that you think clouds are made of? When there’s a discussion about shrinking ice caps and albedo changes, what do you suppose the ice is made of?
Frankly, I am inclined to support your position. Water is a fixed supply and so can’t cause warming. Water vapour feedback? Hoax. Cloud feedback? Hoax. Albedo feedback? Hoax. Speaking of hoaxes, have you heard of global warming?
Barefootgirl:
If what you say is true, it appears you are one of the good guys in climate science. Good for you.
But if so, why aren’t you and all the others who aren’t alarmists up in arms against those who are and are pushing the politics? Why aren’t you posting at RC to complain that they are giving your science a bad name? Why are you here taking pot shots at people who fervently hope that there are many good apples in the barrel, but that if there are, are mystified why they aren’t vociferously and publicly disowning the alarmist rhetoric?
Why are you making claims that AGW-supporting scientists weren’t invited to the conference? It can only be that you didn’t check your facts on that. And why not? My guess is that you have an entrenched notion that sceptics are inherently unreasonable. But look here: check out the blog roll at WUWT and other sceptic sites I could mention, and you will find links to AGW sites. Then go and check the warmists sites, particularly the most prominent one, RC, and see how many of those return the compliment.
As to death threats, lunatics on both sides engage in such objectionable behaviour. I don’t see that kind of behavior here at WUWT, and Anthony or the moderators would soon boot anyone out who stooped to that.
If you are an honest, non-alarmist climate scientist, then you are very welcome here. Just behave like one and don’t assume that we are all ignoramuses. The things about climate science that arouse the most scepticism can be understood perfectly well by any reasonably intelligent person.
The fact that they seemingly can’t be understood by some of the most vociferous AGW proponents who have PhDs and university research positions simply goes to show that a PhD etc. is no guarantee of having commonsense. It wouldn’t matter if those people didn’t have much sway, but they do and, as much as anything, that is because those who disapprove of them are seemingly standing by and letting them get on with it.
Pete Hayes says:
May 19, 2010 at 12:15 am
barefootgirl says:
May 18, 2010 at 9:21 pm
“I think it would be great to see skeptics address the real issues, rather than rely on inflammatory statements or cherry picking of data,”
Wine all over my keyboard AGAIN! I seem to recall the “Cherry Picking” is an art form of the AGW camp!>>
Yeah, that one cracked me up too, big time. Then I realised she was serious. Cracked me up all over again. Then I read her comment about being an engineer and having a PhD in physics, and how other people not being scientists like her, we can’t possibly understant “how things work” followed by whining about hostility and not understanding where that comes from. Cracked me up all over again. Then I realised she was serious.
Stick around barefoot, you’re a hoot!
it all boils down to common sense and there’s not much of it around these days half of the new uni graduates have never heard of the word, thay look no further than their nose. So thay have a uphill battle to understand anything. it’s very sad to say this.
—-
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?
Yes I am concerned Mike and please take a look at the “corporate interests” and advocacy group at the bottom of CRU history. These organisations and corportations fund the CRU. Among them are Shell, BP, WWF and Greenpeace.
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/about/history/
and you’ll find more problems with influence being placed on climate researchers below:
How Climate Researchers Plotted with Interest Groups
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,694484-3,00.html
Funding for climate research
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2835581.htm
Pachauri’s double standard from a company he set up called Glorioil
http://www.glorioil.com/advisors.htm
http://www.glorioil.com/technology.htm
http://www.glorioil.com/company.htm
—
So yes Mike I am concerned about money buying influence. :o)
My bad, I should have said man made greenhouse gases which includes Methane, etc., My point remains essentially the same, show how man’s fingerprint was dominant in the warming of the late 20th century. As for my claim see below.
MartinGAtkins says:
Chapters 3 through to 11 are observations of global warming and evaluation of models. They do not address cause.
Paul Daniel Ash says:
May 18, 2010 at 6:18 pm
Ok, I’m feeling generous. Chapters 2 and 9 still only gives you about 98 individual authors. “Understanding and Attributing Climate Change” is none the less ambiguous and would require reading of each author’s input.
That’s a lot less than your six hundred and nineteen scientists.
Steve Keohane May 18, 2010 at 9:56 pm,
Thanks for the offer, Steve. I’ll take you up on it if I should get to Colorado. I’m in Northern California now.
Let’s assume that Roger Helmer is right “fully forty-five were qualified
scientists from relevant disciplines” at Heartland conference. But, always
the same old faces, and the same stories. Where is the Sceptic side recruitment? –
there is none. Meanwhile young scientists emerge and publish all the time in
scientific journals, because they are interested in the facts not in a politically
motivated movement, which is intellectually not getting anywhere.
mikael pihlström has no clue about how the real world operates, particularly regarding academia and what it takes to get tenured.
davidmhoffer says:
May 18, 2010 at 9:39 pm
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….
—-
Sorry, I didn’t get his name. Remember I was a relative by marriage to the groom and he was a chum of the bride. Worlds apart. In fact the bride was sitting right beside him during this exchange and she was visibly upset with me because her friend was upset with my questions. I felt badly about that because one doesn’t want to ever upset bridezilla on her day. I did tell the guy that I knew a bit about Phil Jones and Michael Mann and invited him to comment on their situations. He would not. Or at least did not. I don’t know what I expected but maybe he’s been button holed on the issued enough to be wary of the subject. Nevertheless it is his chosen specialty and I was disappointed that he wouldn’t share any insight about the current poster boys of climate science.
I appreciate the comment someone made here about the whole AGW theory being built on water vapour forcings as a consequence of CO2 initial warming. It does seem strange that the fixed water budget can be held responsible for the catastrophic warming of the planet, but only as a response to increased C02, and yet in any other context it’s judged incapable of affecting the trend because overall water is fixed in amount. Is the distribution of water, as a liquid, solid, or aerosol fixed and immutable? I suppose that the different forms of water have decidedly different effects on climate and that during ice ages, for example, the distribution has a profound effect. And I have the impression that cloud cover makes a big difference and that it’s not constant or fixed in any real way and might, just might, be influenced or changed by things other than C02???? I was willing to learn something from this guy, and I guess I did. And I assume his position is the one accepted and taught in academia today. “Nothing to learn here from water, it’s fixed, (settled) move along (to C02), and how about cooling the whole place off with a little sulfur”. It’s scary.
Joel: “But most of the evidence points toward GHG as a major factor in current warming and is projected to be of increasing import.”
I hear this all the time, but cannot find a shred of real evidence pointing towards GHG as a major factor, so could you point me to where your statement that “most of the evidence points toward GHG” came from?
Tx
@barefootgirl: You come over to me as someone who has a preconceived view, no doubt acquired through the media, that sceptics are a bunch of swivel-eyed, foam-flecked bunch of scientifically illiterate, right wing loonies. Some are, of course, but as you’ve found today a lot are not. In fact at the top level the CAGW scare is pretty easy for anyone with high school science to challenge, and it boils down to this:
The IPCC, states that only 50% of the warming over the last century can be attributed to natural forcings, therefore it is likely/very likely that the other 50% is caused by CO2 and othe GHGs released into the atmosphere by humans.
Good, now let’s set to and find empirical evidence of this assertion, where is the theory that will prove this hypothesis by observations?
Secondly we all know agree that a doubling of CO2 should, all other things being equal, cause a rise in temperature of 1C, but the IPCC tells us this will be amplified by positive feedback caused by water vapor. Good, now develop a theory that will enable us to prove this hypothesis with empirical evidence.
In logical terms this “scientific” position is the equivalent of saying, “If we had some bacon, we could have some bacon and eggs, if we had some eggs. (H.B Morton, aka Beachcomber).
Science progresses through, hypothesis, to theory, to observations, to acceptance. We ahve hypothesis, and what is really strange is the number of scientists (and I don’t believe it’s only 52, there are a lot more) who are prepared to go from hypothesis to acceptance without the intermediate stages in the scientific process.
I’m an engineer by the way but I worked in research for a number of years, and indeed, was a sponsor of research at a pre-eminent university in the UK, during my time mixing with some admirable professors in many of our universities it became apparent to me that their major job was the pursuit of money for their departments, and the customer, was always king.
Barefootgirl, you seem to be saying to us that the clerk (you know the guy, whatshisname), who thought the consensus regarding some kind of scientific theory was wrong (what was it about, relatives or some such thing, yuck, yuck), should be thought of today if he were here, as a skeptic and should be ridiculed because he was not of the same caliber as your degreed, credentialed, published, presented and climate connected self? If I remember, he wasn’t a member of the in crowd and hadn’t published in the field which he was about to shake up. Given your superior attitude, I dare say you would have looked down your nose at him as well.
Maybe you need a lesson in humility from Judith (since you know everybody, you know her too). She’s on your side yet no longer trusts the GISS’d and CRU’d temperature records and has been eloquent in her statements regarding the abuse of scientific license to drive policy before the hypothesis of AGW has yet to take its first step towards theory.
I’m not angry at you. I’m pointing out your long nose in clear language. Stop telling us how dumb we are and start engaging in debate. Let us see just how smart you are. I should warn you that your assessment of me being a fanatic would not be your surest bet on that.