As many know, I recently returned from ICCC4. It has taken me a couple of days to get back on track and I want to share over the next couple of days, some of the things I saw there.
One thing I witnessed was a story of courage and of professionalism in the face of adversity. As many know, Heartland formally invited many scientists and scholars who are AGW proponents from the other side of the aisle.
This has been done for every conference since the first one in 2008.
James M. Taylor, senior fellow for environment policy at the sponsoring Heartland Institute and the person who recruited all of the 70-plus presenters Including yours truly) at the May 16-18 conference, said this about the invitations:
“I personally and cordially invited literally dozens of high-profile scientists who disagree with our speakers, including Gavin Schmidt, James Hansen, Michael Mann, Phil Jones, William Schlesinger, and many others,” Taylor said. “I planned to give each side equal time at the conference.
Regrettably – and predictably – only two ‘warmists’ accepted my invitation to participate: Scott Denning of Colorado State University and Tam Hunt, a consultant on renewable energy and a lecturer at UC Santa Barbara’s School of Environmental Science & Management.”
All others declined, nearly all of them cordially.
Scott Denning was warmly and respectfully received, leading him to request a second opportunity to address the audience. He was granted that opportunity at the May 18 closing luncheon that I attended, where he said,
I want to thank you very much for inviting me to this conference. I have to say that I’ve learned a lot here. It was very gracious of [Heartland Institute Senior Fellow] James [Taylor] and of the organizers to bring me here. And I actually feel that it’s really too bad that more of my colleagues from the scientific community didn’t attend and haven’t in the past, and I hope that we can remedy that in the future.
Denning’s remarks, with the applause he received throughout, can be seen on the YouTube video below. It is well worth watching because it illustrates the mood of the conference well.
Many scientists missed a chance to bridge the gap, and it is sad for them that they choose to keep the wall up, rather than participate in discourse and debate. Maybe Scott Denning’s courageous example will lead to more attendees next year.
Videos of all presentations from the two-and-a-half-day conference are being posted on the Web site of the Fourth International Conference on Climate Change.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
conradg:
I’m behind you 100 %. I’m a progressive myself, but I’m very skeptical of human made AGW. I’m not a scientist (just a journalist covering scientific and technical stuff since 30+ years). I’ve been interested in science since I was a kid.
Thus I get very frustrated when right- or left-wingers try to hijack important scientific issues for political reasons. This is the best climate blog I’ve found so far, but sometimes the anti-liberal ranting by some commenters gets a bit heavy to stomach…
Yes but he talks about the “political response”. Does this response include what Monckton calls “the courage to do nothing?”
Not exactly on topic but not far off?
Hans Jelbring, PhD in Climatology: http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/PolGreenhouse.pdf
exposes the UN IPCC’s greenhouse gas effect ‘theory’ in four ways:
1. The high school approach.
2. Observational evidence
3. Advanced theoretical considerations
4. Politicized science
He includes a strong comment by William Gilbert, a scientist in chemistry and chemical engineering, who expresses alarm at the UN IPCC’s ‘theory’ contradicting basic science.
Understanding that the UN IPCC’s radiative warming effect is nonsense seems to be strong among scientists in chemistry. They deal with the fundamentals.
savethesharks says:
May 20, 2010 at 10:00 pm
R. Gates says:
May 20, 2010 at 9:24 pm
Could someone here please define “warmist”.
=============================
You.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Oh Man!, I’ve got to stop reading this site at work!
Now everyone in the office thinks I am nuts after the fit of giggles that obvious answer brought on.
Thanks Chris, cheered me up no end.
Alan
Great conference – and glad to see someone (2 guys) make an effort to learn rather than ‘defend’.
Unfortunately – the ‘need’ for a Heartland Conference like this is actually just a response to the problem: closed, clubby, agenda-driven post-modern ‘science’.
If discourse were truly happening on a scientific basis (honest, open) – the driver for the Conference would disappear.
O/T but important?
“US geneticist Craig Venter’s ambition is to create organisms that are not only new, but lucrative”
He’s created a basic organism from scratch and “has secured a deal with the oil giant ExxonMobil to create algae that can absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and convert it into fuel — an innovation he believes could be worth more than a trillion dollars.
This must be the most scary and misguided thing I have heard in a long time.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/may/20/craig-venter-synthetic-life-genome
toby: May 21, 2010 at 12:47 am
Calling him a “warmist” when he insists he is not does not show much respect.
Nope. Inviting him to take part in the conference shows that he *is* respected. Saying he’s a “warmist” is merely being truthful about his particular point of view.
Michael Larkin: May 21, 2010 at 2:24 am
He’s created a basic organism from scratch and “has secured a deal with the oil giant ExxonMobil to create algae that can absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and convert it into fuel — an innovation he believes could be worth more than a trillion dollars.
This must be the most scary and misguided thing I have heard in a long time.
I hope he doesn’t decide to spend too much quality time with his “children” in a sealed lab…
Dr Denning
Two plus two is four!!
There is no middleground, no politics
“He’s created a basic organism from scratch and “has secured a deal with the oil giant ExxonMobil to create algae that can absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and convert it into fuel …”
How is that different from what algae and other photosynthesizing plants do now?
Harrabins write up is online:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8694544.stm
I think its fair to say you didnt convince him much:
“And the fervour reached a peak when the reluctant hero, Steve McIntyre, shambled on to the stage.”
Denning recommends policies based on facts, not the other way around. Unfortunately, even facts can drive bad policy if they are partial. If a car is approaching, should I cross the street? Based on this fact, I might say no, but what if I revealed that the car was approaching a red light at my intersection and slowing in speed? Or what if I said the car was approaching from 10 miles away? Based on these additional facts, I might say yes.
He also calls for solutions from people who are skeptics of AGW.
– If facts indicate that GW really is a problem and there is no way for humans to stop it, then it seems political solutions would be around facilitating adaptation and migration.
– If facts indicate that GW is not a serious problem, then political solutions would be related to addressing damage caused by overstated alarm and reversing unnecessary taxing and other restrictions to economic growth.
#
#
An Inquirer says:
May 20, 2010 at 9:24 pm
Regarding solutions coming from the skeptic side, here is one that I could live with:
Instituting a tax on carbon with the revenues offsetting another tax. … Of course, the big problem is the political tendency to add taxes rather than replace taxes.
_______________________________________________________________________
Actually the big problem is the taxes you and I pay do NOT go towards running our government. The Grace Commission report notes that 100% of personal income tax goes to pay interest on the national debt, the lion’s share of which goes to the banking cartel that we know as the Federal Reserve. see: http://www.bloggernews.net/17032
This is why there is such big money behind every idiotic expansion of our governments. Government borrows the money for the bureaucratic expansion from the central banks and the banks get to collect another slice of our wealth (labor) in return for their monopoly money and give it to our governments. It is really very simple. “Liberals, Socialists, and Progressives are the easiest to manipulate into the “everyone has a right to “fill-in the blank” and the government has to pay for it, so they are given media and monetary support. Groups like the libertarians that advocate small government and personal responsibility are going to be in for a smear campaign and ridicule.
“Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people.” Theodore Roosevelt
I suggest everyone read:
Evidence of Mr. Graham Towers: Governor of the Bank of Canada, (at the time), appearing in 1939, before the COMMITTEE ON BANKING AND COMERCE:
A Primer on Money, House Banking and Currency Committee, 1964
More controversial reading:
The creature from Jekyll Island: the Federal Reserve: A talk by G. Edward Griffin
Secrets of the Federal Reserve: The London Connection by Eustace Mullins
There is an accusation of fraud levied against Don Easterbrook’s presentation make
at Heartland. I’m not impressed with the cited typo, nor the fact that Easterbrook
may have made adjustments to some already-existing graphics. (Seems efficient to me, if they were in public domain…? Why re-invent a wheel?)
I cannot deal with the substance of the charge. Someone should. It’s here:
http://hot-topic.co.nz/cooling-gate-easterbrook-fakes-his-figures-hides-the-incline/
TGIF! And a pleasantly warm one, here in Virginia. …Lady in Red
R. Gates says:
May 20, 2010 at 9:24 pm
Q: Could someone here please define “warmist”
A: Anyone who takes on faith the supposition of human-induced via fossil fuel-burning climate change, and, more broadly, in the conclusions of IPCC AR4 which are based on that supposition.
Yes, Dr. Scott Denning seems an affable fellow, and kudos to him for attending the conference. I do have to wonder though, what he actually learned. Perhaps he could give a post here.
Wow, thought I just posted this. There is an accusation of fraud levied against Don
Easterbrook about his presentation at Heartland. (Some dumb stuff: a typo, plus
charge he altered an already-existing graphic. …assuming it was in public domain,
why reinvent the wheel?)
I cannot address the substance of the accusation. Someone should:
http://hot-topic.co.nz/cooling-gate-easterbrook-fakes-his-figures-hides-the-incline/
Good morning. ….Lady in Red
Why should the chief priests of Global Warming accept the invitation? They have always been about keeping things close-knit and closed. Why won’t they share their data, even when legally required to do so? Why is they control a big part of the peer-review process? Why is they are always saying the science is settled and thus trying to silence debate? Gavin Schmidt, Michael Mann, James Hansen, Phil Jones, and Al Gore would never attend. This conference is all about everything they are against, namely openness and scientific integrity.
Anthony…. Are you “gating” comments? If there is a need for that, you might notify
posters of the fact, that comments will “seem” to disappear into a hole, which they
await your approval…? …L in R
I now see “awating” moderation about my comment awaiting moderation.
However, I have lost two others, essentially identical, in the dust bin.
None of these need to be posted. Trash them all, but do deal with the Easterbrook
charge, as appropriate.
And check your dust bin. ….L in R
How strange. If the two comments posted earlier are lost for all time, here is
the relevant site, charging fraud against Easterbrook:
http://hot-topic.co.nz/cooling-gate-easterbrook-fakes-his-figures-hides-the-incline/
Trash the messages. They will bog down your thread. …L in R
All right. I have lost three messages to the dust bin about the fraud against
Easterbrook. You won’t accept a message with a link…? Is that it?
Well, then: go to ClimateProgress and look at early comments to Romm’s latest post.
There is a reference to Easterbrook fraud there. I won’t post the link a third time.
[Reply: Your messages were in the Spam filter. They are rescued and posted now. WordPress puts comments into spam based on keywords and links. They don’t disclose their algorithm. There were several comments from others among the spam, and they have now been posted. It is nothing personal. If you don’t see your comment posted after a reasonable amount of time, make a comment about it and a moderator will check the Spam filter. WUWT gets a huge amount of spam, and dealing with it is a low priority compared with moderating the several hundred comments in the queue that come in daily. There is also better moderator coverage during the busier times of the day, than in than the wee hours. ~dbs, mod.]
Wow. Just lost a third message. What are your posting rules? What messages do
you automatically trash?
Are your rules posted somewhere? I must admit, trying to be helpful, this is very very annoying. …Lady in Red
The people at WUWT are showing that many minds on a problem are better than an individual secluding himself creating an answer. This is how science was created.
Many areas in science are incorrect and have been passed down for generations.
To have the right to pick apart science to make it better should be encouraged.
But alas, the current mindset is “crack pot” to any individual who tries.
RE: The Venter story. Besides the rather obvious potential uses of this technology, one must wonder what the response of the natural world might be to this new invader. We already have plenty of experience with invasive species ( Kudzu for example ) . How would “natural” species evolve over time to deal with it? This would obviously be a new competitor in the evolutionary boxing ring, and I have to believe that the other competitors would adapt in some unknown manner, similar to the issues we now have with anti-biotic resistant diseases, etc..
I would prefer not to find out what that response is.
******************
vjones says:
May 20, 2010 at 7:11 pm
It was very positive that he both asked to and was encouraged to speak at the final lunch and he made some really good points.
There is a danger of a void in the middle ground (between warmists and skeptics, for want of better terms). Looking at conflict resolution, the importance of neutral language and non-emotive language cannot be overstated. Perhaps we need to develop some new terms. If we have a battleground, is there a reluctance to be in the ‘no man’s land’ in the middle? Or is it just that those with the loudest voices shout from the back of the battlelines?
*****************
There is no scientific value in compromise or seeking the middle ground unless the truth happens to lie there. Otherwise, it is a waste of time and other resources.