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.
The problem however would subsist af far as belief possitions are held by leading institutions, as your Academy of Sciences. These should always remain open, free to accept and discuss alternative explanation of how things work. If this is not possible then “market competivity” as Prof.Denning remarked should open the possibility for the creation of divergent and competitive institutions.
The gap is to big to be closed, if one thinks of the “manniatic “armageddonian hockey stick or those Hansennian trains of….where non believers would supposedly be sent to, obviously, reeducational camps.
To everyone who said they would be for a carbon tax if the tax went to something really good, like offsetting another tax or on our infrastructure, I want you to look into North Carolina’s Highway Trust Fund tax. I live in North Carolina and several years ago the state raised gas taxes. That gas tax was supposed to go into a special fund called the Highway Trust Fund. For a few years it did. But then the state faced a “budget shortfall”. The Highway Trust Fund was robbed. The extra gas tax no longer goes toward roads but into to the general tax base. And still does. I have more. About 3 or 4 years ago, the state illegally passed a lottery. To sell it to the public, we were told the lottery would ADD to the general education fund. To this day, it is called an education lottery. However, after it passed, it became clear that the “education” lottery REPLACED education money. The schools received no extra money (although it did open up a few college scholarships).
Here is the point: Governments lack the ability to leave taxes alone. If a carbon tax for infrastructure is passed, it will not be long before that carbon tax goes to some boondoggle. Don’t be naive. My state is a prime example of what will go wrong with the carbon tax for infrastructure idea. Notice I said that this will happen, not might happen.
R. Gates says:
May 20, 2010 at 9:24 pm
“Could someone here please define “warmist””
Gates, that is a part of the problem. And its a problem for the warmists to solve, not for us.
If the warmists could make a document of, say, 3-4 pages declaring what the theory is, from scratch, and a method on detecting whether it “holds water”, then we could all, on both side of “the fence” say; Okay, I support this theory, because this or that, or opposite.
Additionally, when my son is about this in school, I could address it to the teachers. They could show me what they are teaching, and why. Now they cannot.
As it is now, and of course, its a part of the Post Normal Science strategy, it is impossible to say what you believe in. Its snowing more, its snowing less.Its colder here, its colder there. The goal-post is moved all the time. Therefore it is not science.
And therefore we dont really know what a warmer is.
My personal definition is; Any-one who gets upset when I say I dont think CO2 is a pollutant, and I dont think its a dominant climate driving force. Its neglectable.
If he/she additionally mentions Arrhenius,Planck, Boltzmann, etc, then the diagnosis is certain.
I do not understand why Denning is calling for people to come up with political solutions when the people he is addressing feel the science indicates no problem exists. Really. What problem is he talking about? In Denning’s mind, what political goal needs to be achieved? I’m totally baffled by his comments.
Exactly what I’ve been saying on this site time and time again. If the Skeptical case appears to be emanating solely from the Right side of politics, it will alienate the Left. And thus you’ll see time and time again your arguments met with links to the likes of Sourcewatch and Exxonsecrets.
This isn’t supposed to be about Left vs Right.
While skepticism of AGW remains a solely Right wing cause celebre it will remain marginalized and ridiculed by the mass media.
I read the BBC report. It’s truly a shame how the reporter “knows” the science so well that no question of accuracy or content should trouble his mind. Supercilious mocking isn’t reporting.
I dare say that the reporter neither raised the cotton, picked it, nor ginned it, prior to weaving it into his textile garment. He couldn’t have been wearing an English wool suit, could he? If so, how un-green of him. What sailing ship did he take for his Atlantic crossing?
/sarc
I applaud him for attending and participating.
However…
I found his comments about “what you guys should be doing” to be arrogant, implying that there is some middle ground “our side” should be seeking.
No, it is always about the physics. If the physics, which as he states operates independently of whatever is happening politically, indicates that CO2 isn’t a problem, then the politics of climate change is flawed from the start. He fails to comprehend that there is no basis for ANY policy decision regarding energy if it is based on global warming as a credible threat.
There is no middle ground.
Denning is “Director for Education, Outreach and Diversity” for CMMAP at Colorado State University. “CMMAP educates and trains a diverse population in climate and Earth System Science by enhancing teaching and learning at all educational levels, disseminating science results through multiple media, engaging stakeholders and policymakers, and improving science pedagogy.” Does re-education sound familiar, Comrade?
Looking at Denning’s slides, and his explanation of CO2 forcing; he makes the same mistakes as Tyndall and Arrhenius, in not considering the two primary mechanisms, conduction and convection, that transport heat from the surface to the top of the Troposphere. Like most of the folks with advanced degrees in “Atmospheric Science” or “Climate Science”, he likely chose the field because of yearnings to do something about the environment or to be popular, and also like most of the folks with advanced degrees in these fields, no science was ever considered, only “settled science”, and how to get that word to the masses. (These folks are commonly referred to as “warmists”.)
If Denning wants to do something about solving the problem of anthropogenic global warming, he should start by studying thermodynamics and heat transfer in atmospheric physics, and then write letters to the masses he has misled; explaining that there isn’t any AGW.
BWD
When you listen and speak to someone from a ‘foreign country’ there are the significant problems of background and perspective, as well as, language and nuance which separate you.
“Science” is managed, funded, and controlled by non-scientists. Until scientists refuse to be slaves to their masters (dare I say whores to their pimps) they will continue to be slaves and have masters, and they and their “science” will be subject to external controls which have nothing to do with truth.
Just thought I’d reiterate the obvious. Some still think of the ways of the world in an outdated paradigm. This is the Age of Chaos, of Global Village Economics, and of Big Brother (or Sis) & the MSM.
The only way Al Baby would have followers: By making them
ROME – Catholic Church officials said Friday the recent creation by researchers of the first synthetic cell can be a positive development if correctly used, but warned scientists that only God can create life…
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100521/ap_on_re_eu/eu_catholic_church_synthetic_cell
But HE is already God, and with this new technique he will produce “Bedwetters” for the millions. Remember Aldous Huxley’s “Brave New World”? LOL
FatBigot says:
May 20, 2010 at 8:00 pm
“Leaving aside liquids, one can only have a solution if there is a problem.”
We’ve been debating this at Pielke Jr’s place.
Nuclear power is cost competitive with fossil fuels if the fossil fuels have a cost of $4/Million BTU’s. The cost of a ton of 25 million BTU is $105 delivered to New England, $80 delivered to the Carolina’s. Do Senators Kerry,Lieberman and Graham believe in Climate Change or Cheap Electricity?
When folks talk about cheap electricity from cheap coal they talk about the price of coal in Wyoming. Most people live on either coast. The price of delivering the coal to either coast is prohibitive.
Dr. Denning speaks of facts. Ok. Then I put to Denning, Little Ice Age, fact or fiction? If fact: based on a consensus I see in the scholarly (other than climatologists) community; what does it tell us about natural variability in the climate, and what would be the dangers of another little ice age? What would the repercussions be of an extensive June frost in the American corn belt? Does Dr. Denning agree that it is historic fact that there was an extensive June frost in the states of Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, and Michigan on the morning of June 5, 1859 during the Little Ice Age? What do models say would happen to the worldwide price of grains if we had a killing June frost in the nation’s corn belt that cut harvest by 20, 30, or 40 percent?
I know what he is thinking. He comes from near Denver and they have had a fine amount of snowflakes more recently called goreflakes falling just this month. He feels guilty and calling him a Warmist adds to the internal guilt. Warmists say global warming causes snowfall to increase.
The rational mind says not so. It looks like he may be getting weary fighting rational feelings.
Now it would be climate change if the Sahara was covered with snow. It would not be global warming.
Larry Fields says: “Combining the two points, a carbon sin tax would create a smaller incentive to conserve the scarcer resource, oil, and a larger incentive to conserve the more abundant resource, coal.”
Larry, that is a good point. Such a good point that I would modify my proposal: A revenue-neutral BTU tax on fossil fuels. Perhaps that would not encourage oil at the expense of coal. At the same time, I would get rid of all the other subsidies for solar and wind. This aid (of taxing fossil fuels) should be enough help if solar and wind are viable.
We need to emphasize that the revenues collected via such a “sin” tax need to reduce taxes elsewhere — especially taxes that undermine our national goals.
Henry Chance:
…Now it would be climate change if the Sahara was covered with snow. It would not be global warming.
Video SNOW ON THE DRIEST DESERT ON EARTH (Two days ago)
http://www.antena3noticias.com/PortalA3N/internacional/Nieve-desierto-chileno-Atacama/10647096
A solution for the professor. Convert as much of the electric generation capacity as possible to nuclear as quickly as you can. Tear down those stupid, useless, expensive wind farms, then hope that the planet really is warming because I have never yet heard a rational argument that warmer is worse.
How many places on Earth are empty of people becasue they are too warm? Too dry sure, but too warm? Compare that to the places that are empty because they are too cold. In addition how many cold ecosystems are known for their huge “diversity”.
My solution: Warm the planet if at all possible, at least a couple of degrees.
pyromancer76 May 20, 2010 at 9:24 pm,
Sorry pyromancer, I overstepped with the “liberal” part. Also, IANAC, more of a small “L” libertarian. Actually, a Constitutional originalist. Socially liberal, fiscally very conservative. Limited government was the way the country was set up, and it served us extremely well. Now, it’s Katie bar the door.
John Hooper says:
May 21, 2010 at 6:33 am
If the Skeptical case appears to be emanating solely from the Right side of politics, it will alienate the Left.
That “appearance” is completely false, of course, and is just a convenient straw man argument for Warmists. The issue is being exploited by both sides of the political spectrum, and that is too bad. It is the Warmists who are to blame for that.
Frankly though, I feel sorry for anyone who can’t see through the politics to the actual scientific issues. Those Warmist blinders are quite effective in not allowing people to see. In some cases perhaps they’ve been on so long it’s as though they are glued on.
The conduction and convection and energy transfer is massive. Just the power and lack of heat in a downdraft and wind sheer tell us a lot of warming cause heat is rapidly lost. Some of the 10 cent lab experiments us bottles and assume no wind, lift or motion.
Your post covers lot of science.
harrywr2 says:
May 21, 2010 at 7:27 am
“…………When folks talk about cheap electricity from cheap coal they talk about the price of coal in Wyoming. Most people live on either coast. The price of delivering the coal to either coast is prohibitive.”
When did Pennsylvania run out of coal? It’s too much to move coal from Idaho over one state? Who told you that? There is a coal train that runs through a little town I work in. It comes from the Dakotas (I’m not sure which one) and runs to south Oklahoma. Runs through about once a week. Seems its worth it for Oakies. I agree, nuclear is cost competitive in term of energy, but to state coal transport is cost prohibitive is something of a stretch, especially when one considers the cost of energy for the end users on either coast. I live on a rural electric coop, so my cost is significantly higher than most municipalities. My cost? 10 cents/kwh. That 10 cents is enough to keep the coop running and engage in largess and the wholesaler to make a significant profit. Our energy mix is over 50% coal fired electricity. The municipalities in this area typically run about 7 cents/kwh and everybody still remains viable. Of course this will all change and be significantly more expensive with the adoption of “smart grid” technologies.
Smokey:
You are arriving at a very intelligent conclusion: NO more tax funded science research, privatize science related agencies. The best example of private success: The winners of the X-Prize. Made a spaceship with a 20 million budget.
http://www.scaled.com/
Agreed with both of you. Someones political opinion should not come into this. Don’t be destracted from the AGW line of attack.
Not all sceptics are right-wing (like me) and not all right-wingers are sceptics. The same goes for left wing.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Speeches&ContentRecord_id=B87E3AAD-802A-23AD-4FC0-8E02C7BB8284
Professor of Physics, William Happer, Princeton University;
What do you think, Gates? “Warmist” or “Realist” ?
http://globalwarming.house.gov/files/HRG/052010SciencePolicy/happer.pdf
A “revenue neutral” tax is nothing but wishful thinking. This proposed tax would end up only as putting more of our money in the hands of politicians to waste, “buying more votes”
The simple fact is, western civilization can’t afford it. Can’t survive it. It will destroy our way of life completely.
Spain has wasted lots of money, spending it on “renewable” energy schemes, and Spain now has an unemployment rate of more than 20%. Taxes, mostly, cause dire harm to any economy. The greater the taxation rate, the more harm to the economy it does. The higher the consumer cost of fuel, the poorer the economy will perform.
The whole EU is in dire economic straits as of right now. There are “interesting times” coming in the near future. Not only for Europe, but for the rest of the world as well. As the old adage goes, “waste not, want not”. We ignore history at our peril.
If you witness a crime and say nothing you are part of the problem. I don’t know where Denning has been on the flawed UN reports and the
warmists“scien-tists” that wrote it, but if he has not been vocal on the abuses he remains part of the problem.