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.
Good on Dr Denning to attend and speak, but the main message I took from him was was “Don’t be too radical or your political message won’t be heard”. It was only a thinly veiled group directed ad hominen attack in my mind. “You are conservative therefore you deny.”
And to Mr. R Gates, who wanted to someone to define “warmist”, I go to the Climate debate daily webisite and modify the header above the left column a bit to define a warmist as the following…
“A person who believes the idea that global warming poses a clear threat to humanity, that it is largely caused by human activity, and that solutions to the problems of climate change lie within human reach.”
Whether the label “warmist” is “fair” can be compared to whether “denialist” is “fair.”
This is OT but related. I am 60 and live in Prince George BC Canada. Back when I was a kid my ma said never plant befor May 24. That has always been true. This weekend its dipping down to zero and right now its snowing.
Well, that’s very nice. Now the alarmists are saying the science is not settled so why are the skeptics claiming it is. If we were JUST “doing science” and searching for the truth of the real world, that would be fine, but we’re not. We’re being told we have to reduce our carbon footprint back to 1867 levels. We’re being told our economy has to die.
So if the scientists now say the science is NOT settled, why don’t they all tell the politicians that? Why doesn’t the IPCC say, “We don’t really know what is going on, so just hold off on that cap & trade for a bit.”
But the do not, and THAT is the problem.
I’m fascinated by all these comments about Dr. Curry. IMO, she is more like a Trojan horse that someone who really wants to understand the science. She made up her mind long ago and most of her olive branches have a thorn or two embedded in the text. Maybe she really believes what she says or maybe she is just very clever in the way she seems to disarm the “competition”.
Al Gored: May 20, 2010 at 10:57 pm
Problem is, by the time we find out, the cat could be out of the bag, and it could potentially be one very big mutant cat. Or more likely zillions of microbe-sized ones, reproducing with no predators or natural control.
Or zillions of unicellular Tribbles.
What could possibly go wrong?
Jim says:
May 21, 2010 at 5:55 am
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.
I agree, however science has been the loser in this debate. My comment is that normal scientific debate about this issue is hampered by the current situation and that science needs to come to that middle ground for discussion – on many issues certainly there will be no agreement. So yes in this case I am agreeing with Judy Curry for better disucussion of scientific issues.
OTOH if there is a need to shout from the battlelines to expose some of the climate ‘tricks’, then so be it. There are many who deserve no quarter.
At the end of the day, what I heard at the conference was a desire to improve understanding of the climate and that is common ground. In any other field healthy debate would move the science forward and the entrenchment of views is regrettable in this case.
And yes it would be good to find out what Scott Denning learned.
‘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.’
So only two up standing citizens and proper scientists in the warmist camp? That’s it?
Either the warmists are making too many presumptions or they’re really that friggin cheeky.
Michael in Sydney says:
May 21, 2010 at 12:55 am
Al Gored Said, “…with potential consequences too horrifying to ponder.”
Isn’t that like the precautionary principle mixed with “It’s worse than we thought” that gives many of us the Tom Tits.
Michael
———-
I get what you are saying but in the case of this ‘synthetic biology’ with people tinkering with DNA and creating new life forms – with scientific hubris, the profit motive, and the potential for accidents and unknown unintended consequences – I think the potential for disaster here is far greater than anything else I can imagine. And to compound this idiocy they are even talking about applying this to geoengineering to save us from AGW!
I’m no Chicken Little or devotee to the stupid Precautionary Principle but, in my opinion, this is truly insane Mad Scientist material. The potential rewards are simply not worth the potential risks.
Since you are in Australia, I’ll repeat again… how do you like the idea of new and improved cane toads on a microbe level?
And for what?
Bill Tuttle says:
May 21, 2010 at 11:14 am
Al Gored: May 20, 2010 at 10:57 pm
Problem is, by the time we find out, the cat could be out of the bag, and it could potentially be one very big mutant cat. Or more likely zillions of microbe-sized ones, reproducing with no predators or natural control.
Or zillions of unicellular Tribbles.
What could possibly go wrong?
—————
I don’t know what Tribbles are… ? But, yes, what could possibly go wrong? It will all be peer reviewed, Big Pharma is entirely trustworthy and infallible – especially if the WHO monitors the situation – and it will all be backed by a consensus of experts.
It could even be used to produce safe cigarettes.
Jimbo says:
May 21, 2010 at 8:32 am
conradg says:
May 21, 2010 at 12:25 am
“I’m a liberal, progressive democrat, and quite a strong skeptic.”
—–
goranj says:
May 21, 2010 at 1:41 am
“I’m behind you 100 %. I’m a progressive myself, but I’m very skeptical of human made AGW. “
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.
——
Very true. But the ‘us v them’ manipulators who use this simplistic thinking to divide and conquer have done a fine job of setting up this false dichotomy, haven’t they?
James Sexton says:
May 21, 2010 at 8:23 am
“When did Pennsylvania run out of coal? It’s too much to move coal from Idaho over one state? Who told you that?”
Prices of ‘delivered steam coal’ by state for 2008. $105 for New Jersey, $79 for North Carolina, $90 for New Hampshire.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/page/acr/table34.html
Here is a list of coal production by state. Pennsylvania once produced 227 million tons per year(in 1918). That down to 64 million tons per year.
http://www.nma.org/pdf/c_production_state_rank.pdf
One doesn’t need to ‘run out of coal’ before mining it becomes less then profitable.
As with all things, we tend to use of the ‘cheap stuff’ first.
According to the USGS there are only 10 billion tons of ‘cheap coal’ left in Wyoming.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2008/1202/
In 2002 a ton of coal in China was worth $27. Today a ton of coal in China is worth $116. They burned up all their cheap coal. Sames goes for India. Same goes for the Europeans.
In selected regions of the US there isn’t any cheap coal left. Other regions have 20 or 30 years worth of cheap coal left.
If we started building nuclear power plants at the rate of 1/month it would take 40 years to replace all the coal fired electricity plants.
Curiousgeorge says:
May 21, 2010 at 5:28 am
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?
—–
That’s one big kicker. Time. The current problems with invasive species is just a hint of the potential problems; they are natural species at least. When you introduce something which could potentially be so new and ‘alien’ the ‘natural’ species that have been coevolving over time may not have enough time to adapt at all. Dominoes. Eventually they will but the resulting surviving ecosystem and species may not be anything like what we might hope it would be. Things are working out great for Kudzu. Evolution marches on.
Consider the impact of the smallpox virus on Native Americans (North and South) post-1492. And that only directly impacted those humans (and indirectly impacted the whole ecosystem). This kind of stuff could potentially impact far more.
How about a ‘new and improved’ mitochondria? By accident. Oops.
How about just tweaking with wheat or rice, or their pathogens? That seems like a noble idea, in theory. And what could possibly go wrong?
As an earlier poster put it… Pandora’s Box. And I just don’t see how the rewards could possibly be worth the risks.
Carbon is evil =>Carbon must be restricted => Carbon tax would restrict carbon=>
tax dollars fund CO2 warming research => findings carbon is bad and it is getting hotter=> collect more taxes => fund more research to find CO2 causes warming
They want more taxes to fund research that will tell them to collect more taxes to fund more research that says CO2 causes warming.
@ur momisugly Al Gored says:
May 21, 2010 at 1:32 pm
That’s one big kicker. Time.
This is all over the news today with all kinds of pro and con comments and people lining up on both sides of it. Venter has been known to be a little “out there” with his research, and generally doesn’t give rats patoot about how his research may be used by others who may have less than the best interests of humanity in mind. While I have no particular objection to basic research, I think the controls of potentially dangerous developments such as this are hugely inadequate.
I was very impressed by Dr. Denning’s presentation. I was equally impressed by the polite and cordial reception given him by the conference attendees.
Kinda pretentious and illuminating that he said “its too bad more of my colleagues in the scientific community didn’t attend,” as if the skeptic scientists are not part of that community….. tells us who he really regards as his colleagues.
@ur momisugly Al Gored says:
May 21, 2010 at 1:32 pm
PS: “Not with a bang, but a whimper.” ? Perhaps T.S. Elliot was prophetic after all.
Al Gored Said
“..Since you are in Australia, I’ll repeat again… how do you like the idea of new and improved cane toads on a microbe level? ”
Yes my previous post was just trying to poke a bit of fun, I hope you’ll indulge me 🙂
Improved cane toads – all for it if they can make them tasty or at least able to play footy a bit better 😉
BigWaveDave says:
Really…Could you elaborate on this? How a large a mechanism is conduction in the atmosphere? How do you understand the thermodynamics to work? In particular, let’s focus on the energy emitted to space. Are you saying that increasing greenhouse gases so that the radiative emission is now coming from levels of the atmosphere that are colder will not result in a radiative imbalance?
BBC unbiased journalism at its best. (cough, cough)
Climate sceptics rally to expose ‘myth’
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8694544.stm
Al Gored: May 21, 2010 at 1:05 pm
I don’t know what Tribbles are… ?
A science-fiction creature with no natural enemies that does nothing but eat and reproduce (a *lot*), with the inevitable results.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribble
Granted this man is naive in many ways. I congratulate him for stepping forward and speaking. But he misses the mark by a mile.
It’s clear he regards his colleagues of “scientific inquiry” (pseudo), who regularly cite (and misuse) models that rely upon data (homogenized) in place of actual data based upon actual observations, as the “Scientific Community”.
What a joke. He doesn’t get it. Its doubtful he ever will. The mainstream, publicly funded scientific machine, is fueled by targeted inquiries that defend earlier assumptions and support earlier results, without regard to the scientific basis for the results.
Bottom line is that he is afraid to ever directly challenge a perceived incorrect approach, even if he could identify it. The “climate change (scientific) community” has him tied into their knot. The rationalization and resort to reference to the (missing) mass of prior studies will always be a solution for this person. Damn the data. Worship the “scientific and expensive” model. After all, it was scientists (highly paid by politically motivated public funds) who made the models, therefore they must be used and they must be correct. Why else would they have funded their development?
Excuse me???? Scientific judgement deferred to current sustenance. Talk to Galileo about that. See what he endured for objective observationally based science.
There is no gumption for a Galileon stance. At least not with this gentleman. Sorry to say. I doubt that this person even realizes that he may have unwittingly elevated himself to a position such as Galileo. Personally I doubt he would ever take that step. He doesn’t have it. This is an observation, not a prediction.
Show me wrong.
Demming’s presence was great and very welcome. However, for me the heart-stopping moment at Heartland was Steve McIntyre’s closing comments. As he said when he sat down, it was interesting that he got a standing ovation when he arrived on the podium, and muted applause when he sat down. His sage comments on the state of the AGW debate should be noted by all, lest we be guilty of hubris.
@ur momisugly harrywr2
All one has to do is to look at your link http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/page/acr/table34.html to realize the artificial forcings in place. Cost/short ton in N.J….$105.26 N.Y….$64.79 for electricity. In Mich., the cost for electric generating coal, $37.99 …while, the cost for other uses is $86.61. Obviously, there is something other than availability and cost of transport at work. Coal isn’t cost prohibitive because we can’t get to it, it’s cost prohibitive because the feds and various state governments wish it to be. Yes, in Wyoming, in one particular basin, they’ve mine most of the coal. So what? The term economically recoverable is a bit of “slight of hand”. It’s not economical for electric generation? It cost 3-4 times as much to produce electricity with gas than coal. See http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/table4_13_b.html and http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/table4_10_a.html .
No one really cares, because they just pass the cost on to the end users. With less and less coal fired plants and more and more gas fired plants, we can expect to see the cost of gas significantly increase over the next few years all they while hearing the meme of it being too costly to mine for coal. 3-4 times the cost would buy a lot of earth moving and digging equipment. BTW, about 50 miles ESE of my home, there is coal literally ON the ground. While it is true it isn’t of the highest quality, to collect it, one doesn’t even have to dig today. It is impossible for me to believe that is the only place in the U.S. with that type of coal availability. There may be a high cost to coal, but it isn’t because its not there, or that it is too difficult to mine it.
Looking good here, Lady in Red (could not resist using those words) … sometimes the mods, Anthony even, must engage in ‘real life’, including such activities as eating, sleeping, interacting with actual flesh-and-blood corporeal loved ones; these reasons may explain the delay in approving comments, postings, et al.
.
.