Thursday night, Steve and Ross will be presented with the Julian Simon Memorial Award at CEI’s annual dinner. The dinner will be held on Thursday, June 17, 2010, at the Hyatt Regency Washington on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C.
Let me offer my sincere congratulations to Steve and Ross for their hard work and well deserved award.
There is a by invitation only congressional briefing from noon to 1:30PM that same day. People with interest may be able to attend by contacting Myron Ebell at the email address given below.
Two important figures at the heart of the ClimateGate e-mails, Canadians Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, will provide key information on the remarkable revelations in thousands of e-mails and files that were leaked from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit in November last year.
They will show examples from the e-mails and related sources that reveal a core group of scientists manipulating the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) process in order to keep policymakers in the dark about major uncertainties and problems in climate science. They will also show how the inquiries set up in the aftermath of ClimateGate have been rigged and misdirected so as to whitewash the scandal and protect the climate establishment from genuine external scrutiny.
Much of ClimateGate involves research initially called into doubt by the analysis of Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick. The scientists involved in the scandal saw McIntyre and McKitrick as major threats to global warming orthodoxy and to their own credibility. Consequently, they are mentioned more than 150 times in the ClimateGate e-mails.
McIntyre and McKitrick are most famous for demolishing the infamous “hockey stick”—the graph promoted by the IPCC as proof that global temperatures had been stable for nine hundred years until increasing rapidly in the twentieth century. Their debunking of the hockey stick was confirmed in 2006 by a panel of professionals statisticians convened by the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Their exploits have been recounted in a new book by A. W. Montford, The Hockey Stick Illusion, which reads like a detective thriller.
Before laws regulating energy use are enacted that could well cost trillions of dollars, it is crucial to understand the extent to which the alleged scientific consensus supporting global warming alarmism has been discredited by ClimateGate and related scandals. Join us for a discussion featuring two of the people at the center of the storm.
Stephen McIntyre is the editor and founder of Climate Audit, one of the web’s most popular and compelling climate science blogs as well as one of the best sources for expert analysis of the continuing ClimateGate and related scandals. Before becoming interested in the scientific debate over global warming, Mr. McIntyre worked for thirty years in a variety of roles in the minerals exploration business in Canada, including as President of Northwest Exploration Co. Ltd. He holds a B. A. in mathematics from the University of Toronto and earned another degree in philosophy, politics, and economics from Oxford University. Since the hockey stick scandal, Mr. McIntyre has continued to use his statistical expertise to analyze temperature data and has uncovered a number of other significant mistakes in official claims, which have proved highly embarrassing to U. S. government agencies and several leading climate scientists.
Ross McKitrick is Professor of Economics at the University of Guelph in Ontario, Canada and a Senior Fellow of the Fraser Institute. He holds a Ph.D. from the University of British Columbia. Professor McKitrick has published a wide range of internationally-recognized studies on the economic analysis of pollution policy, economic growth and air pollution trends, the health effects of air pollution, statistical methods in climatology, the measurement of global warming, and other topics. His 2003 co-authored book, Taken By Storm: The Troubled Science, Policy and Politics of Global Warming, won the Donner Prize for the best book on Canadian public policy. His newest book, Economic Analysis of Environmental Policy, will be published later this year. Professor McKitrick’s willingness to question conventional thinking on environmental issues and global warming dogma has had an impact around the world. He has made over 100 invited academic presentations in Canada, the U.S., and Europe, and has testified before the U. S. Congress and the Canadian Parliament.
Myron Ebell
Director, Energy and Global Warming Policy
Competitive Enterprise Institute
1899 L Street, N. W., Twelfth Floor
Washington, D. C., 20036, USA
E-mail: mebell@cei.org
Anu says:
June 14, 2010 at 8:28 pm
“Hey, if Arctic sea ice was important, the Free Market would just produce more of it after the death spiral.”
Almost sounds theological.
What is most amusing from my perspective is comparing statements like that to the actual repercussions to the World economy an open body of Ocean in the Arctic would create.
Estimated time: Ten to twenty years for complete meltdown. Half as long for substantially open waters.
Temperature increase of the Arctic Ocean, 6-9 degrees Fahrenheit. Which will cause intensification of water evaporation. This in turn will lead to more intense rains of the type we’ve been getting in Minneapolis, Tennessee, Fargo and now Oklahoma. More severe droughts in other areas.
#
#
Walter Schneider says:
June 14, 2010 at 8:54 pm
Climate and climate change has been a lifelong study of mine since my early days as a ship’s officer in the British Merchant Navy. I have lived through and traced the progress of the `ice age’ scare of the 1970′s, the `nuclear winter’ scare of the 1980s, and now the `global warming’ scare of the present. All these scares have advanced the interests of what was a small academic discipline 30 years ago to become a mammoth global industry today. It is my view that this industry has, through the `politics of fear’ which it has promoted, acted against the interests of the public.
—————————
I have followed the global warming issue for a similar period. What do you mean by the “ice age scare”? It was one scientist’s (if) qualified hypothesis and it didn’t get much attention at the time; no global panic. The “nuclear winter scare” of the 1980’s, didn’t create a global panic. Again it was an hypothesis of what could happen during a global nuclear war. Apart from radiation fall-out the massive amount of aerosols would cause rapid global cooling. A small academic decipline of 30 years ago, grown into a mammoth global industry of spreading fear? Really? I always thought that the average citizen recognised spin for what it is. Apparently they don’t. Yes, you’ll accuse me of the same, but I read all science, whenever I can, both for and against, I try to be informed. But I don’t fall for ‘scares’, conspiracies or the multitude of ‘gates’ created on a whim. I’ll take any reasoned argument but detest hyperbole. Why do you make qualified statements into definitive ones? Such as; “…claims that the earth WILL warm by +1.5 to +6 deg. C. due to an enhanced Greenhouse Effect.” (my emphasis)
When I read the documents, they are projections and invariably conditional.
Walter Schneider says, quoting John Daly:
June 14, 2010 at 8:54 pm
“I have lived through and traced the progress of the `ice age’ scare of the 1970′s, the `nuclear winter’ scare of the 1980s, and now the `global warming’ scare of the present.”
I recall the Nuclear Winter issue. I was a nuclear survivalist who did not take the idea seriously because the facts, as presented by Carl Sagan, seem stretched out.
On the other hand, the so called Ice Age scare was a general media fabrication. The majority of scientists believed in Global Warming back then.
The “talking point” statement that goes, “Scientists said in the 1970’s that an Ice Age was coming.” Implies that someone must have done a survey of Climatologists in order to find out whether the majority believed in Ice Age or Global Warming. None of the magazines cited like Time or Newsweek even pretended to have done such a survey. They simply had articles based on what so and so said. So and so would simply be a “scientist” or two. So how would anyone know what the majority of Climatologists thought one way or the other?
It wasn’t until this claim was made that the matter was looked into by the AGW crowd and discovered that 85% of scientific papers in that time period supported AGW and 15% believed in Global Cooling.
I’m glad to see CO2 finally straightening out the complicated statistic problem of the average speed of a bicycle.
On the other hand, when trying to compute global average temperatures one quickly runs into so much problems of defining what temperatures to average, and how they respond to spurious inputs, not to mention the number of measuring points needed, that the whole excercise soon becomes meaningless.
Trying to average the speeds of all bicyclists all over the word would be a good comparison.
While it is possible to (fairly…) easily calculate an average bicycle speed, it is not self-evident that a global mean temperature can be averaged with any accuracy.
Seth Cuttlefish says:
June 14, 2010 at 2:57 pm
CEI is hardly scientific on the subject of global warming. They were the ones that run the adds saying the CO2 was harmless: “it’s essential to life. We breathe it out. Plants breathe it in… They call it pollution. We call it life.”
Further to other comments above – Seth, talk to an Anaesthetist, they will tell you that your bodies pCO2 levels are what triggers breathing. If your pCO2 blood levels are too low you stop breathing. CO2 is indeed a vital part of the Carbon Cycle.
Seth – also talk to someone who knows about plant photosynthesis. When you have done both of these things – have a little ponder about what you said and the motivation behind your questioning what the CEI states when what they say is true fact.
Methinks you are listening to hype and spin.
Congratulations to two worthy gentlemen!
Congratulations to both McIntyre and McKitrick, keep up the good work.
@ur momisugly CO2, villabolo, Seth.
Completely O/T comments. There are plenty of other threads on this site about sea ice, CO2, models etc you could popst your comments on. Why not go back to fakeclimate instead of hijacking threads over here. Nothing you read here will ever change your minds so please go back to your love in.
@CO2:
If you travel “a certain distance” at 2o km/h one day and the same distance at 10 km/h the second day, the average speed for the two days is 40/3 km/h. Without loss of generality, we can assume that the “certain distance” is 20 km. In that case, the travel time on the first day is 1 h, the travel time on the second day is 2h, and the total distance traveled is 40 km. The average speed is 40km/3h, which is approximately 13.3 km/h. Claiming the average speed is (20 + 10)/2 betrays a lack of knowledge of grade 9 mathematics. This kind of problem can literally be found in first year algebra textbooks. So now that we have established your level of mathematical competence, CO2, shall we guess at your level of understanding of the science?
Dan says:
June 14, 2010 at 10:58 pm
Just look at;
Gordon Ford says:
June 14, 2010 at 8:32 pm
Who’s complicating what? As for the issue at hand, global temperature have a look at http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2007/03/ineed-a-title.ars
This is the last paragraph of the author’s letter;
Quote; There are few things in this world designed to annoy me more than bad science. I can handle ineffectual science, which, in my darker moments, is the label I give my own research. But the combination of rhetorical posturing, statistical strawmen, and questionable examples were, simply put, nauseating. Combined with the fact that one of the authors studies thermodynamics (and is therefore making deliberate distortions) and the paper made it through peer review means that I am typing this with a bucket beside me. I hate to put readers through this, but this is your punishment for demanding balance. :)end Quote
CO2 still cannot do elementary math, even after it has been explained to him by AndiC and Gordon.
“If you ride a bicycle over a given distance one day at 20 kmh and another day at 10 kmh, your average speed is 7.5 kmh.” (later ‘corrected’ to 15).
Let’s suppose the distance is 20km to make it easy. The first day you do the 20km in 1 hour. The second day at 10kmh it takes you 2 hours. Your average speed is therefore
total distance / total time = 40/3 = 13.3
as stated by AndiC and Gordon.
The point is, you spend more time going at the lower speed.
In view of this, I don’t think anyone needs to take CO2’s comments on the paper by Chris Essex (Math Professor) and Ross McKitrick very seriously!
Villabollo, There is a commercial tomato grower in the UK who buys tonnes of waste foodstuffs rejected by supermakets. This he stores in massive sealed underground silos, the methane these give off is captured and burned to create the heat for his tomato greenhouses so he can grow tomatoes all year round. The CO2 produced from burning the methane is pumped into the greenhouses at an atmospheric concentration 4 times greater than what is in the normal outdoor atmosphere. His yield increased 4 fold since he increased the CO2.
There is not enough carbon based fuel on the planet to increase the atmospheric concentration of CO2 by a factor of 4!
There is no danger of there being too much Anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere.
Oh and have you seen the Arctic ice lately? (since 2007) The Antarctic ice is also at record high levels.
As for the Sahara? Have you seen the parts of the Sahara that are now turning green with vegetation? That does not get on the news either for some strange reason.
I think CO2 might have bitten off a little more than he can chew here.
“CO2 says:
June 14, 2010 at 9:15 pm
Gordon Ford says:
June 14, 2010 at 8:32 pm
13.3 kmh is correct. It takes 3 units of time to travel the given distance at each speed. 1unit at 20 kmh and 2 units at 10 kmh. Think of traveling 20 km down a road at 20 km then going back the 20 km at 10 km. Distance traveled – 40 km. Time taken – 3 hr. 40/3 = 1.33
————————-
Typical denial obfuscation of something simple;
To keep it simple for simple readers I simply stated to travel a distance one day at 20 kmh and another day (it may well have been the same day or a week later or whatever) the same distance at 10 kmh. No going back involved and simply assuming constant speed on each occasion. The distances are equal, the speeds are constant and there are only two units. Distance irrelevant.
Do you want it simpler than that? ”
The problem is he brought in the distance, which he now says is irrelevant. If you do equal times at the two speeds, then the average is certainly 15; but equal distances mean you spend twice as long at the lower speed and so the average is 13.333. I seem to recall something like this in the early years at secondary school. Arguably, since most of us want to ride a bicycle to get somewhere, it is the second average that is the more relevant.
In the case of average temperatures a similar effect occurs in spades. Aside from the trivial fact that a non-linear system exquisitely sensitive to starting conditions requires a completely impractical density of datum points, just what average temperature do you require? Should the temperatures be adjusted, say, for the adiabatic lapse rate? What about air density? Should we in fact be looking at energy content? (and since this is essentially a water world, this should include the energy content of the world’s water in all three phases). Does CO2 think it reasonable to take temperature records for one site as valid for somewhere twenty miles away, even with identical sensor siting?
All in all, I think the McCritics have done an excellent job in bringing peoples’ attention to some of the essentials of statistics. Well done, Gentlemen!
Phil Brisley says:
June 14, 2010 at 9:09 pm
“M&M’s reasoned and detached inquirey is working… we all hope they have the energy to continue, this is going to be a protracted academic arguement. CO2 captures heat flow, which is why a mosquito can find you, CO2′s weight confines it to the proximity of the planet’s surface, where it’s needed, it is not that envolved with climate…however, I’m listening.”
——————————
What’s the relevance of a mosquito? CO2’s weight confines it to the proximity of the planet’s surface? So, capturing CO2 is simple then, it will conveniently fall down next to the chimney into big funnels. CO2 not involved with the climate? Spend a day in your fridge just to get an idea of how cold the world would be without it. Just as a fore-taste that is; want to go for a swim? Try somewhere close to the equator using your snowmobile to get there.
Protracted academic argument? Sorry, for the academics at large it is already dead in the water.
Apart from the logical scientific approach that M & M have applied, the major factor for me, along with their tenacity, has been their decency and dignity. These are powerful attributes when in search of the truth.
Well done gentlemen!
Thank you!
CO2:
It is probably not very difficult to find several articles supporting my view.
They would, also probably, be better written and without displaying the author’s mood.
The mood of the author does nothing to make his views more convincing to the reader, they serve only to convince himself that he is right.
I’ll just say that I think Ross and Steve have taken the best shots of the global warming industry and have barely been gloved by their opponents. There’s a perfectly good reason why they were mentioned so often in the Climategate emails – because their opponents were (and are) mortally afraid of them.
In 2005, when Climate Audit was launched, there was palpable fear over what the Hockey Team could do to academics (and everyone else) who dared criticize them. That’s why M&M 2005 (GRL) was such a landmark achievement, because after the orchestrated swiftboating (mostly completely unjustified) given to Soon and Baliunas in 2003 over their meta-study, there were virtually no scientists prepared to put their head above the parapet.
For that reason, and the advent of RealClimate which was designed to given swift pre-buttal and rebuttal to M&M 2005, it was vital that Steve had an outlet to respond to the Hockey Team in near realtime.
I remember the “climate of fear” really well – it seems like a long time ago doesn’t it? I remember how circumspect people were about admitting that they were reading Climate Audit, let alone commenting.
Of course, the greatest assistance to the growth of Climate Audit (and WUWT and JeffID and many others) has been due to our opponents: Michael Mann, Gavin Schmidt, William Connelley, Eric Steig, Tom Crowley et al – whose studious inability to respond to reasoned criticism and argument has been outstanding.
Now in 2010 Michael Mann’s star has fallen right to earth, and I’m sure many researchers think twice about co-authoring any papers with him. Ammann and Wahl are now fixtures in the blogosphere for trying to rescue the Hockey Stick by inventing their own statistical methods. Gavin Schmidt is no longer quoted as an unimpeachable source even by the BBC. William Connelley doesn’t work for the British Antarctic Survey any more and is in perennial trouble at Wikipedia over his heavy-handed twisting of history, while his former boss at the BAS has had to ratchet down the alarmist rhetoric at the British Museum after an avalanche of criticism.
I’m not being sarcastic – without the interventions of the incompetent Hockey Team, McIntyre and McKitrick would have had minimal impact.
I hope they enjoy their dinner and their award because they thoroughly deserve it.
Ken Hall says:
June 15, 2010 at 2:01 am
Villabollo,
There is not enough carbon based fuel on the planet to increase the atmospheric concentration of CO2 by a factor of 4!
There is no danger of there being too much Anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere.
Oh and have you seen the Arctic ice lately? (since 2007) The Antarctic ice is also at record high levels.
———————
CO2 by a factor of 4!? can you cite me the calculation?
Any level of CO2 is okay? Care to visit Venus?
Yes, I have looked at the arctic lately; record melt May 2010, from the start of the melt season 2010, this year so far has melted 1 million square km more than 2009.
Since 2007? What a devious question, chosing the record 2007 melt as reference, from which all scientists said that the arctic would recover. It did in 2008, about 1/3rd, it did in 2009 also about 1/3rd, the remaining 1/3rd no. That’s certainly not a case of “arctic recovered” as is continuously claimed on this blog. Recovered is a definitive word and the arctic is all but definitive. In order for the arctic to recover to 1980 levels, there would have to be the mother of all recoveries, lasting more than the 3 decades it took to melt.
Congratulations to Mc and Mc – the history of the world takes new turns from such efforts as yours to find truth and make it known. Thanks.
And trolls, please cease, in more ways than one, demeaning the meaning of the word ‘science’.
John A says @3:49 am [ … ],
John A, trenchant comments. Those of us who have followed CA for the past 5 years know of the unflagging effort you have personally put into opposing the cabal of the folks who have both front feet in the government/NGO grant trough. Thanks.
congratulations to Steve and Ross from down under where Anthony is touring at the moment
Congratulations gentlemen. It is men with integrity such as yours that makes the world a better place for us all.
Can’t think of a more deserving pair. Well done Stephen and Ross! 😀
Hey, don’t forget the poetry and music from Canadians!
Prime examples are Leonard Cohen and Gordon Lightfoot. Cohen tours Australia in November.
Marshall McCluhan was also Canadian.
PaulM – Absolutely correct. CO2’s tricky poser was, “If you ride a bicycle over a given distance one day at 20 kmh and another day at 10 kmh, your average speed is 7.5 kmh”. Note the words “given distance” and “average speed”. Dammit PaulM, never mind your logical supposition of letting the distance be 20km, I’m going to let it be 40km, just to really complicate this wonderful example provided by CO2.
The first day you do the 40km in 2 hours at an average speed of 20km/h. The second day you do the same 40 km in 4 hours at 10 km/h.
Total distance travelled = 80 km. Total time = 6 hours.
Average speed = 80/6 = 13.33 recurring.
Exercise for CO2.
1. Now do it over a 120km distance just to make it really complicated.
2. Present results here.
3. Comment on any similarities between PaulM’s and my result.
4. Repeat 1,2 and 3 for a SQRT(2) distance.
5. Apply for the Lucasian Professor of Mathematics when it next becomes vacant.
You would be hilarious if you weren’t so mathematically illiterate.
Disputin says:
June 15, 2010 at 2:15 am
I think CO2 might have bitten off a little more than he can chew here.
Some people [like CO2] make very strong and condescending] statements without having the basics right. The correct answer is of course, 40/3=13.333…