As we’ve previously seen with Professor Bob Carter in “The phenomena of disinvitation and the brotherhood of silence“, the surfacetemperatures.org meeting in Exeter, where the people that raised the issues about metadata and siting were not invited, but their work was presented and roundly criticized, and now with this example, it has become clear that the warmists really don’t want an opportunity to discuss our views on climate science, but rather an opportunity to diss it, unfettered by “equal time”.
via ICECAP
David R. Legates, Ph.D., C.C.M
Introduction
On Wednesday, August 25, I was invited by Environment America to speak at its September 8 press conference on “Extreme Weather in Delaware”, to promote the release of their new report on the subject at Legislative Hall. Ms. Hannah Leone was pleased to have me speak because my “knowledge on climate change and weather would be a great asset to the event.”
On Friday, August 27, I was uninvited from the event by Ms. Leone, who noted that “I believe it is in the best interest of the success of our report that you do not participation [sic] in this event” but “as lead climatologist in the state, your opinion would be beneficial to us.” She had earlier indicated to me in a telephone call that she wanted to make sure everyone was on the same page at the event.
I believe that it is in the best interest of the citizens of Delaware that my “knowledge on climate change and weather” is made public, in light of the biases that are potentially inherent in the Environment America report. I say ‘potentially inherent’ because, although I was promised a copy of the report, even after I was uninvited, I have yet to receive it. However, Ms. Leone was kind enough to indicate the premise of the report in her first e-mail to me:
On September 8th we will be holding a press conference around our new Environment America Extreme Weather Report that examines the science linking global warming with hurricanes and tropical storms; coastal storms and sea level rise; flooding and extreme rainfall; snowstorms; and drought, wildfire and heat waves. The report includes snapshot case studies of these extreme weather events that have occurred in the U.S. since 2005, and the damage that they caused, including a case study in Delaware. We do not suggest that these extreme weather events were caused by global warming. Rather, the point of examining the recent extreme weather events – and the economic losses and other negative impacts they caused – is to document why we need to take action to protect against them, including by reducing emissions of pollutants that are changing our climate.
The contradictions and biases evidenced by my communications with Environment America are fascinating. Although they willingly admit that “we do not suggest that these extreme weather events were caused by global warming,” they are willing to assert that: (1) average planetary temperatures continue to increase; (2) the frequency and/or intensity of these events are increasing; and (3) reducing ‘climate changing’ CO2 emissions will protect against these events. I will argue that none of these assertions is true.
Conclusions
As a Delaware Native who has lived in this State for almost forty years, I care very much about the Diamond State and its ecology. I too am concerned that we act as good stewards of our environment. As a scientist, I have spent my entire professional career studying weather and climate and trying to understand climate change processes. I am therefore outraged when I see outright misstatements of fact being used for political gain. My concern is that there has been no significant increase in extreme weather – just an increase in its coverage with a more global media and an increase in its hype due to the political ramifications that climate change can have.
Environment America’s claim that the alleged increase in extreme weather events can be alleviated by taking action to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide is unfounded. These events have not been increasing in either frequency or intensity and they are clearly not linked to increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide. Limiting carbon dioxide emissions will have no effect at all on the frequency or intensity of these events. Unfortunately the negative ramifications of attempting to limit such emissions will be far too real. Our best solution is to make the public more aware of these dangers, provide more timely detection and dissemination of potential extreme weather hazards (in which the National Weather Service and several State agencies have been actively engaged), and encourage people to stop building in hazardous locations, thereby putting the existing population more at risk.
See detailed analysis of all the weather threats claimed by Environment America and other environmental groups, psuedoscientists and mainstream media alarmists here.
It is clear these groups and their media messengers are uninterested in facts or the truth just in communicating the scare message that they think will bring their movement to success. This is just another example of the blatant hypocrisy that the public must be made aware of.
And so goes the NEW Global Climate Disruption mantra.
I wonder when these people and similar organizations will be taken to court for fraud, misrepresentation, misappropriation of fund etc.
If we don’t hear it, we don’y have to report it.
Anthony, you’ve duplicated the article!
Cheers, John
REPLY: It’s a weird “feature” of how some HTML is formatted, when pasted in, WP duplicates it. Fixed. -A
When their backside does freeze,
A blessed beast they shall seize,
From the latter they shall warm themselves,
As the rolling blackouts caress the Delaware.
I am incensed at the lies and hypocracy and blatant attempts to silence proper discussion that we see from the warmist camp and all their acolytes. Further words fail me.
Lawrence Solomon: “The art of the green disinvite”
Seems to happen to Lawrence Solomon, a sceptic and journalist for the National Post in Canada:
http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/02/28/lawrence-solomon-the-art-of-the-green-disinvite.aspx
More interesting reading from Mr. Solomon here:
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/tags/Lawrence+Solomon/default.aspx
Mr. Solomon, you probably read this blog on a regular basis. I hope that you don’t mind me posting these links.
Dictators also don’t invite sceptics of their ideas to their rallys either.
From Hitler to Stalin, Fidel Castro to Kim Il Sung, only one view is allowed and that is strict adherance to the party line.
AGW ‘climate science’ has no place for critics or the truth.
Unbelievable
From the above report ms. leone said
Quote
We do not suggest that these extreme weather events were caused by global warming. ……… – is to document why we need to take action to protect against them, including by reducing emissions of pollutants that are changing our climate.
Unquote
Direct contradiction in consecutive sentences.
Thats it, enough, I am off to bed.
Exactly what happened at the Villach Conference in 1985. Almost no one was invited who was not “on the same page” with the premise of global warming.
That is how “consensus” is created – exclude the non-consensus consensus.
Inconvenient Climatologists here-ask George Taylor former Oregon State Climatologist.
Gibbeted by Kolongougmi and co. (our soon to be former governor) for climate heresy…
It’s pure [snip]
Also read red redemption of the fate of the world: http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/09/red-redemption-fate-of-world.html
These people have the evil intent to pull the plug on human civilization reducing our numbers and living standards.
Time to wake up and grab them by the troat.
No sense, or science will sway them. Their minds are made up, and the blinkers are on, and like ostriches their heads are firmly in the sand, their fingers in their ears, and “la la la” issues forth from their mouths. There’s no point in trying to convince them otherwise, they’re not listening.
Bravo, Dr. Legates. You personify the word “integrity.”
The name surfacetemperatures.org has obviously been chosen deliberately to cause as much confusion as possible; just like the “skepticalscience” blog is a deliberate misnomer. It seems to be one of their prime motives to try to control the flow of information by placing sock puppets wherever they can. It looks orchestrated to me.
(they = the movers and shakers of the peer-reviewed climatard consensus)
I read about this report in a Google News story a couple of weeks ago and saw this claim:
Which is misleading because the Saffir-Simpson scale was not even used until the mid-70s. It seems pretty clear that this report is intentionally alarmist in order to appeal to government policy makers. As the news story states:
http://www.doverpost.com/communities/x907383491/Group-warns-global-warming-promotes-severe-weather
The full Environment America report can be downloaded in pdf format from their web site:
http://www.environmentamerica.org/home/reports/report-archives/global-warming-solutions/global-warming-solutions/global-warming-and-extreme-weather-the-science-the-forecast-and-the-impacts-on-america
I attended an event I heard about in an AP news item that said “Environment New Hampshire is releasing a new report Wednesday [Sep 8] it said shows how global warming cold [sic] lead to extreme weather in the future.”
I hunted down “ENH” and found where and when the press conference was, and whipped up http://wermenh.com/climate/enh_2010.html guessing what the report’s content might be. I was a bit concerned that mine spilled into non-NH events, but that was okay – the report was not by ENH, but by Environment America (EA). More precisely, it appears to be from the Frontier Group for EA. The report is online at http://www.frontiergroup.org/ and at
http://www.environmentamerica.org/home/reports/report-archives/global-warming-solutions/global-warming-solutions/global-warming-and-extreme-weather-the-science-the-forecast-and-the-impacts-on-america
The latter link has a report with EA’s logo, the report they handed out at the NH press conference has ENH’s logo.
The ENH coordinator (I think the only person on the payroll) was quite concerned when she read through my handout, but I assured her I had no plans to disrupt things, I just wanted to make sure both sides were represented.
The report is of little interest and has nothing new in it, but does have a good list of references. It garnered very little news coverage in New Hampshire. (I.e. http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/news/851599-196/wacky-weather-is-hot-topic.html is the only story I’ve found) Kevin Trenberth won the first acknowledgment for no apparent reason. My handout wound up being an almost perfect counterpoint to their report. Like the EA report, my report is of little interest and has nothing new in it, and my references are just links to other pages.
So, all this was a coordinated effort by EA, their parent organizations, and the 50+ Environment chapters (there’s an Environment DC, maybe others). That structure is actually more interesting than their report. I expect to write a post about that in my copious free time.
REPLY: looking forward to it – Anthony
Why would anyone want a debate unless everyone was on the same page?
evanmjones @ September 25, 2010 at 12:48 pm
ROTFLMAO. Why indeed!
To disinvite was not an art taught where I went to school. Does this unthinkable action on its own not tell one what sort of people the leading warmists are?
We are fortunate (in a sense) to have witnessed the birth of an entire new religion, its method of conversion, the devotedness of its followers, the ease of its acceptance, together with what is now apparent in all faiths, a complete refusal to contemplate an alternative view contrary to the entrenched doctrine. It is in keeping, even duty that unbelievers, heretics, charlatans and those who sow doubt are kept at bay. This religious- like phenomena is well known to the psychologists and human behavior practitioners and is almost certainly deployed in the “gentle” art of mass public persuasion. It’s too bad that we will have to endure another reformation.
” I’ll take Environmental fascism with a side order of science for $500, Alex “.
“Double Jeopardy !”
Rep. John Kowalko, D-Newark, who joined Leone in unveiling the report in Dover, said he’s convinced the weather is changing dramatically.
“We’ve had floods they call 100-year events as many as five times since I’ve been in office,” said Kowalko, who chairs the House Energy Committee. “Anyone who wants to deny it’s controlled by climate change is frankly off their rocker.”
_____________________________________________________________
Any chance that ever-increasing human infrastructure is inhibiting the ground’s ability to absorb rainfall to the extent that the effects of lesser events are mimicking 100-year floods?
Or am I “off my rocker”? (:-
This is going on all over the world! Environmental advocacy groups, under the fraudulent guise of science, are cherry picking their contributors and black-balling their critics in order to mis-inform their largely hand picked audience(s) and the public at large via bullshit press releases which a combination of sympathetic and incompetent media are trotting out as facts.
If this was war we would be entitled to shoot them as enemy propagandists. Is is a war?
evanmjones says:
September 25, 2010 at 12:48 pm
Why would anyone want a debate unless everyone was on the same page?
LOL
Found this on ICECAP.
I’m not sure how you debate this?
Ot but I think this is why all a sudden a lot of climate scientist are changing their tune re sun, negative feedback etc and why journals Nature etc are following quickly as many may end up in legal trouble
http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2010/09/23/23climatewire-rep-issa-would-lead-climategate-probe-if-hou-44766.html
“ This is just another example of the blatant hypocrisy that the public must be made aware of.”
Take a bow Mr Watts. Thanks to you and your fine, fair and talented moderators, and quality guest posters such as in this article, the “public” is indeed being aptly informed.
Equal time rather assumes equal competency. The first amendment should not control scientific discourse. You do not have equal rights when it comes to knowledge and understanding. Get over it!
It is not now, nor has it ever been, about balance. The whole “the debate is settled” meme should have made that abundantly clear to all. According to Mr. Gore the “settling” of the debate occurred back in the late 1980’s – long before any real assessment of the issue was made.
If you don’t agree, you have to find your own venue as the science societies and national bodies are being run by Gore associates and appointees. If you want to publish you must first run the gauntlet of “peers” who have huge vested interests in assuring that their grants keep coming in.
No, this is neither balanced, nor really a debate – and not even really about science at all. Thank goodness for the internet and the rise of blogs, otherwise we would not have any venue to counter the propaganda that has replaced science in the age of Gore.
@ John R. Walker says:
September 25, 2010 at 2:27 pm
………………………………….If this was war we would be entitled to shoot them as enemy propagandists. Is is a war?
Not yet,imo. But that largely depends on your definition of war.
“The first amendment should not control scientific discourse. You do not have equal rights when it comes to knowledge and understanding. ”
Rather reminds me of a particularly self-Authoritative CAGW advocate with whom I conversed at some length.
He was of the opinion that the consensus of the settled science proved its accuracy, and kept informing me that “The scientists decide what science is “.
I said then and I say now, “wrong, it has to work” .
The half-baked CAGW theories do not work, but people sure do get riled up trying to defend them.
For years climatologist and scientist Patrick Michaels was State Climatologist of Virginia; he dared to question CAGW rather pointedly in writing and was relieved of his position by Gov. Tim Kaine, now Chairman of the Democratic National Committee. I believe Michaels now writes for the Cato Institute and is a distinguished faculty member in the School of Public Policy at George Mason University here in Virginia.
Some knowledge on climate change and weather is more equal than others.
Meeting up with the billions poured forth in the promise to ‘study climate change’.
The $$ was never for study, it’s real purpose being to push the agenda as hard as possible.
The Agenda being to terminate and put an end to the use of fossil fuels in America by all but the elite.
It ran along the same lines as Healthcare and Amnesty, meeting up with widespread revulsion.
The Agenda now sits dead in the water, after the insulting and brassy display of push-legislation over Healthcare.
The latest stunt is to twist up the surfacestation.org findings to resell as the bogus climate disruption theme.
November. Payback.
The un-invite was signed “warmist regards”.
Ken Harvey says:
September 25, 2010 at 1:12 pm
You are assuming that the invitation was was extended and revoked by a leading warmist, but presenting no evidence who that might be.
Given the size of the Environment New Hampshire organization, I assume that Environment Delaware is no bigger. In fact, while EnvironmentDelaware.org is a valid domain, there is no web site behind it.
Through Google, I found some Twitter posts for Hannah Leone. It appears she recently graduated from Boston Univ and moved out of Boston in August 22. Petitioning to protect the Clean Air Act in Philadelphia – Aug 27. I just finished Monday’s NYTimes crossword…this day just got infinitely better – Sep 14. She follows Environment America, Al Gore, US House & Senate, Gov Jack Markell (Delaware).
So, I believe Ms. Leone left BU, started at Environment Delaware, and her first assignment was to organize the Delaware press conference. Along the way, she realized that David Legates is the “wrong” sort of environmentalist.
No leading warmist necessary, give the poor kid a break. Better, give her lunch: “Bio: I’m an environmentalist who loves music, comedy, and a mean grilled cheese sandwich.” Ah -she also follows Stephen Colbert.
David Ball says:
September 25, 2010 at 5:24 pm
> The un-invite was signed “warmist regards”.
Very good!
The latest repackaging is still a very hard sell in this most difficult economic time.
The ultimate aim of climate disruption theory is no different than AGW or Climate Change.
Would you vote for someone who is going to turn off the power, shut down transportation and drive the country back to the 19th Century?
Agenda may go under the bus in desperate moves to stay in office.
This is a good read….and he starts out with a scathing recount of the incident:
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/ExtremeWeatherinDelaware.pdf
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Isn’t saying “snapshot case studies” a little redundant? I know you didn’t write that part, but I am just wondering aloud if buzz-words have finally destroyed the English language?
Same Hannah Leone??
Are we at liberty now to refer to this action as:-
The Delaware Incident
Trevor Pugh says:
September 25, 2010 at 3:50 pm
“Equal time rather assumes equal competency. The first amendment should not control scientific discourse. You do not have equal rights when it comes to knowledge and understanding. Get over it!”
Precisely the type of arrogance and lack of any sort of humility which has completely destroyed public confidence in our scientists and scientific institutions.
It reminds me so much of the attitude I’ve seen in from people in religious cults. They will not tolerate anyone questioning their beliefs and walk around with an air of smugness, confident that they have the answers that no one else is capable of coming up with.
Either that or your simply trolling.
Thanks to Save the Sharks for the link.
When is this famous global warming debate supposed to have taken place? – who were the participants?
I always understood that for a debate you need motions for and against. There have only been monologues as far as I can see.
The worst is that David Legates’ paper deals with vital issues should surely be of primary interest to environmentalists and ought to have had its place in the conference.
Failing that, Hannah Leone could now convene another conference on land and water use in Delaware and invite David Legates. Shame on her if she doesn’t.
Oops … that should be of … Why is there no way of previewing and and correcting posts on WUWT?
Dear Mr. Legates,
Did you not get the memo? Here it is again;
“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”
Cheers,
Napoleon,
Animal Farm,
Utopia.
The AGW social movement allows people to do this because they are virtuous people practicing virtuous science.
Following the trend, it’s best if we leave the rabble out, that way the media sopped down story can play to the consensus nonsense. Why not just try open science for once, and let the chips fall where they may. Hey I thought that was real science, search for truth, not support agendas.
“My concern is that there has been no significant increase in extreme weather – just an increase in its coverage with a more global media and an increase in its hype due to the political ramifications that climate change can have.”
Clearly, this is incorrect. I hear we will soon be having extreme Fall-like conditions:
Times are a changing,
Delaware’s Republican candidate counts political cost of climate support.
Republican hopefuls deny global warming
All but one of the 48 Republican hopefuls for the Senate mid-term elections in November deny the existence of climate change or oppose action on global warming, according to a report released today.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/sep/14/republican-hopefuls-deny-global-warming
It is time! We the people will have to replace them, it can be done.
Bruce Cobb:
September 26, 2010 at 8:00 am
Thank you Mr. Cobb. A wonderful reality check.
“…unfettered by equal time”
What makes you think you deserve any time at all?
REPLY: Because in the case of the Exeter meeting (which we were also excluded from)
1) They use our data
2) They use our graphs
3) They use our photos
The entire meeting revolves around the topic of metadata, which is what the surfacestations project is all about. In Legates case, the man is the state climatologist. Surely his opinion and data counts for something, unless the whole point is to prevent people from hearing his view. Of course, for “repellent” academic cowards such as yourself, rationalizing the need for exclusion is easy. – Anthony Watts
rbateman says:
September 25, 2010 at 6:54 pm
“[…] Would you vote for someone who is going to turn off the power, shut down transportation and drive the country back to the 19th Century? […]”
People are busy. Life was comfortable for just about everyone until recently. People weren’t paying much attention. Then when wallets started to get squeezed (joblessness does have a tendency to concentrate the mind) people started paying attention. They don’t have money for frivolities and they darn-sure don’t want the gum’mint wasting money.
The U.S. November elections should be interesting. The elections may prove you to be correct. I know how I’ll be voting.
RW says:
September 26, 2010 at 10:45 am
“What makes you think you deserve any time at all?”- The hubris is nauseating, especially coming from academia. It is like when a police officer commits a crime. Seems doubly wrong.
Science may not be settled, but the dictatorship is.
I see peer review by [snip] has remained the choice of Climate (whatever the term is today). Nothing has changed, the agenda remains…
hunter says:
September 26, 2010 at 4:16 am
The AGW social movement allows people to do this because they are virtuous people practicing virtuous science.
……………………………………………………………………………………….
I haven laughed so hard in a while… Virtuous??…BWahahahahahahaahaha
From Robuk on September 26, 2010 at 8:04 am:
Which sounds amazing since only 1/3 of the 100 Senate seats are up for election every two years. They’re counting those running for the nomination as well. Oh look, Mike Castle of Delaware was that one lone Republican. And guess who lost his nomination fight?
Curious. Is this a simple mistake, or some sort of Freudian slip and/or frank admission? It says at the start of the article:
At the end it says:
Very curious indeed. ☻
“No statement should be believed because it is made by an authority.”
— Robert A. Heinlein
“Equal time rather assumes equal competency.” Are you claiming Al Gore’s scientific competency matches that of degreed scientists? Or are you saying that you have to be competent to recognize spin?
Extreme weather events are not caused by global warming but cutting down on ‘pollutants’ will prevent climate change. A classic example of double think! I’m not the first to say it but it bears repeating, George Orwell’s 1984 was meant to be a warning not an instruction manual.
David W says: “Precisely the type of arrogance and lack of any sort of humility which has completely destroyed public confidence in our scientists and scientific institutions.”
Last time I checked, science wasn’t a matter of public option.
What truly stuns me is the arrogance of a general public that has been so badly educated they couldn’t tell bad science if it arrived on their door step smelling of fetid cheese.
This is not a court of law, where both the truth and lies get equal time.