I laughed out loud when I read the press release. Romm just can’t stand the fact that we are in Washington, which he considers his turf, so he had to do something, anything. Heh. Gosh a conference call where he’ll diss “deniers”. How original, we get this 24/7 already. But at least there’s some legitimizing going on in the attacking of it. So thanks, Joe. See what Caruba says in the essay. – Anthony
Guest post by by Alan Caruba
In the words of Gandhi, “First they ignore you, then they mock you, then they fight you, then you win.”
Thursday, June 30, will mark the beginning of the Sixth International Conference on Climate Change, sponsored by The Heartland Institute, a free market policy center headquartered in Chicago. The conference will be held in Washington, D.C., an appropriate location considering how much hot air emanates from Congress and the White House.
I attended the first conferences that took place in New York City, just across the river from where I live, so I was “there at the beginning” for conferences that were, in the words of Gandhi, largely ignored by the mainstream media and subsequently mentioned but only as the object of mockery.
When, in 2009, emails exchanged between a handful of scientists who provided the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change with the most specious, deliberately duplicitous “data” to prop up the “global warming” hoax were revealed, the whole house of cards began to collapse.
It has since been propped up by a bunch of media, political, and science dead-enders who had stacked their reputations on pulling off the great hoax of the modern era; that an infinitesimal amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere—0.038 percent—was causing the Earth to heat up, the seas to rise, and Minnie Mouse to announce she was pregnant.
The success of the forthcoming conference, however, has been blessed by the modern form of respect, a preemptory news release attacking it. The Center for American Progress issued a “press call advisory” titled “Climate Deniers Congregate in the Nation’s Capital.”
It began, “The Heartland Institute, a conservative group funded by Exxon Mobil and Charles Koch…” Whoa! Mr. Chairman, we rise to question why the Center for American Progress would engage in an outright lie? Answer: That’s what progressives do because they are immune to the truth.
For the record, neither Exxon Mobil, nor Mr. Koch, has contributed to the cost of the conference. The former has not contributed to the Institute since 2006 and the Kochs have not sent any money in more than a decade.
But let’s finish the Center’s opening sentence that characterized the conference as “boasting a full agenda of notable climate deniers.” The term climate deniers has long been attached to any scientist, academic, politician, or commentator such as myself who had the temerity to point out that every single claim made on behalf of “global warming” was pure horse-hockey.
Since 1998 we have been discussing the new climate cycle, a COOLING one!
The Center for American Progress sought to make light of the conferences’ theme, “Restoring the Scientific Method.” And a damn fine theme it is considering the damage to the entire scientific community that, prior to the global warming hoax, was not famous for deciding what the truth was by “consensus.”
Real science still depends on peer review and the thorough testing of a hypothesis until it can no longer be disputed because it is reproducible. You can say the Earth is flat until you are blue in the face, but it is still round. The “warmists”, however, did everything they could to short-circuit this rigorous process.
The Center for American Progress is concerned that the forthcoming conference asserts that “global warming is not a crisis” and it will be devoted to “ending global warming alarmism” and “disputing that global warming is man-made.”
Would someone please tell the Center that the Earth is now more than a decade into a perfectly natural cooling cycle and that mankind does not control the sun, the oceans, the clouds, the volcanoes, or any climate event? Whenever a tsunami, blizzard, or tornado occurs, Mother Nature’s advice to mankind is “Get out of the way!”
Since I am loath to travel further these days than the Bagel Chateau one town over from where I reside, I shall be watching the conference on streaming video, June 30 to July 1. It should be noted that, in addition to a roster of some of the world’s most respected climate scientists who will make presentations, the Institute has routinely invited some of the most prominent alarmists—warmists—to participate.
A recent Forbes article noted that “a virtual Who’s Who of global warming media hounds” had been invited to participate in the conferences over the years. Conference coordinator, James Taylor, the Institute’s senior fellow for environment policy, said that Al Gore, James Hansen, Michael Mann and others “all seem to have some sort of scheduling conflict whenever they have to share the stage with a scientist who will be challenging their evidence.”
Meanwhile, the egregiously misnamed Center for American Progress will hold a conference call on Wednesday to launch an attack on the conference. No longer ignored or mocked, the Heartland Institute and its conference are clearly on the winning side.
Funeral ceremonies for “global warming” will follow with the mourners all wearing green.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Mod: In the 6th paragraph you write “dead-enders who had stacked their reputations”
Don’t you mean “staked their reputation”?
Hey MR, there’s a reason why you attack the messenger rather than dealing with the science.
Four ounces of swimming pool dye is enough to change the color of a 20,000 gallon pool. I think 55 gallons of ink would be overkill! The swimming pool dye does filter out of the system in about a week. I’m not sure about the ink, but I wouldn’t dump it in my pool. I guess that’s kind of analogous to CO2 being filtered/absorbed into the biosphere and eventually sequestered in carbonaceous rocks. There are still plenty of unanswered questions about that process. How the earth works as a “filter” is big question and the science certainly isn’t settled.
James Sexton says:
June 27, 2011 at 11:05 pm
Last time MR was given a time out, MR’s brother started posting, asking us why we were so mean to MR. Oddly enough, the brother posted from the same IP address.
The Center for American Communist Progress seem to employ all types of socialists from the far left socialists to the moderate republicans, err socialists on the wrong side of right to the left.
What you want to do is, collect their numbers, reprogram you phones to have them redirect incoming calls to someone that is more cranky about prank calls from communists than even the director of FBI, yes that’s right, the head janitor of the CIA.
The reason that alarmists won’t hold debates with skeptics is that the skeptics would win. It’s that simple.
If John Q Public sees a skeptic poke a hole in an alarmist argument he thinks the alarmist must have thought of that so he gives the alarmist the benefit of the doubt.
When the spokesman for the alarmists has no rebuttal that makes sense John Q looses faith in the alarmist position.
Despite 5 years of asking I have never discovered why if CO2 followed temperature by 800 years alarmists think it caused significant warming.
CO2 is a GHG and CO2 was there so it MUST have caused warming but was it .01 ° C or .001 or .0001 ° C ? Without measurements alarmists cannot talk about the subject intelligently. No measurements are possible or else they would take ice core samples for the last 120 years and tell us how much warming CO2 caused during that period.
This gaping hole in the CAGW argument caused my first skepticism.
JimboW says:
June 27, 2011 at 11:35 pm
For an analogy, 0.038% is about the same concentration you would get from tipping a 44 gallon drum of black ink into an olympic size swimming pool. Anyone like to bet that the transparency of the pool to white light would not change fairly strongly?
Bad analogy, JimboW, for two reasons: 1) The light-blocking effect of the ink would, presumably, have a linear relationship, whereas the warming effect of C02 appears to be pretty much logarithmic, and 2) black ink would accurately be described as a pollutant, whereas calling C02 one is incorrect.
Let’s stop giving the alarmists free kicks.
Yes, let’s.
The author writes:
“Funeral ceremonies for “global warming” will follow with the mourners all wearing green.”
I hope that it is not that tasteless green that the Greens wear. It should be a dark green suggesting black.
Attending a funeral ceremony for “global warming” could be greatly rewarding. There could be great speeches about the achievements of Al Gore, Joe Romm, and others. We could watch Joe Romm turn ever redder until he finally explodes before our eyes. All the Warmista media personalities could pontificate tearfully. Not an event to be missed.
“JimboW says:
June 27, 2011 at 11:35 pm”
Bad analogy. Human contribution is only ~3% of that 44 gallon drum of ink in the pool.
JimboW says:
June 27, 2011 at 11:35 pm
For an analogy, 0.038% is about the same concentration you would get from tipping a 44 gallon drum of black ink into an olympic size swimming pool. Anyone like to bet that the transparency of the pool to white light would not change fairly strongly?
——————–
I appreciate what you’re saying, but this is a really poor analogy. We’re not increasing the amount of CO2 from 0% to
0.038%. Actually, I’m not sure it would have a big difference when mixed up, even if starting with a 0% concentration of ink. So it would be interesting to find out. Which would be better, through experimentation and observation or by creating an expensive computer model to predict it? Perhaps it wasn’t a bad analogy after all? 🙂
I actually think pointing out the numbers in these terms is a good way of bringing people round to our point of view. There’s that much people who don’t look into it don’t have a clue and if asked would probably put a much higher number on it. I beleive there was a poll that asked this question and many people where way off. Then if you look at CO2 levels on a geological scale and how they have been much higher etc. people start to question things.
Bruce Cobb says:
June 28, 2011 at 6:11 am
“Bad analogy, JimboW, for two reasons: 1) The light-blocking effect of the ink would, presumably, have a linear relationship, ”
I don’t think so. Imagine a number of light-blocking black particles randomly distributed in the pool; and imagine how much more light they would block if their number doubled, doubled again, etc. As the number of particles grows, they would more and more frequently stand in each others way from your point of view. So the”blackness” must grow logarithmically.
A better analogy than black ink in a swimming pool would be fog that becomes denser and denser; as fog, like CO2, re-emits the light it receives. (This is why Dessler’s favorite term “heat-trapping gases” is not describing the phenomenon very well, to be polite).
From the Press Call,
The conference will begin with Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK), who declared that global warming is “the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people” in 2003 and described it as “hysteria” in 2008. Sen. Inhofe continues disputing the science, backing legislation that would strip the EPA of their authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions and ignoring the extreme storms, flooding, droughts, and rising sea levels that the world has been experiencing.
And they say this like it’s wrong?
The left and right are just the different faces of the same coin. They are both one and the same group working in a circular motion from the “liberal” and “conservative” sides of a circle and the plan is to meet at the same point. People who refuse to see this happily battle their opponents’ side while the shepherds are winking and nodding and exchanging notes about the simplicity of fooling the divided masses.
Perhaps “Moderate Republican” will release all of (his/her/it’s) funding sources…
Since they realize climate zones have not changed one iota and temperature rise is well within the natural weather pattern variations historically observed within these climate zones, they will have to fall back on weather events. They accuse Inhofe of “…backing legislation that would strip the EPA of their authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions and ignoring the extreme storms, flooding, droughts, and rising sea levels that the world has been experiencing.”
If they play that hand, they will lose. Why? The role anthropogenic CO2 plays in weather events cannot be established and their theory is nothing but pure conjecture.
They have just cut off their nose to spite their face.
Coincidence or conspiracy? Romm’s name is also an acronym for Risk Of Material Misstatement. Heh.
Mods: IMO, The entry of MR has significantly lowered the quality of discussion on this blog. While I welcome intelligent debate, (and have seen plenty here), the incessant repetition of stuff that has been gone over, debated, debunked and refuted previously is downright annoying.
While it may be educational for some to see this behavior, it is quite tiring to me.
For the first time since I started reading WUWT, I am NOT checking the “Notify me of follow-up” option.
It is good to see that some are willing to discuss ALL the issues, whether they like them or not. I thought that was the way science was supposed to work – until Climategate taught me differently.
The Centre for American Progress – Progressing America to become a land
that is Strong, Just and Freeof Aristocrats, Enforcers, and Serfs.In the face of unwarranted nit-picking,I feel it necessary to write to support JimboW.
Regardless of how good/bad an analog black-ink-in-swimming-pool is for CO2-in-atmosphere,he quite correctly asserts the stupidity of voicing a dismissal of CO2 purely on it’s diminutive atmospheric concentration.
Is Romm masquerading as this “Moderate Republican” guy?? Sure seems like it.
KV,
CO2 is not colourless in some IR bands, which is the point of relevance and why it does, ceteris paribus, cause warming. The relevance of it being odourless, exhaled by all, essential to plant life etc. is not clear to me. Perhaps you can enlighten me.
From your second paragraph I see that you seem to be keen on giving the other side some more free kicks, with the old “it’s just a coincidence that CO2 has skyrocketed since we started burning all that fossil fuel. The rise in CO2 ain’t us” line. Why can’t we remain focussed on real stuff, like the hockey stick fraud, the totally unjustified assumption that water vapour / clouds come out as a net positive rather than negative feed back, the failure of models to match observations over the last decade etc. Its not like we don’t have enough good stuff to go with, without looking for skydragons to slay.
Bruce Cobb,
“…The light-blocking effect of the ink would, presumably, have a linear relationship…”. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about, and I’m not wasting time to explain it to you, beyond suggesting the concept of “saturation” might be useful if you want to put in the work.
“…black ink would accurately be described as a pollutant, whereas calling C02 one is incorrect…”. OK, you have clearly missed the entire point of the analogy. Lets replace that nasty black ink with a health giving red ink, which does nothing but benefricial effects on anyone and anything which comes in contact with it. The only point relevant to the CO2 analogy is the redness of the pool, not its other side-effects. Understand?
Your “point” was the equivalent of that made by someone who, when asked for a survival strategy after a hypothetical plane crash in Amazon, answers by saying they wouldn’t be in a plane over the Amazon. Probably true, but utterly irrelevant.
I don’t know why anyone gives a rodent’s posterior about MR and his basement pal. Ignore them; both are beneath contempt
CenteR for American Progress = CRAP
Works for me.
You ask:
Oh, they read every word of your article and every reply by us contributors. The problem is, they’re so imbued with falsehoods they wouldn’t know sunshine from shinola. They’ve spent their professional careers distorting so many facts and so much logic they probably don’t know the difference anymore–why, they’re so bent they probably couldn’t sit up straight in their chairs without considerable pain. I’m betting once they eventually figure out the earth is cooling, we’ll hear a new meme–that the Earth is Cooling! Even so, it will be our fault; humans will be the cause–Yup, the big Climate Change Roller Coaster is all your fault and mine. They must have SOMETHING to stay in the game; somebody’s got to shoulder the blame!