Oregon Museum of Science and Industry denial backfires – big crowd in Portland hears all about climate change skepticism

Main entrance to Oregon Museum of Science and ...

OMSI - Image via Wikipedia

Readers may recall when I took OMSI to task for being debate deniers. That didn’t work out so well for OMSI what with the negative publicity and the packed room last night. Wish I could have been there. If anyone has this on video, please upload to YouTube and send a link – Anthony

Presentation by global warming skeptics draws big crowd in Portland

Written by Scott Learn, The Oregonian | January 26 2012

More than 400 people jammed into a Portland hotel ballroom Wednesday night to hear a panel of global warming skeptics assert that manmade increases in greenhouse gases are not driving climate change.

The event, hosted by the 150-member Oregon chapter of the American Meteorological Society, was open to the general public and drew an attentive and mostly sympathetic audience. Chapter President Steve Pierce asked for a show of hands beforehand, then estimated that 90 percent of the crowd favored the statement that human activities are not the main cause of global warming.

Three Oregon-based panelists — physicist Gordon Fulks, meteorologist Chuck Wiese and former Oregon state climatologist George Taylor — used long- and short-term temperature measurements and other data to bolster their case.

Skepticism about climate models was prominent, particularly given a general flattening of temperatures since 1998, a relatively warm El Nino year. Water vapor, sun cycles and natural weather patterns are more powerful in changing climate than increases in carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels, the panelists said.

“The effects of future changes in CO2 are likely to be modest and manageable,” said Taylor, who added that Northwest records do not indicate that temperatures have risen or snowpack has fallen, subjects of substantial debate.

The Oregon AMS moved the presentation to the Portland Airport Shilo Inn after the Oregon Museum of Science and Industry canceled it in November for lack of balance, and the ensuing controversy likely boosted in interest in the event.

“Thank you OMSI,” Wiese said, surveying the crowd. “This turnout is absolutely fantastic.”

Full story at Oregon Live: Presentation by global warming skeptics draws big crowd in Portland

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Mark Johnson

My family is originally from Oregon. I went to college there and travel to Portland twice or more each year. Environmentalists have has convinced many Oregonians that their future depends on marketing their community to the world as “hip” and “green”. Virtually all institutions in state, including OMSI embrace this view. I pity Oregonians. Their taxes are high and their economic growth is stagnant. That said, Mr. Taylor and company deserve strong support. Looks like they are opening a few eyes.

G. Karst

The word backfire, implies some splash-back on to the Oregon Museum of Science and Industry. I don’t see any here. Too bad. They deserve a rap on the knuckles. GK

crosspatch

Environmentalists have has convinced many Oregonians that their future depends on marketing their community to the world as “hip” and “green”.

It isn’t as bad as you think. That attitude is limited to about 10 counties. I think as they experience being ripped off enough times, their attitudes will change. That will happen even faster if climate cools off. If you remove the area around Eugene and Portland, Oregon is actually surprisingly conservative.

AGW Theory loses everywhere it is debated. That’s why pro-AGW folks refuse to debate.
Step #1: Ignore the Science (Do not admit there is a possible opposite point of view.)
Step #2: Attack the Denier. (Discredit their credentials, accuse them of all that your side is accused of)
Step #3: Repeat the Mantra. (Its worse than we thought!)

greenurbangirl

I attended a meeting recently about how to inspire change in individuals and in companies. One of the women there was a writer who attended a climate skeptics conference to see what the issues were. It appears that nobody at the conference denied the impact of human activities on climate. What they appeared to be taking issue with was the fact that this news may change the way they live which is frightening for those who are change adverse (across all party lines). I am not sure what the tone of this conference was but it is something to keep in mind that 99.9% of all scientists agree that human activities have impacted the climate. This conference may have simply been hiding another issue all together under the guise of anti-climate change.

Brian in Bellingham

I sent Steve Pierce an email asking that he makes the video available. They usually tape their events, so I am guessing there will be video.

noaaprogrammer

It’s going to take a few more of these types of gatherings to get the word out there to the general public. The suggested format would be: Try to book a place that would refuse. Get the publicity in the local newspaper. Book another place, and expect a larger crowd.

Brian in Bellingham

I just saw this from Steve Pierce, as quoted in the Columbian Newspaper.
“We plan to have all of last night’s presentations uploaded to the Oregon AMS website within the next 48 hours, along with a complete video of the meeting to follow that. ”
http://www.ametsoc.org/chapters/oregon/
So stay tuned.

Mark Johnson

Crosspatch is correct as to the ten counties. But the problem is that most of the population lives in those counties.

I would expect the AMS to disband this rogue Oregon Chapter within the next few days…

Rick K

greenurbangirl, I think you may find your figure of “99.9% of all scientists agree that human activities have impacted the climate” is a little high.
But that depends on your definition of ‘impacted,’ ‘climate’ and ‘99.9%.’

Ken Smith

greenurbangirl wrote:
“I am not sure what the tone of this conference was but it is something to keep in mind that 99.9% of all scientists agree that human activities have impacted the climate.”
Strictly speaking, probably 100% of scientists believe that human activities have had climatic impact. And I’d even guess that 100% of readers and supporters of Watt’s Up With That agree “that human activities have impacted the climate.” I certainly agree with it.
In fact, I’ve been reading this blog for over three years and never have I come across a single suggestion that human activity does not have climate impact. In fact, one of Anthony’s main themes has been to demonstrate that local climates in urban areas (where the vast majority of temperature recording stations are located) have warmed dramatically as a result of local man-made conditions. Oddly enough, many of those who disagree most vehemently with Anthony have attempted to deny or minimize this dramatic localized warming.
So the issue is not whether human beings have caused climatic changes or will continue to do so in the future. The core issue centers around claims that these man-made changes 1) are globally significant and measurable, and/or discernible from ever-present background climate change not caused by humans; 2) pose dangerous large-scale risk to human beings and to ecological systems; 3) are subject to prevention or reduction by either national or global efforts to reduce CO2 emissions.
There are many scientists who would answer “yes” to some or all of these questions, and many who would answer “no” to some or all of them. I appreciate this forum–despite its weaknesses–as a place where interested persons from a wide array of backgrounds can learn and question and offer their perspectives. greenurbangirl, I hope you stick around. Thanks for the post.
Ken in North Dakota

Jeff in Calgary

greenurbangirl says:
January 26, 2012 at 12:19 pm

So let me see. You were at some meeting where some lady said she was at a different meeting where she perceived that it seemed most people believed AGW but were adverse to change. Now that is believable! You must be new here. You may not realize but that whole “99.9% of scientists” comment has been thoroughly trashed years ago. No one who studies the facts believes that still.

Robert Austin

greenurbangirl says:
January 26, 2012 at 12:19 pm
Straw man argument alert. Skeptics generally accept that mankind has some influence on climate through aerosol emissions, agriculture, urbanization and even emissions of so called greenhouse gases. So in that way skeptics agree with your alleged 99.9% of all scientists. What skeptics are skeptical of is the claimed sensitivity to doubling of CO2 concentration and the seeming irrational fixation on hypothetical bad effects from CO2 concentration increase to the exclusion of positive effects of an increase in CO2. So your post reveals that you really did not learn how to “inspire change in individuals” at this meeting, at least not in knowledgeable individuals who have been observing the global warming/climate change/ climate disruption circus for a while.

@greenurbangirl:
Please show us or direct us to the poll for the basis of your 99.9% figure cited.
While I agree that humans have had impacts (and speaking as a Civil Engineer, I know we’ve certainly made changes to the landscape), what I suggest we do not know clearly is if those impacts are (1) “significant,” (2) irreversible, or (3) overwhelming the natural systems. Take for example the item that follows this on WUWT’s main page regarding projections for the magnitude (and start date) of Solar Cycle 25. NASA scientists acknowledge that “we don’t understand” the links between variations of the sun’s cycles and Earth’s climate, but yet asserts that a practically flat Solar Cycle unlike anything we have seen in 300 years or so — three centuries — will not result in anything close to a Maunder-type Minimum.
The impression I walked away with was that despite the fact that SC 25 will probably not peak until 2030 or so, and the peak will be almost nonexistent we have nothing to fear and the world will still continue to warm. Natural forces are nothing to trifled with: there have been numerous dams, bridges, buildings and levees built that were monuments to humankind’s stupidity and arrogance, structures that failed because we did not account for the uncertainties in the [incomplete] data we had on natural systems and the fact that historical records have a beginning before which we generally have nothing on which to base our theories, leaving only conjecture and supposition.

greenurbangirl: I think some of the message was lost in translation. Skeptics of the AGW theory agree that there has been some warming over the recent decades, and we agree that humans can affect temperature through land-use changes and clever homogenization algorithms. We debate the extent of CO2 as a driver of temperature, the amount of influence man has had on climate, and the dire future predictions of the CO2 influenced climate change theory. And, after careful analysis of the research, we disagree with the PR slogan: “The Science is settled.”

G. Karst

greenurbangirl says:
January 26, 2012 at 12:19 pm
I am not sure what the tone of this conference was but it is something to keep in mind that 99.9% of all scientists agree that human activities have impacted the climate.

You are just repeating something you have been told over and over. Try investigating this statement further. Don’t simply go to your previous source for confirmation. Of course, humans can impact climate. Just not significantly from CO2 emissions. Understanding significance is the challenge. Are you up to it? GK

George E. Smith;

“”””” greenurbangirl says:
January 26, 2012 at 12:19 pm
I attended a meeting recently about how to inspire change in individuals and in companies. One of the women there was a writer who attended a climate skeptics conference to see what the issues were. It appears that nobody at the conference denied the impact of human activities on climate. What they appeared to be taking issue with was the fact that this news may change the way they live which is frightening for those who are change adverse (across all party lines). I am not sure what the tone of this conference was but it is something to keep in mind that 99.9% of all scientists agree that human activities have impacted the climate. This conference may have simply been hiding another issue all together under the guise of anti-climate change. “””””
I couldn’t agree with you more greenurbangirl, we humans have impacted the climate; and that is irrefutable.
Well Heisenberg explained to us nearly a hundred years ago that simply looking at the climate, will change it, and in ways that we can’t predict, and with our luck, they are most likely to be bad.
So all of those green Oregonians rushing around out in the wilderness, are changing the wilderness, just by being there.
So perhaps you can explain to us, just why you are greenurbangirl, and not greenruralgirl. It seems that you might be part of the problem.
A niece of mine just moved up there to provide a better life for her daughter, than her parents provided all her life for her here in California. If I told you what my niece’s husband does for a living, that enabled them to leave the sorry state of California for your green paradise; you would simply be horrified.
Talk about a total and complete waste of precious and valuable resources; with absolutely no redeeming social value whatsoever; that’s what he does, and he is very good and successful at it.
My son is studying in school to do exactly the same thing as his cousin’s husband does.

ShrNfr

@greenurbangirl: As the famous quote goes, “Where you stand is where you sit.” If you are in an urban location, the local climate has certainly been modified and modified to the warmer. You do not dump all that energy in a small area and not expect the temperature to go up. On larger scales, man made effects can take the Aral Sea and turn it into a desert. But I really think the question is one of broad impact on the order of the “Little Ice Age” or the “Medieval Warming Period”. Here I suspect you will find that many scientists, meteorologists and assorted PhDs in the field (such as myself) do not feel that man made effects are either permanent or noticeable on a mesoscale. New York City had a different local climate when I was growing up in the 1950s from where I lived 10 miles away. That difference was man made. But aside from such relatively small and potentially transient effects, I doubt that man has more influence than other factors that determine climate on a mesoscale. Sorry.

Joseph Murphy

greenurbangirl, welcome to WUWT! Diverse opinions are always welcome but be aware that many commenters here demand hard science and will jump on anything less. Enjoy the wealth of information available!

More Soylent Green!

@greenurbangirl
What human activities are impacting the environment? How much impact? A little, some or a lot? And impacting how? Does any of that mean AGW is real? Is evidence of climate change evidence of a human cause?

As usual, The Oregonian underestimated the crowd. I was there – it was about 525 attendees. The president of Oregon Chapter of AMS asked right at the beginning for a show of hands from the crowd of who believed climate change was not human caused, and over 90% of the crowd raised their hands.
http://5440fight.com/2012/01/22/cancelled-november-global-warming-meeting-at-omsi-rescheduled-for-january-25/

That’s good news from Oregon, as opposed to this:
Climate Change Lawsuit In Court In Oregon
http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/west/2012/01/25/232639.htm

bwanajohn

greenurbangirl,
Welcome to the forum. Please ignore some of the vitriol you may receive from some of the commenters as some have been viciously attacked on other sites for their “heretical” views. I think you will find most commenters and posters to be quite engaging. I would warn you that if you wish to present some statistics or scientific discourse you need to be sure you can back it up with references. Otherwise you are likely to get flamed.
Again, welcome to the fray and I hope you stick around!

John Barrett

Rick K & greenurbangirl
You see, what we are really up against is a) the misrepresentation of the sceptic viewpoint and b) the fact that there isn’t a single sceptic narrative.
I think that you will find that “everyone” believes that man-made activity has some effect on the weather/climate. It must do – the UHI phenomenon is evidence enough of that – anyone who has lived in London knows that it has a different climate to the rest of the country. Deforestation, pollution, urbanisation, intensive agriculture all have their effects on the ambient conditions.
As most sceptics are fair-minded people, if you were to pose the question “Do humans have an effect on the climate ?”, I suspect that nearly 100% will say “Yes”.
And that is where (b) comes into play: some sceptics will state that the obsession with CO2 is the problem, some will say that it is computer modelling that is at fault, some will say that the numbers and arguments are simply made-up, others will take a political stance and claim that Global Warming/Climate Change is simply the hard-left finding something to campaign with because Marxism is dead.
Climate change scepticism will never really influence policy, because it does not have a united voice, it attacks the enemy on many different fronts, but in small partisan brigades. WUWT is an excellent generalist site that covers everything, but many other sites are single-issue/specialists who cover other issues beyond their iommediate scope poorly or sparsely. There is no sceptical organisation with the lobbying and PR clout that Greenpeace has. Because many in the media are of the same left-liberal mentality, they are prepared to allow such organisations free rein with their views and make wholly false statements without challenge ( I saw just this yesterday on Austrian TV: the local petrogas firm OMV are going to start “clean-fracking” just up the road from me, but Greenpeace are determined to stop it, because it will “ruin the ground-water” and produce “dirty gas”. Nothing on the news about the local resistance to a giant windfarm that is going through the courts, though ).
This OMSI episode is the entire argument in microcosm – scepticism threatens the AGW industry and has to be stamped out. Unfortunately what many on both sides of the fence forget is that economic reality trumps everything ( Marxism again ) and the state of the economy or security of supply will really decide our future. Solar farms and windfarms, for instance, become very unattractive without subsidies in these straitened times and before anyone says that nuclear needs subsidies too, they are right. But a nuclear plant has a ROI of 20 years, after that they create megabucks in profits – which is why the German electric companies are so annoyed at Merkel, their plants are going to be shutdown at their most profitable points, but after 20 years a windfarm has fallen to pieces.

A physicist

[snip – off topic – stop thread bombing – Anthony]

Stuart Huggett

I see that a climate scientist present – Andreas Schmittner, a researcher at Oregon State University – was described as ‘the lone dissenter’. It must be weird sensation for a climate scientist to be labelled thus!!!!

Roy

@ George E. Smith
“Well Heisenberg explained to us nearly a hundred years ago that simply looking at the climate, will change it, and in ways that we can’t predict, and with our luck, they are most likely to be bad.”
Heisenberg did nothing of the sort. His uncertainty principle relates to events that happen on an atomic scale.

NetDr

greenurbangirl
I would estimate 100 % of the scientists believe mankind affects climate.
I certainly do as do Lindzen and Choi etc.
I believe AGW is a fact but mild and beneficial so far. I do not believe CAGW exists or ever will exist.
The skeptics positions are constantly misrepresented.

We know there are serious issues with the science of the warmists, issues that climate realists spend a long time exposing and debating. But realists are getting drawn into a scientific discourse of nuance and minutiae that turns off the casual observer. It’s playing into the warmists’ hands.
For many people it is all too confusing and frankly they find the subject remote and boring. Isn’t it better to focus on what is directly relevant to them in order to get them on side?
It is the cost of climate change policies, carbon taxes and trading, things such as air passenger duty, and taxpayer funded subsidy for unreliable energy generation that drive up electricity bills that make people sit up, take notice and see the warmist agenda for what it really is – something that has nothing to do with science.

David, UK

Oh great. One lame strawman comment from am obvious troll and 90-odd per cent of responses are pitched to her/him/it – when the troll will probably never return to this thread. Yawn.

A Lovell
J. Snow

We all hear what we want to hear. I hear a polite young lady who wants to make a difference and is willing to believe things she is told. She comes here and is welcomed, scolded, and put down all in the same thread. So I will add my comments, and hopefully in a nice way.
We all agree that humankind has an effect on the environment. I live in the suburbs of Phoenix AZ. I used to drive through pecan groves and cotton fields on the way to work. My house was 5-6C cooler than downtown. Now 20 years later everything is paved over with asphalt and concrete and houses are everywhere. The temperature at my house is the same as in downtown Phoenix. So yes, we humans have had an impact on the environment – especially at the local level.
What comes next are the questions: Is this bad? Is the current climate trend unprecedented in human history (think MWP and LIA)? Is manmade CO2 release going to cause catastrophic changes to the environment? Is is going to cause any change at all? Can we even know what this change is? Is this change worth decimating the world economy in an attempt to reverse? How about turning our rights and liberties over to government authorites so we can be saved (I’m from the Government and I’m here to help)? Do we have a bigger impact on our planet than the oceans? vocanoes? clouds? the jetstream? the sun?
We know that 13,000 years ago the earth began to warm and we came out of the last great ice age. Human caused or a natural variation in the earth’s climate? Is the warming of the last 30 years (if any) really a more unprecedented change than hundreds of miles of glacier recession?
We skeptics want answers to these questions. We question the motivation of those who disregard these questions, belittle those who ask them, try to destroy our reputations, and say that we can’t ask our questions because the “science is settled.” So by all means be green – but maybe be a bit skeptical when people claim to have all the answers and you should blindly follow them in order to “save the planet.” As the great philosopher George Carlin once said (I paraphrase) “The earth doesn’t need saving. It’ll be here a billion years from now when we’re long gone. It may be a burned up cinder but it will be here and we won’t.”

More Soylent Green!

Roy says:
January 26, 2012 at 2:06 pm
@ George E. Smith
“Well Heisenberg explained to us nearly a hundred years ago that simply looking at the climate, will change it, and in ways that we can’t predict, and with our luck, they are most likely to be bad.”
Heisenberg did nothing of the sort. His uncertainty principle relates to events that happen on an atomic scale.

And why doesn’t that apply to the macro scale? Case in point is the question that stumped Einstein in his later years — If a tree falls in the forest and your wife is not there to blame you, is it still your fault?

David A. Evans

Roy says:
January 26, 2012 at 2:06 pm

@ George E. Smith
“Well Heisenberg explained to us nearly a hundred years ago that simply looking at the climate, will change it, and in ways that we can’t predict, and with our luck, they are most likely to be bad.”
Heisenberg did nothing of the sort. His uncertainty principle relates to events that happen on an atomic scale.

Some people need a sense of humour transplant!
DaveE.

mpaul

Regarding greenurbangirl, CAGW activists have long tried to portray skeptics as paid shills for the fossil fuel industry. But this line of attack failed because it was easy enough to demonstrate that it was not true. So the new line of attack is to portray skeptics as suffers of a debilitating mental illness that make us intensely fearful of change and as such, incapable of accepting the CAGW hypothesis. Using this line of attack, the CAGW activist can appear more sympathetic (certainly more sympathetic than Michael Mann and his conspiracy theories) and can enlist others to help us poor suffers through the “difficult process of change”. Oh brother.

Sandy

GreenUrbanGirl, is that green as in naive or green as in jealous?
It can’t be green as in plants because plants love CO2, like we love oxygen.

Greenurbangirl, think about this:
The Man-Made Global Warming scam becomes evident when one looks at the narrative that spews from the alarmists. Only evil and suffering can come from a warmer Earth.
Why can’t it be :
“Congratulations children, The Energy sources that fuel our economies and our prosperity, give us long life and comfort, these fossil fuels will also cause our planet to warm gently, about 4 degrees over the next century. What luck!
With the warmth and extra CO2 for plant life, millions of acres of tundra will become forests. Millions of acres of frozen steppe will become arable. Starvation will end. Prosperity will reach even the poorest people. We must keep searching for and burning oil and coal so we can improve our climate and prosper. Humanity will become wealthy. With this wealth we can preserve habitat for animals, protect the rain forest. We will clean the oceans and the land. Our future is bright. We are entering the age of abundance. “
If all the CO2 hype were true, This COULD be what the “experts” would say.
Ask yourself why this is NEVER what they say.

Steve C

Greenurbangirl, welcome to the fray, from an aging science tech across the Pond. You’ve probably already noticed ( 😀 ) that any unwary mention of a percentage, or other claim, will get pounced on instantly with requests for a reference – a fact that stops about half my comments dead in their tracks, as the chaos inside my computer is almost as great as the chaos outside it. Keep off one or two banned topics like … Kem Trayls (ha haar, the mods will never spot that one!), and our genial host will remain genial as we squabble among ourselves over details, agreeing only that the science is anything but settled. Only obsessively non-climate posts and downright rudeness result in the Order of the Boot; mostly, we’re quite friendly, and even green, ourselves, it’s why most of us come here to learn. Enjoy.
@Roy – re “Heisenberg did nothing of the sort. His uncertainty principle relates to events that happen on an atomic scale.” – well technically I agree with you, of course, but there’s always that darned Butterfly Effect. Can we be sure it’s not “butterflies all the way down”? 😉

David Davidovics

I think it may be many years before we see scepticism go mainstream. Trying to save the world is simply too morally unassailable to be inconvenienced with anything that resembles logic or reason. (SARCASM)
Sceptics are winning, but I doubt there will ever be a large, decisive victory for us to look forward to. This world simply doesn’t work that way. Look forward to that video though.

R. Gates

This is funny:
“Skepticism about climate models was prominent, particularly given a general flattening of temperatures since 1998, a relatively warm El Nino year.”
Did they happen to mention that 9 out of the 10 warmest years on instrument temperature record have occurred since that time? Probably not.
But this statement is even more hilarious:
“More than 400 people jammed into a Portland hotel ballroom Wednesday night to hear a panel of global warming skeptics assert that manmade increases in greenhouse gases are not driving climate change.”
Since when do so-called “skeptics” make such a definitive assertion? I thought they were supposed to be “skeptical” about the causes of climate change. Seems their neutrality would be called into question in this instance, such that they ought not call themselves skeptics as they seem to have the climate all figured out.

George E. Smith;

“”””” David A. Evans says:
January 26, 2012 at 2:53 pm
Roy says:
January 26, 2012 at 2:06 pm
@ George E. Smith
“Well Heisenberg explained to us nearly a hundred years ago that simply looking at the climate, will change it, and in ways that we can’t predict, and with our luck, they are most likely to be bad.”
Heisenberg did nothing of the sort. His uncertainty principle relates to events that happen on an atomic scale.
Some people need a sense of humour transplant!
DaveE. “””””
Well Roy, that definitive statement could win you a Nobel prize in Physics.
Who would have guessed that delta x.delta p > h/2 pi does not apply to larger than atomic scale.
So tell us Roy, just what macroscale, as in larger than atomic scale system do YOU know of, wherein you can prove that delta x.delta p; or alternatively delta E.delta t can simultaneously be measured to less than h/2pi precision ?
Every Physicist I have ever asked about Heisenberg’s principle has insisted emphatically that there are no cases at any scale that violate its restriction.
So you may know of the first case that sends Heisenberg to the scrap heap of failed theories of Physics.
I’d be most happy to nominate YOU Roy for the Nobel Physics Prize, if you can describe a system that can be proven to violate Heisenberg’s Principle of Uncertainty. (well he said it in German;
“unbestimmtheit” or something close to that I think is how he put it.
Werner was nobody’s dummy, and frankly; I’ll take his word before yours. It applies from atomic to galactic cluster scale as far as I am concerned. I don’t joke about such fundamental things.

R. Gates says:
January 26, 2012 at 3:54 pm

This is funny:
“Skepticism about climate models was prominent, particularly given a general flattening of temperatures since 1998, a relatively warm El Nino year.”
Did they happen to mention that 9 out of the 10 warmest years on instrument temperature record have occurred since that time? Probably not.

What part of “flattening” do you not understand? Given things from Joe D’Aleo’s latest post here and the Chinese tree ring study, I’m happy to concede that “plateaued” would have been a better choice.

JJ

R. Gates says:
This is funny:
“Skepticism about climate models was prominent, particularly given a general flattening of temperatures since 1998, a relatively warm El Nino year.”
Did they happen to mention that 9 out of the 10 warmest years on instrument temperature record have occurred since that time? Probably not.

What is funny is that you dont mind feigning ignorance of the concept of “flattening” to make a nonsensical non sequitur.

Alan Wilkinson

R Gates, have you never looked at a graph? Apparently you have no concept of an ascent flattening – even when it supposed to be accelerating alarmingly.
Your second point slightly better connects with reality. GHG may be driving climate change but the debate is how significantly. However the quote from the presenters “The effects of future changes in CO2 are likely to be modest and manageable” expresses that moderately and well – and calls into question your own neutrality.

R. Gates said:
January 26, 2012 at 3:54 pm
…they ought not call themselves skeptics as they seem to have the climate all figured out.
——————————
Nah, just the climate fraudsters 😉

R. Gates

Ric Werme says:
January 26, 2012 at 4:07 pm
R. Gates says:
January 26, 2012 at 3:54 pm
This is funny:
“Skepticism about climate models was prominent, particularly given a general flattening of temperatures since 1998, a relatively warm El Nino year.”
Did they happen to mention that 9 out of the 10 warmest years on instrument temperature record have occurred since that time? Probably not.
What part of “flattening” do you not understand? Given things from Joe D’Aleo’s latest post here and the Chinese tree ring study, I’m happy to concede that “plateaued” would have been a better choice.
_______
Flattening is probably better. “Plateaued” implies that they’ll begin to go down over the long-term, as opposed to just not apparently going up so fast. If we set a new modern instrument record in the next few years, it will be obvious that we have higher “plateaus” ahead…and I suspect we will and we do…

David A. Evans

Ric Werme says:
January 26, 2012 at 4:07 pm
I was going to use something along the lines of monitoring a 288VDC signal with multiple sine wave noise.
The base frequency being 25Hz and the time frame being 20ms.
9 of the last 10 100µs samples were the highest in the sample range, therefore, the voltage is going up!
DaveE.

George E. Smith;

“”””” David A. Evans says:
January 26, 2012 at 2:53 pm
Roy says:
January 26, 2012 at 2:06 pm
@ George E. Smith “”””
Am I the only one Dave, or are you also amazed, about how many people are willing to go and jump off cliffs over something they know nothing about. And we see in just a few posts, that they can demonstrate they know nothing about it, in several different ways.
One of my all time favorite cartoons, depicts a couple of precave men standing at the top of a sheer precipice, about to perform a memorable experiment. Well it will be memorable for one of them.
Out away from the cliff edge soar a pair of Pterodactyls riding on a thermal.
The theoretical physicist one of these two government grant money spenders, has often admired the Pterodactyl with it’s great long tooth encrusted beak, and its equally long and pointy rearward brain cavity, so he has constructed from bark, and leaves, and no doubt dinosaur skins, a realistic likeness of the two streamlined appendages, and a harness for strapping them on to his head, so if he ducks down, he might just entice one of those soaring pre-birds to come and check him out; perhaps with matrimony in mind; but there he stands at the edge of the precipice, with arms stretched out in front of him, about to do a half gainer off the cliff.
His laboratory assistant, and witness to historical greatness; has one final query for the theoretician’s self experimental consideration:-
” Say Oog , are you sure that pointy nose and head is what makes them fly ? !!
I hate to even mention this; but the query, about flushing the toilet twice in San Franciso, messing up next week’s surfing contest in Hawaii; or the more common butterfly version, are related to CHAOS theory, and don’t have a thing to do with Heisenberg’s principle of uncertainty.

David A. Evans

George E. Smith; says:
January 26, 2012 at 4:31 pm
Sorry George but I’m not really up on Heisenberg’s principle of uncertainty.
I can see how it applies for, say, observation of photons…
If you set up to observe a wave, a wave is what you see, if you set up to observe a particle, a particle is what you see.
At larger scales, I just don’t know.
DaveE.