![climate-reality-leadership-corps-190x240[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/climate-reality-leadership-corps-190x2401.jpg?quality=83)
A person who is actually a climate skeptic (and WUWT regular) applied for and was granted a training slot in Chicago this week. http://climaterealityproject.org/leadership-corps/ and has graduated as one of the 1500 people that attended the event.
For obvious reasons, I can’t reveal the person’s name, but I can reveal the communication I received last night.
The ‘mole’ writes:
I’m now a card-carrying, official Gore-bot.
(I took copious notes)
a) This was a super-liberal “kum-bay-ya” crowd as I predicted. I kept many of my opinions to myself. The event truly did have a “religious cult programming” feel to it, similar to an Amway meeting I attended years ago – carefully timed applause, audience call & response etc. Very bizarre.
b) Al Gore himself went through the entire slide show that we are supposed to use as his “Climate Leaders.” Quite honestly, there is nothing new here, EXCEPT that there is no trace of the “hockey stick” graph that was so central to “An Inconvenient Truth”!! Amazing, considering how central that was to their arguments!
c) Instead, Al lumps data together year-by-year or decade-by-decade to show an ever increasing rise in temps. He poo-pooed measurement inaccuracies, specifically mentioning UHI effects and saying that the scientists determined these were insignificant.
d) A couple graphs stood out – one showed the documented rise in temperature PRECEDES the rise in CO2 which he brushed aside as “typical variation.” The only hockey stick was one that projected atmospheric CO2 over time, jumping up drastically in coming years. I didn’t have time to write units down, but it was a big jump. It could be a realistic rise with China & India bringing new coal plants online, I’d have to check any citations.
e) Al’s presentation was heavy on his new concept of “dirty weather,” see: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/14/24-hours-of-reality-dirty-weather_n_2130344.html
To summarize, I didn’t see anything new or ground-breaking in this mess. Most slides were BS, typical “this is due to climate, not weather” type stuff we kick around on WUWT all the time. Hurricane Sandy, torrential rains in Pakistan etc.
Personal observations:
a) We skeptics ain’t liked much with them folks. The “d” word (denier) was used liberally, and I queried several participants, some of who were very cool folks, about it. Al Gore and his speakers used “Denier,” “Denial Industry” and other terms I found objectionable. Lousy salesmen, you catch more flies with honey than vinegar.
b) Nothing new was presented, technically speaking. This thing was “An Inconvenient Truth” redux, with much of the controversial stuff (hockey stick & drowning polar bears) deleted. Al got our message, he doesn’t seem to want to engage folks like us.
c) Al gave some insights into his own choices for low-carbon technologies, with a focus upon photovoltaics & wind power. He doesn’t like BWR nukes and objects because of financial reasons, which I agree with (particularly post-Fukishima). He mentioned that Oak Ridge National Labs in TN is testing a variety of nuclear reactor designs which sound promising (thorium maybe?) but didn’t elaborate.
d) Stuff I’m interested in, like ocean acidification, were only briefly touched upon. Al didn’t discuss the diplomacy challenges of engaging China and India, although he did mention their growing carbon output.
Quick summary:
Al is a polished speaker, and looked trim & in shape. Very impressive command of his speaking material. Decent speakers lined up, including some sustainability folks from private industry. I’m told the health/climate breakout session was terrible & am glad I took a pass on it.
==============================================================
UPDATE: Since many of the Gore followers are arriving here, I welcome you to answer this question that nobody would ask Mr. Gore this week:
If the position and science is so strong, why did Mr. Gore have to fake the results of his experiment in the Climate 101 video (which you may have seen and is still on the climate reality web page).
You can see the experiment recreated here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/climate-fail-files/gore-and-bill-nye-fail-at-doing-a-simple-co2-experiment/
For the few of you brave enough, thanks for taking the time to answer that question – Anthony
Zeke says: @ur momisugly August 2, 2013 at 10:39 am
….Gaia paganism/environmentalism as religion:
“Al Gore, in his book Earth in the Balance, echoes this view “Prehistoric Europe and much of the world was based on the worship of a single earth goddess, who was assumed to be the fount of all life and who radiated harmony among all living things…. These sites are so widespread that they seem to confirm the notion that a goddess religion was ubiquitous through much of the world until the antecedents of today’s religions, most of which still have a distinctly masculine orientation…swept out of India and the Near East, almost obliterating belief in the goddess. The last vestige of organized goddess worship was eliminated by Christianity as late as the fifteenth century in Lithuania.”
Gore then quotes deChardin, “‘The fate of mankind, as well as of religion, depends upon the emergence of a new faith in the future.’ Armed with such a faith, we might find it possible to resanctify the earth…” ” http://www.green-agenda.com/gaia.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I am all for retuning to a goddess religion as long as it is run in along the same lines as the prehistoric Celts:
Think Al Gore and his pal Maurice Strong ( Crestone/Baca) would volunteer? Or will they just walk off with all the wealth and prestige and keep changing the message.
Val says:
August 2, 2013 at 11:03 am
…. At least consider the possibility that our human demands and developments do have an impact and our actions and simply changing a few of our habits can be positive….unless the mind is closed to just agree that we are all human beings on one world. What harm could possibly come from being more friendly to the earth?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
We have considered it. This site has over fifty scientists and engineers who loved to tear things apart in discussions.
“What harm could possibly come from being more friendly to the earth?”
I do not think this is more friendly to the earth:
(wish I could post photos)
These images are the result of mining for the components of your Wind Turbines/Solar panels: link
And this is what your (self-snip) wind turbines do to the wildlife link
Finally this is what your ideas of ‘Sustainability’ (enforced via tyranny) does:
Don’t try to tell me this is not what will happen because the bodies are already piling up thanks to your ‘Green Sustainability’ stupidity
24,000 die in winter as fuel poverty climbs: New figures show more pensioners have to choose between heating and eating
Those are REAL DEATHS of REAL PEOPLE not some mythical number from a computer ‘simulation’
Part I. milodonharlani @ur momisugly 10:48 dares,
>>Please explain how Bacon, the advocate of induction, is in your mind now an adherent of deduction because infinite regression is gone. I think I understand what you’re trying to say, but such a 180 degree shift in Bacon’s thought IMO requires explication in more detail than this offhand comment. Taking Bacon’s name in vain in this way isn’t to me intuitively obvious.
One must read the Novum Organum heeding a Bacon-to-Modern English translation ([.]). The 180º turn was his, not mine.
>>In establishing axioms [models], another form of induction must be devised than has hitherto been employed, and it must be used for proving and discovering not first principles (as they are called) [axioms] only, but also the lesser axioms [models], and the middle, and indeed all. For the induction which proceeds by simple enumeration is childish; its conclusions are precarious and exposed to peril from a contradictory instance; and it generally decides on too small a number of facts, and on those only which are at hand. Bacon (1620) N.O., 1–CV, p. 30 of 107.
>>For a true and perfect rule of operation [axiom or model], then, the direction will be that it be certain, free, and disposing or leading to action. And this is the same thing with the discovery of the true form [Cause]. For the form of a nature is such, that given the form [the initial condition], the nature [Effect] infallibly follows. Therefore it is always present when the nature is present, and universally implies it, and is constantly inherent in it. Again, the form [Cause] is such that if it be taken away the nature [Effect] infallibly vanishes. Therefore it is always absent when the nature is absent, and implies its absence, and inheres in nothing else. Lastly, the true form [Cause] is such that it [the axiom or model] deduces the given nature from some source of being which is inherent in more natures, and which is better known in the natural order of things than the form itself. Bold added, Bacon (1620) N.O., 2–IV, p. 41 of 107.
Thus you see Bacon’s other “form of induction”, as he said, deduces things, i.e., is actually deduction. Remembering that Causes are provisional propositions pending validation of their predictions, scientific models represent pure deduction via Cause & Effect. Perhaps in the 17th Century, Bacon advocated induction; now he stands for deduction.
Val says:
August 2, 2013 at 11:12 am
Is it possible to put the argument aside? We’ve stated our positions. We have our convictions. I urge you to visit a nature sanctuary, national park, or other escape to our natural world and find a way to be appreciate the beauty and along with that perhaps an idea of how to be more earth-friendly…..
<<<<<<<<<<<<
The people here ARE conservationists and that is one of the reasons we are LIVID at the thought of bird slicers in our national parks.
My niche is bats (and caves.) I was doing 'conservation' probably before you were even born!
I have never worked for or received funds from an oil company which is more than either Maurice Strong, chair of the first earth summit and father of Kyoto can say or Al Gore.
Ever heard of 'Projection'??? Well Strong was the President of Power Corporation of Canada and CEO of Petro-Canada. Al Gore's wealth is originally from Occidental Petroleum. ( It was Occidental, via Hooker Chemical, that brought us Love Canal.)
So tell me again just WHO is in the pay of BIG OIL. Oh and don't forget that Maurice Strong is a trustee for Standard Oil money (Rockefellers) and a senior advisor to the World Bank.
Part 2. milodonharlani @ur momisugly 10:48 explains,
>>The philosophical distinction [deduction vs. induction] is important. Darwin’s geology mentor Sedgwick attacked “development” or “transmutation of species” for not being, in his mind, inductive, hence, not scientific. Interestingly, Popper also initially regarded natural selection as unscientific, since not falsifiable, although eventually changed his mind when biologists educated him on the fact & theory of evolution (“rabbits in the Cambrian” would falsify the fact of evolution, in which case the theory wouldn’t matter).
Sedgwick wrote to Darwin,
>>You have deserted—after a start in that tram-road of all solid physical truth—the true method of induction—& started up a machinery as wild I think as Bishop Wilkin’s locomotive that was to sail with us to the Moon. … .
>>As to your grand principle—natural selection—what is it but a secondary consequence of supposed, or known, primary facts. Development is a better word because more close to the cause of the fact. For you do not deny causation. I call (in the abstract) causation the will of God: & I can prove that He acts for the good of His creatures. He also acts by laws which we can study & comprehend— Acting by law, & under what is called final cause, comprehends, I think, your whole principle. You write of “natural selection” as if it were done consciously by the selecting agent. ‘Tis but a consequence of the presupposed development, & the subsequent battle for life.—
>>This view of nature you have stated admirably; tho’ admitted by all naturalists & denied by no one of common sense. We all admit development as a fact of history; but how came it about? Here, in language, & still more in logic, we are point blank at issue— There is a moral or metaphysical part of nature as well as a physical. A man who denies this is deep in the mire of folly. Tis the crown & glory of organic science that it does thro’ final cause, link material to moral; & yet does not allow us to mingle them in our first conception of laws, & our classification of such laws whether we consider one side of nature or the other— You have ignored this link; &, if I do not mistake your meaning, you have done your best in one or two pregnant cases to break it. Punctuation added, Adam Sedgwick to Charles Darwin, 11/24/1859.
To Sedgwick’s credit, he at least discerned two prongs in Darwin’s model: I, the mutability of the species (the fact of evolution), and II, the force called Natural Selection. However Sedgwick’s criticism was porous on each. Darwin’s contribution on mutability was not a revelation for biologists, as Sedgwick futilely implies, but a novel, monumental collection of observations, uniquely sufficient to sway many who subscribed to the dogma of immutability, a position likely held at one time by Sedgwick himself.
The induction Sedgwick found deserted by Darwin was not the silly enumerative induction reversed 180º by Bacon, nor the philosophical/mathematical induction of Popper that necessitated a falsification clause in his version of scientific models. It was the “moral or metaphysical” purpose in nature, the “final cause”. It was the hand of God, which Sedgwick could actually “prove” existed for a “good of His creatures”, and which the reader might infer that Sedgwick thought he witnessed if not measured.
Sedgwick tried to insert God into Darwin, but failed to realize that Darwin had, in general, already done the deed. Darwin proved he believed in Intelligent Design, assigning its attributes to his Natural Selection. It had a “certain definite direction”, a “given direction”, a “right direction”, and a “useful direction”. It had the intelligence to recognize and add good changes and to reject bad ones, and preserving good individuals and terminating bad ones. Darwin didn’t argue by appeal to the Supreme Being as Sedgwick would have him do, but instead was satisfied to argue by analogy to well-known human breeding programs. Natural selection was intelligent design, sufficient with a lower case “i”.
By his criticism of Darwin, Sedgwick overlooked the scientific principle that denies reliance on any supernatural being, force, or will, a principle contrary to Sedgwick’s beliefs and one that invalidates Darwin’s Natural Selection.
Popper’s rejection of Natural Selection was closer to the mark:
>>Because I intend to argue that the theory of natural selection is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme; and although it is no doubt the best at present available, it can perhaps be slightly improved. Popper (1992) p. 175.
but nonetheless confused:
>>Similarly, if a species has been eliminated it must have been ill adapted to the conditions. Adaptation or fitness is defined by modern evolutionists as survival value, and can be measured by actual success in survival: there is hardly any possibility of testing a theory as feeble as this. Id., p. 199.
All niches are finite, and when they near a maximum in some essential for life, e.g., potassium, nesting spaces, or some amino acid, mathematics obliges a normalizing of the population growth rates which take all factors into account. Some rates necessarily become negative, leaving their owners “naturally selected” for extinction, and so on until the end game when only one species occupies the niche, and does so at its capacity. Species become extinct in evolution not because they were ill-adapted, but rather because they didn’t win the race. Extinction due to being ill-adapted happens as a consequence of an environmental change, in the extreme causing the occasional mass extinction, and which imposes a new set of initial conditions for evolution when novel species flourish until niches refill.
The precambrian rabbit is a hypothetical creature to test Popper’s falsifiability criterion applied to Darwin. That criterion derived from Popper’s equally fantastic model for science as Universal Generalizations, compounded by his inability to respect definitions, even the ones he invented. The precambrian rabbit is to evolution as ocean acidification is to natural global warming.
Credit for AGW regularly goes to Arrhenius, J. Fourier, Tyndall, Callendar, Revelle, and Keeling. Popper deserves to head the list.
Val says:
August 2, 2013 at 11:24 am
…..What does the future look like for you? ….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>…
It looks like the return of serfdom/ company towns. People will be denied the right to own property, businesses or the means of travel. Cornell University is already doing research on ‘Food Sheds’ The amount of food that can be grown locally. This means the number of people in a Transit Village will be closely controlled. I suggest you read this link by a California bureaucrat and social activist.
Obama’s science czar, John Holdern was already writing of this back in 1977.
Thanks to funding by the USDA the ‘sterilant’ has been developed. link
In 2001 scientists at the Epicyte bio-lab in San Diego created John Holdren’s sterilant, a ’contraceptive corn’ Researchers discovered a rare class of human antibodies that attack sperm. They isolated the genes that regulate the manufacture of these antibodies, and inserted them into corn.
At a press conference, the president of Epicyte, Mitch Hein, pointing to his GMO corn plants and announced, “We have a hothouse filled with corn plants that make anti-sperm antibodies.” Since then the company was sold to Pittsboro, N.C. based Biolex, another privately owned biotech company. Shortly after the 2001 Epicyte press release, all discussion of the breakthrough vanished and nothing more was heard in any media about the development of this spermicidal corn….
Eugenics is also alive and well in the UK.
Children placed on controversial ‘death pathway’: Sick children are being placed on a controversial end-of-life “pathway” previously only thought to have been used for elderly and terminally-ill adult patients.
The only reason LCP is being scrapped is because of the huge stink that was raised by the media.
My question to Val and the other warmists visiting is quite simple; explain to us why it is apparantly axiomatic that warming is bad?
I’ve never heard of anyone losing a limb or ear to “heatburn”, but know a few people who have lost same said because of frostbite. Heatstroke can be avoided with some simple and cheap methods, like find shade and drink lots of water. Then try to escape the effects of -10F with a 30 mph wind….cheaply and simply. My Carhartt insulated coveralls and coat cost well over $300 total, and even they wont keep you alive if exposed too long.
So the sea level rises a foot or two. What exactly does that harm other than some overpriced ocean front real estate where people with more money than sense built a little too close? Or a bunch of government morons built an airport too close?
And who, other than someone promoting wholesale eugenics could argue against longer growing seasons in northern climes?
And please, spare us the “do you have children” emotional clap trap. Anyone I’ve ever engaged in conversation with who pulls that card has been driven totally and completely by emotion, which leads to knee jerk decisions. Save that for the ladies social, not a serious discussion about the science (or maybe better put, NONscience) of climate and man’s dubious role in affecting it.
Gail Combs. says:
August 2, 2013 at 5:46 pm
“The people here ARE conservationists and that is one of the reasons we are LIVID at the thought of bird slicers in our national parks.”
A-MEN! It is beyond outrageous. Those damned bird blenders are killing the most beautiful and rare birds that exist. I am furious about it.
motogeek says:
August 2, 2013 at 12:34 pm
So, a counter-point to “what harm does it do…”?
I live in a home built in 1943. About 5 years ago, I had all of the original single-pane glass replaced with energy-efficient thermal windows…..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
A version of Frederic Bastiat’s BROKEN WINDOW FALLACY
Actually CAGW is just a gigantic version of the Broken Window Fallacy where the vandals are encouraged to break windows so the glazier’s trade is encouraged. The net result for society is the transfer of THEIR wealth to the glaziers with no net benefit to them except poverty, or in the case of some Brits death.
temp says: @ur momisugly August 2, 2013 at 12:45 pm
….Plus useful idiots are always disposed of after they have been used to the fullest. Thats just SOP for these types of movements.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yes they should read up on what happened to the Russian Intelligentsia (I have learned more history since reading WUWT then I ever did in class.)
Mary A. Colborn says:
August 2, 2013 at 9:16 am
Don’t forget Cat 3 hurricanes in New England! Oh, that was in the 1950’s. Gee, we haven’t had a Cat 3 hurricane in the US in years. There’s a chance this year will have some decent storms, but there are also forces working against that.
That’s completely unfair. You have no evidence to support that because if you think you do, you’ll find it’s either wrong or miniscule compared to what the oil industry has contributed to the warmists.
philjourdan says:
August 2, 2013 at 10:45 am
That is equally unfair – you offer nothing to support that claim. If you can’t disprove her statements, and can only attack the person or be silent, be silent.
Lucy Kalinin says:
August 2, 2013 at 12:46 pm
…. It explains how exactly scientists determine which carbon dioxide comes from carbon cycle and which from fossil fuels, the secret is isotopes! ….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That topic has been done to death here and elsewhere. For example: The Trouble With C12 C13 Ratios
I’m new to this issue, and even though I attended the Chicago training, I certainly do want to do my homework, consider all evidence, and make a well-informed, reasoned conclusion. We heard tons of evidence from climate scientists themselves that climate change is real, and caused by man, but based on the views here, there must be plenty of equally (or more) compelling science to the contrary that I’m not yet aware of. Would any of you point some out? What should I be reading to get what I must be missing? Thanks!
Val says:
August 2, 2013 at 11:12 am
That’s fine, there are a lot of conservationists here. It’s just that we see the evidence for CO2 as a demon gas to be lacking. Worse, we see climate science as as severely politicized, taxed, and misspending resources.
I’ve helped the New Hampshire Audubon Society lay the first boardwalk through the Ponemah Bog and presented a slide show I created tracking the bog through the four seasons. I’ve been a member of the Society for the Protection on NH Forests, the Nature Conservancy, and other organizations. Even the Union of Concerned Scientists.
For my first bicycle tour out west I set the initial route to go between several national parks. At the time I lived in Pittsburgh PA when the steel mills were active – parts of Yellowstone reminded me of home. Some of those parts are also the most amazing places on the planet.
I’ve even written posts here about the E-Cat, which is either the fraud of the century or will be the replacement for much of the fossil fuels we burn now.
And none of that changes the fact that climate science is the most abused and misused branch of science in history. I used to say the next couple of decades will be very interesting. I now say the next decade. And heat or CO2 won’t be the problem.
Gail says, “I am all for retuning to a goddess religion as long as it is run in along the same lines as the prehistoric Celts: Bog bodies are kings sacrificed by Celts says expert”
Thanks for the hilarity Gail. (: Obviously these were a very wise, patient, and longsuffering people and we could all learn a great deal from such a wisdom tradition.
Of course, Al Gore, having become so proficient in handling data and understanding Earth’s weather systems, naturally would want to go into Comparative Mythology and interpret all religion for the rest of us.
ref: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/02/notes-from-a-mole-in-al-gores-climate-leadership-training/#comment-1379032
pkv says: @ur momisugly August 2, 2013 at 1:10 pm
…..For starters, why not check out this article from today’s New York Times (unless of course, you refuse to read things published in the “liberal media”…even when written by self proclaimed Republibots, err, conservatives)….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
HUMMMmmm, New York Times home of Walter Duranty… Checkout Martin Cohen: New York Times has vested interest in climate alarmism We do our research unlike some who just repeat things like Mary A. Colborn who says“…You wonder who the real cultists are here. Climate leaders or you, who are paid so well by the fossil fuel industry.” with out facts to back her up.
CAGW gets more funding from oil that Climate skeptics do. Heck Shell Oil and BP provided part of the initial funding for CRU! Check out Ged Davis VP of Shell Oil and his connection to the IPCC scenarios and the Climategate e-mails.
And yes there are a few who do work for oil companies. Generally they say so up front unlike Dana Nuccitelli.
By the way I could really use that Big Oil paycheck, Mary. How about asking Al Gore what is holding it up. /snark
Jon Jewett says: @ur momisugly August 2, 2013 at 1:17 pm
….This subject is of interest to me and I’d like to bring a little clarity. The terms Fascist, Communist, and NAZI seem to be partly misunderstood…..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Thanks for the clarification.
mindabmedia says:
August 2, 2013 at 7:07 pm
Ah, finally someone curious to understand our side.
One problem with climate science is that the whole field is so complex and interrelated is that there’s ideal source to recommend. My first essay on the subject touches on several things and has some good links that still work. I really do need to get back to it. It’s at http://wermenh.com/climate/science.html .
Around the same time Lucy Skywalker wrote an essay that is both introduction and describe her transition from being alarmed by Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth to well respected skeptic. It’s pretty long, but it’s probably exactly what you’re looking for. Yikes, nearly forgot the link, http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Curious.htm . BTW, there are a lot of people here who were concerned about the future climate until we found the claims are overstated. Including Anthony.
Beyond that, here at WUWT, there are some great reference pages on the top nav bar that you can get to by clicking “Reference Pages.” They have a lot of minimally processed scientific data, but they’re great places to find the most recent information available. Don’t try to absorb more than one a day!
If you have any questions, you can write me directly – Google |contact Ric Werme| an you’ll find my Email address.
jchang says:
August 2, 2013 at 3:06 pm
has anyone done a proper assessment of the Gore heat lamp experiment?….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yes Anthony. See: Al Gore and Bill Nye FAIL at doing a simple CO2 experiment
I remember seeing the WUWT experiment replication post headline but didn’t read it at the time, so I reviewed it in detail tonight. Aside from Anthony’s diligent work, the best part was in the comments with the true confession.from Bill Nye. I think he came up with a new name himself – Bill Nye the voice-over guy.
mindabmedia says:
August 2, 2013 at 7:07 pm
I’m new to this issue….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Try this new peer-reviewed paper for starters: The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature
For the other ‘controversy’ (all discussing peer-reviewed papers)
The alternate theory: The Antithesis
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/30/the-antithesis/
New Geologic evidence of very very quick climate changes.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/05/on-“trap-speed-acc-and-the-snr/
The End Holocene, or How to Make Out Like a ‘Madoff’ Climate Change Insurer: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/16/the-end-holocene-or-how-to-make-out-like-a-madoff-climate-change-insurer/
and the newest: Can We Predict the Duration of an Interglacial
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/02/can-we-predict-the-duration-of-an-interglacial/
The Bipolar see-saw
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/15/model-data-comparison-hemispheric-sea-ice-area/
We are at the half precession point and solar insolation is declining (See NH Summer Energy: The Leading Indicator: link )
WUWT at the top has reference pages:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/
and Resource Pages:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/resources/
And the Climate FAIL files:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/climate-fail-files/
Ric Werme does an index for WUWT:
http://home.comcast.net/~ewerme/wuwt/index.html
Pop Tech has a listing(with links) of 1100+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarm
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
(You spend a lot of time reading peer-reviewed papers on this site)
@minabmedia –
Here’s a reading list for you:
READING LIST – ON LINE
• Oregon Petition website (accessible through Google; lists the names and credentials of all of the more than 31,000 signers). Particularly important in this website is the letter from Dr. Frederick Seitz.
• Other important websites (also accessible through Google) are the Global Warming Policy Foundation, in the United Kingdom; WUWT “Watts Up With That?” hosted by Anthony Watts; CFACT (Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow); Climate Audit; Climate Depot; JunkScience.com; Bishop Hill (in the UK); International Climate Science Coalition (in Canada); JoNova (in Australia); Competitive Enterprise Institute; and the Heartland Institute. More information is also available on line by Googling the following people: Czech Republic President Dr. Vaclav Klaus; Nobel Laureate Robert Laughlin; former UK Energy Secretary under Margaret Thatcher, Nigel (Lord) Lawson; Richard Lindzen; Steve McIntyre; Ross McKitrick; Christopher (Lord) Monckton; Steve Goreham; Professor Robert M. Carter, James Cook University, Queensland, Australia; meteorologist William Gray; Harold Ambler; past president of the National Academy of Sciences, Dr. Frederick Seitz; professor of physics, Princeton University, Dr. William Happer; Dr. Tim Ball; to name a few. President Klaus’s comments are particularly worth reading, as he draws the connection clearly between the environmentalist religion and tyrannical impulses.
READING LIST – BOOKS (available through Amazon, Barnes & Noble or Abe Books)
• Climategate: A Veteran Meteorologist Exposes the Global Warming Scam, by Brian Sussman
• The Hockey Stick Illusion: Climategate and the Corruption of Science, by A. W. Montford
• The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the World’s Top Climate Scientists, by Roy W. Spencer
• The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future, by US Senator James Inhofe
• Eco-Tyranny: How the Left’s Green Agenda Will Dismantle America, by Brian Sussman
• Blue Planet in Green Shackles: What is Endangered, Climate or Freedom?, by Czech Republic President Vaclav Klaus
• Eco-Imperialism: Green Power, Black Death, by Paul Driessen
• Climatism!, by Steve Goreham
• Don’t Sell Your Coat, by Harold Ambler
• Climate: The Counrter Consensus by Robert M. Carter
• The Mad Mad Mad World of Climatism, by Steve Goreham
@ur momisugly Chad – Wow… Plenty to read up on there. I dunno how many books I’ll be able to digest, but I’ll read up on some of Dr. Seitz’s and Pres. Klaus’s material online as you suggest. Thanks!
mindabmedia says:
“We heard tons of evidence from climate scientists themselves that climate change is real, and caused by man, but based on the views here, there must be plenty of equally (or more) compelling science to the contrary that I’m not yet aware of.”
‘Tons’ of evidence?? Actually, there is no testable scientific evidence produced by Al Gore or anyone else, proving that man-made global warming exists. MMGW is a conjecture, nothing more.
Per the Scientific Method, those proposing a hypothesis have the burden of proof. Here is the problem:
There is no testable, falsifiable scientific evidence showing that human CO2 emissions cause global warming. None. Scientific skeptics are not required to prove a negative; to prove that man made global warming does not exist. Rather, the onus is entirely upon the climate alarmist crowd to demonstrate conclusively that human emissions are the main cause of global warming. But they have failed.
There is no testable, measurable scientific evidence showing that X amount of emissions cause Y amount of temperature change. None at all. Even arch-alarmist Phil Jones admits that the very same warming trend has occurred repeatedly, regardless of CO2 levels. Therefore, CO2 cannot be having a measurable effect on temperature, can it?
In fact, the natural rise in global warming has remained on the same long term trend line for hundreds of years. Global warming has not accelerated — whether CO2 was low, or high. In fact, global warming has stopped for the past decade and a half, even as CO2 levels continue to rise.
That disconnect has caused former global warming believers such as the NY Times and the Economist to reverse course, and admit that global warming has stopped.
The steady, natural rise in global temperatures since the Little Ice Age [LIA] remains on the same long term trend line, with no acceleration. How can that possibly be if, as Al Gore claims, CO2 is the primary cause of global warming?
As William of Ockham states in Occam’s Razor, the simplest answer is almost always the correct answer: CO2 is not the cause of any measurable global warming. This is empirically demonstrated in this chart, which shows that the rise in global temperature is the cause of the rise in CO2 levels.
The alarmist crowd started out with their premise reversed. But the correct premise is that ∆T causes ∆CO2 — not vice-versa, as they originally believed. When your premise is wrong, your conclusion will necessarily be wrong.
At this point there is far too much government money, and there are far too many careers, and there are far too many big egos tied up in the man-made global warming conjecture to reverse course overnight. Scientific truth is taking a while to emerge.
But the truth is emerging: CO2 does not cause any measurable global warming. Once you accept that basic scientific fact, everything else thenn falls into place.
mindabmedia commented on Notes from a ‘mole’ in Al Gore’s Climate Leadership Training.
in response to Anthony Watts:
I’m new to this issue, and even though I attended the Chicago training, I certainly do want to do my homework, consider all evidence, and make a well-informed, reasoned conclusion. We heard tons of evidence from climate scientists themselves that climate change is real, and caused by man, but based on the views here, there must be plenty of equally (or more) compelling science to the contrary that I’m not yet aware of. Would any of you point some out? What should I be reading to get what I must be missing? Thanks!
This is a most vexed question. If the experts don’t agree then where do I stand.
My own experience started after seeing Al Gore’s movie and realizing that it looked like a propaganda piece.
Up until then I was happily sure that CO2 was a greenhouse gas,yes I did Chemistry hons at high school and was sure of that, and that if you increase CO2 then of course we must get warmer, and it was getting warmer.
But then if things were so clear why bother with a whole lot of dubious theory as in Gore’s effort?
Didn’t the facts speak for themselves?
Now this is where I differ from the philosophers that pen on these pages.
However far you go down the proving a theory road, in the end you have to make a critical judgement, in the real world.
For the warmists they have made theirs.
For me something that is intellectually self evident cannot be proven.
And after some years I have decided that the earth is not warming because of our burning of fossil fuels. I regard that as self evident.
How to start. Wade through Plimer’s book.
As you go you will find all sorts of editing mistakes and transposed numbers.
Search for the official Australian rebuttal.
Discover that the learned professor found all the same mistakes, but failed to address the thesis.
The earth is its own test tube. The experiments with CO2 in the atmosphere have already been done in the paleoclimate.
There is enough known to form a ‘null hypothesis’ that the earth warms as it emerges from the LIA.
It was this process that made me start looking__ the ‘searching stage of grief’.
This site is very helpful.
The way I think of this warming problem is the same way one might think of an internal medicine problem.
Limited information,a primary homeostatic mechanism,inbuilt negative and positive feedbacks, but the opportunity of numerous lines of evidence to get diagnosis.
Like in all things, you start where you are, and read for a couple of years the bits you don’t understand, then start asking the hard questions.
JY says:
August 2, 2013 at 10:21 am
Your time would be better spent in engineering and science books, doing hard work and coming up with viable solutions to make current energy sources obsolete. I can tell you now handing out billions in tax payers money to private corporations for weak solar panels and wind farms does nothing toward positive change to future generations. What you think should happen isn’t real, what happens is real.
##################
Speaking of engineering and science books.
Matching Utility Loads with Solar and Wind Power in North Carolina
Dealing with Intermittent Electricity Sources
by
John Blackburn, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics Emeritus, Duke University
The conclusion, to summarize, is that a high-penetration solar and wind utility
system is possible, that it requires supplementation of about 6% of electricity demand,
from sources now used for peaking purposes. A corollary observation is that the concept
of baseload generation is more or less irrelevant to its successful operation of such a
system.