Ninth International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC-9) to take Place in Las Vegas from July 7 to July 9, will feature world-famous scientists and writers, precede FreedomFest 2014
CHICAGO – Is the theory of man-made global warming still credible? Why do surveys show a majority of Americans and scientists do not believe global warming is man-made and a major problem?
Hundreds of the world’s most prominent “skeptics” of the claim that human activity is causing a climate crisis will converge in Las Vegas on July 7–9 to review the latest research and celebrate what they see as recent events that vindicate their opposition to what some claim is a “scientific consensus.”
The Heartland Institute – which The Economist magazine in 2012 called “the world’s most prominent think tank promoting skepticism about man-made climate change” – is joining scores of other think tanks and advocacy groups to host the 9th International Conference on Climate Change at the Mandalay Bay Hotel and Casino in Las Vegas.
Heartland has organized and hosted eight International Conferences on Climate Change since 2008. These events have attracted extensive international attention to the debate taking place in the scientific community over the causes and consequences of climate change.
Conference details are coming together as July approches, but the media and the public
can see updates and register now for the event at the conference Web site.
“The scientists Heartland works with demanded we host a ninth conference this year to foster a much-needed frank, honest, and open discussion of the current state of climate science,” said Heartland Institute President Joseph Bast, “and we just couldn’t refuse. The public, the press, and the scientific community will all benefit from learning about the latest research and observational data that indicate climate science is anything but ‘settled.’”
One co-sponsor of Heartland’s 9th International Conference on Climate Change is FreedomFest, which is holding its annual gathering in Las Vegas from July 9–12 at Planet Hollywood. Several speakers from Heartland’s conference at Mandalay Bay will join the FreedomFest line-up.
Heartland’s ninth climate conference coincides with the release of the fourth and fifth volumes of the Climate Change Reconsidered series by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC). The third volume, Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science, was released in September 2012. (Read the Summary for Policymakers.) The fourth volume, Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts, and fifth volume, Climate Change Reconsidered II: Human Welfare, Energy and Policies, will be released digitally by The Heartland Institute in late March, and printed volumes will be available in May.
Visit ClimateChangeReconsidered.org for extensive background on all five reports.
Previous Heartland climate conferences have featured 187 scientists, economists, and climate policy experts from around the world and attracted more than 4,000 participants. Nearly 300 videos of presentations can be found at the archive site for the conferences.
For more information about The Heartland Institute and the 9th International Conference on Climate Change, contact Director of Communications Jim Lakely at jlakely@heartland.org or 312/377-4000.
——————————————————————————–
The Heartland Institute is a 30-year-old national nonprofit organization headquartered in Chicago, Illinois. Its mission is to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems.
The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) is an international panel of nongovernment scientists and scholars who have come together to present a comprehensive, authoritative, and realistic assessment of the science and economics of global warming.
FreedomFest is an annual festival where free minds meet to celebrate “great books, great ideas, and great thinkers” in an open-minded society. It is independent, non-partisan, and not affiliated with any organization or think tank.
###
But but but, Wikipedia says…
Who is sending the gold plated invites to the folks at NCAR?
If Heartland intends for this event to be a credible scientific conference, they should probably rethink the decision to tag it along to FreedomFest.
As Jefferson believed in “a wall of separation between church and state”, I believe there should be a similar separation between science and politics.
RussR on March 27, 2014 at 8:19 am:
I disagree with that. Climate is one of the defining political issues of our time. It’s been extremely political ever since Gore’s Senate hearings with Hansen in 1988 and became even more so in 2006. The IPCC is as much a political policy-making body as it is scientific. It exists to guide policy makers.
This is now a political fight and its an important one. If Steve McIntyre doesn’t want to appear at a Heartland event, that’s perfectly understandable. He’s trying to remain scientifically neutral and it re-inforces the power of his work. But for the rest of us, it’s still a political fight because we are all going to be paying the bill for it.
‘a majority of …. scientists’? Really? I would love to believe that, but is it true?
looks like they learned a lesson from the freezing Copenhagen debacle. July in the desert is going to be roasting. Don’t let Hansen near the AC controls whatever you do.
oops, I said that before I read it. Thought it was another IPCC jolly at first. Forgive my foolishness,
July in Vegas could persuade some attendees to believe in global warming again. It’s not uncommon for temperatures to approach 110 degrees F at that time of the year. They’d better make sure Hansen can’t sabotage the air conditioning during the conference.
Why did they not hold the conference in Chicago in February?
/sarc
zootcadillac, it looks like we were thinking along the same lines about Hansen.
I agree. That is why I think they should dissolve the Inter-GOVERNMENTAL Panel on Climate Change. They never should have allowed politicians to shape the Summary For Policy Makers either. It’s assumed CAGW mixed with political pressure. That is why their projections fail time and again.
“I disagree with that. Climate is one of the defining political issues of our time. It’s been extremely political ever since Gore’s Senate hearings with Hansen in 1988 and became even more so in 2006. The IPCC is as much a political policy-making body as it is scientific. It exists to guide policy makers.”
***
Potter, You’re absolutely correct that it is a defining political issue. But I can’t help agreeing that the more persuasive approach is to leave to the extent possible, politics and party identification out of it. Minds are closed enough. Making this about republicans vs. democrats and conservatives vs, progressives is not a good strategy. The debate should be in my mind, primarily about the science.
“Nearly 300 videos of presentations can be found at the archive site for the conferences.”
Link please.
Richard Tol, one of the 70 scientists from the IPCC, has stepped down due to what he call too much alarmism. Are the wheels coming off?
calls^
I maybe wrong here but it’s important to note that Steve McIntyre is not a sceptic. If I am wrong then please accept my humble apologies in advance.
Mike, I sure hope the scientific community looks at the value of a PHD when they host their conference in Vegas this summer.
“I maybe wrong here but it’s important to note that Steve McIntyre is not a sceptic. If I am wrong then please accept my humble apologies in advance.”
SteveMc is a real skeptic
Most of what you see on skeptical blogs is fake skepticism.
1. Folks who are certain that C02 can have no effect
2. folks who are certain that sensitivity is low or near 0
3. folks who are certain its a socialist plot
4. folks who are certain that the sun dun it
5. Folks who are certain it’s all “natural variation”
6. Folks who are certain that the MWP was warmer
7. Folks who are certain the earth has a magic thermostat
8. folks who are certain that popper was right
9. folks who are certain that UHI has to bias the record
10. folks who are certain that adjustments to the record are all a conspiracy
11. Folks who are certain that the ice in the arctic is melting because of soot, not warmth
12. Folks who are certain that holocene arctic ice cover was low and due to warmth, not soot
13. Folks who are certain that planetary alignments explain everything
14. Folks who are certain the climate is chaotic
15. folks who are certain that the climate is too complex to predict
16. you get the idea
There are plenty of fake skeptics.
@Mosher. I think the best position is to be certain about uncertainty.
The one-armed bandits get a visit from some close relatives…
I guess it depends on whether “skeptic” means skeptical of the consensus explanation, or skeptical of all explanations.
@Mosher,
A real skeptic believes climate models don’t contribute to the data, that is climate models don’t do science they only express a hypothesis.
Steven Mosher says:
March 27, 2014 at 9:50 am
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Sir,
Do not put words in our mouths and then call us out on them. This is an absolute smear job. Like most smear jobs, an element of truth surrounded by layers of total BS. If I wasn’t so busy today I’d do a line by line take down of one of the worst comments you’ve ever made in this forum.
“zootcadillac says:
March 27, 2014 at 8:41 am
oops, I said that before I read it. Thought it was another IPCC jolly at first. Forgive my foolishness”
Zoot, organizing conferences about global warming is still encouraging people to make a profit or a business out of global-warming. Hence Steve Mosher.
I’m considering going. The hotel is well rated (it’s the one with the walk through shark aquarium), and it’s close to the airport, which might be a feature (average high temp 104°F, average low 80°F).
Anthony and Willis will be there.
I’ve been to a couple others, well worthwhile.
Thank you Anthony, I couldn’t have expressed my own opinion on climate more succinctly – and darn —- I didn’t. 😊
“A. W. says:
March 27, 2014 at 9:53 am
@Mosher. I think the best position is to be certain about uncertainty.”
I agree with Anthony: there is little or no certainty. Anyone who thinks temperatures are warming irretrievably is not a skeptic. Anyone who thinks that man has nothing to do with the increase we’ve seen is not a skeptic.
As for UHI, anyone who thinks it has no effect, or that the effect is minimal is not a skeptic. I simply do not believe that you can adequately measure or adjust to determine the amount of warming in a location that was rural and isolated 100 years ago and is now urban. Or a location that was agricultural one hundred years ago and has now been re-claimed by forest. UHI or it’s reverse is simply too difficult to quantify. Too many factors and how do you weigh them?
Of that you can be sure I am uncertain.
Steven Mosher says:
There are plenty of fake skeptics.
They are not skeptics.
Neither are any of the believers in manmade global warming. None of them accept the Null Hypothesis, which has never been falsified. Clearly, you8 do not accept the Null Hypothesis.
There is nothing being observed now that is not fully explained by natural climate variability. Everything we see has been exceeded in the past, and by a significant degree — and during times when CO2 was much lower.
Most of us accept that CO2 has some effect. I do. But at current concentrations, the warming effect from CO2 is minuscule. It can be completely disregarded for policy purposes.
Finally, you use “certain” far too much. Scientific skeptics are “certain” about very little. But to convince us that your climate alarmism has a basis in science, you need to produce measurable, testable evidence showing that CO2 is a problem.
So far, no one has been able to do that.
You can always count on Steven Mosher to give you the uncomfortable perspective you don’t really want to hear. But who wants an echo chamber?
Thanks Steven.
Steven Mosher, intent on setting up 16 straw men, wrote:
“Most of what you see on skeptical blogs is fake skepticism”.
“1. Folks who are certain that C02 can have no effect.”
Actually, most think simply that it is likely that CO2 has less of an effect than is claimed by those who build positive feedback loops into all of their models. Your use of the word “certainty” reflects the bias and rot in your own mind only.
“2. folks who are certain that sensitivity is low or near 0”
Actually, most just think that it is possible that sensitivity is low, and that is what you cannot abide.
“3. folks who are certain its a socialist plot.”
Actually, it is the socialists themselves who are continually, and publicly saying that “Climate Change” proves that Capitalism is evil and must be replaced. Links can be provided if you are somehow unaware of these very frequent statements. But apparently, you are among those who think that quoting someone else’s words accurately must mean that they believe in “plots”.
“4. folks who are certain that the sun dun it”
Actual scientific evidence indicates that the sun plays a major role in Earth’s climate. You’d have to be a complete and absolute moron to think that it didn’t. Again, your use of the word “certain” reflects the bias and rot in your own mind only.
“5. Folks who are certain it’s all “natural variation””
“Actual scientific evidence indicates that natural variation plays a major role in Earth’s climate. You’d have to be a complete and absolute moron to think that it didn’t. Again, your use of the word “certain” reflects the bias and rot in your own mind only.
“6. Folks who are certain that the MWP was warmer”
Actual scientific evidence indicates a high likelihood that the MWP *was* warmer in some areas. Again, your use of the word “certain” reflects the bias and rot in your own mind only.
“7. Folks who are certain the earth has a magic thermostat”
You want to give even one link to that absurd statement? What about the ice ages? Again, your use of the word “certain” reflects the bias and rot in your own mind only.
“8. folks who are certain that popper was right.”
Karl Popper, if that’s who you are referring to, is still highly regarded in his profession. Much more highly regarded than you are. (Of that I AM certain)
Is your real point here an attempt to say that this whole concept of “falsification” should have no place in science? You’re an even bigger idiot than I took you for.
“9. folks who are certain that UHI has to bias the record”
There we go with “certain” again. Some people think it’s possible; you however appear to be “certain” that it is not
“10. folks who are certain that adjustments to the record are all a conspiracy”
This stupidity is getting old. See # 9 above.
“11. Folks who are certain that the ice in the arctic is melting because of soot, not warmth”
I’ll bet you really hate anyone who suggests that the ice in the arctic is growing. Hey, how about that Antarctic? Or the Great Lakes? Oh I know, they’re freezing up because of all the warmth being added to the system, yeah, that’s the ticket.
“12. Folks who are certain that holocene arctic ice cover was low and due to warmth, not soot”
I don’t know who is “certain”, but wasn’t there just a peer reviewed study that said exactly this?
And who besides you said anything connecting the holocene and soot?
“13. Folks who are certain that planetary alignments explain everything”
Oh come on, now you’re not even trying. How many posters on any site say that they believe that? 2? 3? Name them.
“14. Folks who are certain the climate is chaotic”
You’d have to be a complete and absolute moron to think that it doesn’t contain a chaotic element. But I guess by now, we’ve established that.
“15. folks who are certain that the climate is too complex to predict”
See #14.
“16. you get the idea”
Yes, I think we do.
Viva …. Le Monsoon! LOL!
@Steven Mosher
“Folks who are certain that the MWP was warmer”
The IPCC was certain that the MWP was warmer in 1990, before they realized they had to get rid of it and pulled the chart (copied from the works of Dr. H. H. Lamb) from later reports. Grinsted et al (2009) was certain the MWP was warmer when they showed sea level 8 inches higher then. But even earlier, 7,000 to 4,000 years ago, the Holocene Highstand was up to 2 meters higher than current sea level (Blum 2003; Baker 2005; Jameson 2012). Steven, higher sea level = globally warmer. And even earlier, the Eemian interglacial of 125,000 years ago had sea levels of up to 10 meters higher. When there is ample evidence of previous greater warming, and Al Gore and Co., with the support of consensus science, maintain that atmospheric CO2 was lower then, how can they then turn and say that CO2 drives warming?
Not only sea levels support previous greater warming, but the Greenland ice cores indicate that 9,100 of the past 10,000 years were warmer than any of the past 100 years. I’m sure you have read Richard B. Alley’s “The Two-Mile Time Machine”, so it mystifies me how you could claim that agreement with the science indicating that the Holocene Climatic Optimum, and Minoan, Roman, and Medieval warm periods were warmer is wrong. It would seem that any sincere, open minded investigator would have to at least make an allowance for the possibility that there have been recent periods of greater warming than the present. And that if CO2 was lower then, that something other than CO2 drove the warming.
Steven, do you know how the English say you can make a small fortune in English vineyards today (English vineyards thrived during the Medieval Warm Period)? Invest a large fortune in English vineyards. In vino veritas. Men can lie, but vineyards can’t.
You have to forgive Steven Mosher. He believes that estimates are the equivalent of measurements.
Jim Bo,
Another fine entry from William Connelley [This author may be grossly biased. Please help Wikipedia by banning him.]
Jimbo says:
March 27, 2014 at 9:25 am
I maybe wrong here but it’s important to note that Steve McIntyre is not a sceptic. If I am wrong then please accept my humble apologies in advance.
Huh? You do know what a “sceptic” is, don’t you? One who takes nothing on faith, demands evidence and data, and attempts to replicate/falsify scientific experimental findings as per the scientific method?
You know what Steve McIntyre is famous for?
And you think he’s not a sceptic?
Wow. Just… wow.
pokerguy says:
March 27, 2014 at 9:01 am
“Potter, You’re absolutely correct that it is a defining political issue. But I can’t help agreeing that the more persuasive approach is to leave to the extent possible, politics … out of it.”
This discussion reminds me of Betmax which was technically superior to VHS but lost the battle for market dominance. Ever noticed that large technical companies usually select someone from marketing as their CEO?
Most of what you see on skeptical blogs is fake skepticism
Most of what you see in climate science sites is fake science.
There are plenty of fake skeptics.
There are plenty of fake climate scientists. They receive tens of billions in funding.
To clarify: Steve McIntyre is the very *definition* of “sceptic.”
I agree with Russ R. and Pokerguy that scientific credibility is compromised by political or ideological entanglements.
I will probably go to ICCC9 in Las Vegas this July. I went to ICCC7 in Chicago in May 2012 and had a great time, met almost all the speakers face to face and chatted.
John
Yet another facile post from Mosher, and yet again he makes a
lightning raid and then disappears. Don’t bother commenting on
it because you won’t get a response.
Moshpit,
If science is merely applied reasoning, then a skeptic in the dialog of climate science is one who uses his application of reason to question, prima fascia, any aspect of the applied reasoning of climate science . . . . and a skeptic especially questions his own.
Applied reasoning by skeptics, an intellectual dynamo . . .
John
wws: You’re right on target. How the hell can anyone defend those alarmist claims? I keep asking for evidence, Please, some evidence. Invariably the talk about “consensus” or appeals to authority, or give you several links which supposedly contain the “evidence” that they will NEVER attempt to verbalize in their own message. While nothing may be called certain (who knows, the sun may not rise tomorrow, but that is an entirely irrational attitude outside of pure ;mathematics.)
They definitely picked a place the should be immune from the Al Gore Effect. If they have temps below a hundred, I will be amazed.
“7. folks who are certain the earth has a magic thermostat”
Not magic, no, but unless Stefan’s law has ceased to be valid, it has a thermostat. Rad. Heat loss is proportional to T^4.
In general the earth has a good thermostat, but a poor frostat (from our human comfort perspective). Warmer periods (interglacials) have always been more stable climate-wise, on nearly all time scales. Humans have no memory of experiencing an ice age; ice cores suggest far worse swings of temperature during the depths of ice ages.
15. Folks who are certain climate is too complex to predict.
Mosher
That is why 100 models completely bungled the last 15 years. It was because it was so simple to predict. You can throw #15 in the trash can with the other non-astute observations of yours.
I agree with other folks that care is required when associating skepticism with politics. However, I think it is important to connect the lying and shenanigans by the alarmists to their political sponsors, which are the left. It’s another piece of mendacity to go along with you can keep your health plan and your doctor, and it stems from the same control all-take all mentality. Let’s don’t forget that AGW ain’t about climate or the environment – it’s about controlling and taking.
Kyle D says:
March 27, 2014 at 1:36 pm
> They definitely picked a place the should be immune from the Al Gore Effect. If they have temps below a hundred, I will be amazed.
On the plus side, the room rate is $80/day. Way to low to interest the UN conferences!
Thunderstorm season cranks up in July/August. One of those would be nice. We have too many trees in New Egland for good Tstrm views. Well, except above treeline, and you really don’t want to be there in a Tstrm.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/27/ninth-international-conference-on-climate-change/#comment-1599796
Steve McIntyre is the epitome of skepticism.
Somebody quoted this the other day:
“Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.” …….Richard Feynman
I think the same can be said about skepticism.
You are confused because “skeptic” is a label people who stand in opposition to an uncritical belief in global warming alarmism have applied to themselves. In that sense you are correct: Steve McIntyre doesn’t see himself in that group. That makes him an agnostic in my book.
Vegas in early July. They weren’t taking any chances with the Gore Effect.
http://www.weather.com/weather/wxclimatology/monthly/graph/USNV0049
This comes from the “What are they thinking?” department.
In the defense of Mosher, who cares if he is highly regarded?
Obviously Mosher is being paid to comment.
No I don’t think Mosher is being paid to comment.
I suspect that he’s taking anti-depressants and alcohol at the same time.
I recognise that persistent ranting mode we just witnessed above.
A full blown adult tantrum, loud and repetitive – driven by pure rage with a dash of frustration.
Steven Mosher says:
March 27, 2014 at 9:50 am
Egads, Mosh, could you be more unpleasant and condescending? First off, the idea that there are “real” and “fake” skeptics seems bizarre … I greatly doubt whether many of the commenters here are faking anything. They almost all seem sincere in their beliefs. So the term “fake skeptics” encompasses the empty set, and little else.
So let me go through your list and discuss them … boring, I know, but otherwise someone will be fooled into thinking that you were right.
That’s a wide category, encompassing folks who wrongly but strongly believe that downwelling IR can’t heat the planet, as well as heretics like myself who think that the global average temperature is not a function of the forcings, CO2 or otherwise.
And this makes them “fake” how? Craig Idso thinks sensitivity is low … does that make him a fake skeptic? And me, I think the idea of “climate sensitivity” as a stable independent constant value is an extremely flawed and incorrect way to conceptualize the climate … which is why in thirty years we haven’t narrowed the uncertainty of the sensitivity at all. Millions of man-hours and dollars and computer hours have been expended on the question, and despite all of that, our estimate of climate sensitivity is no better than our results from steam-driven computers thirty years ago … to me, that means that the concept of “climate sensitivity” is deeply flawed.
The push of the global warming activists is certainly in that direction, as has been revealed (often inadvertently) by the UN folks … you may not like it, and it may not be a plot, but that’s assuredly the direction that many folks are using global warming alarmism to push us.
While I don’t think this myself, because I think that the system is remarkably impervious to changes in forcings of any kind, why does holding this view make someone a fake?
As far as I can tell, “natural variation” is a term of art in Climatese that means “We don’t have a clue what is making it change, but we want to look all scientific.” As such, it is misused by both sides in the discussion, skeptics hardly have a monopoly on this one, fake or otherwise.
Say what? There is a good chunk of evidence to show that in a variety of places around the world it was as warm or warmer than it is today. Me, I don’t think we have much accuracy back that far, wide error bars, so I don’t have a strong position on this question. But for those that do choose to believe that the MWP was warmer, how does that make them a “fake skeptic”.
I think the earth has a thermostat. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve explained exactly and in detail how I think it works (primarily by variations in the timing of emergence of the various thermoregulatory climate phenomena such as thunderstorms).
Despite that, you have continued to refer to it over and over as my theory about a “magic thermostat” … which indicates to me that it is a theory which concerns you so greatly that you want to cast it into the outer anti-scientific darkness indicated by “magic”. People don’t continue to attack on bogus “magic” pretenses and refuse to read the evidence without a reason …
How on earth does that make someone a fake skeptic, Steven? Thinking Popper was right has nothing to do with skepticism, either fake or real. This list is a joke.
Bad news, buddy … UHI has to bias the record. The only question is … how much?
I’m not a conspiracy theorist myself, although Climategate showed me that in fact they do exist …
Mark Jacobsen of Stanford gives us a look at the numbers on that question here … is he a fake?
There is certainly evidence that there were nearly ice-free periods earlier in the Holocene. Anyone who says they know the reason is blowing smoke.
Most folks know that I think that is nonsense. But how is it “fake”?
I don’t think I know anyone who claims it is not chaotic … are you saying it’s not? If so, I’d refer you to Mandelbrot …
I’m not certain of that, but it certainly can’t be ruled out. Given that the climate is the most complex system that we’ve ever tried to forecast, and the relatively small gains in forecast horizon and forecast accuracy that have accompanied unimaginable gains in computer power, I wouldn’t say I’m optimistic that you or I will live to see such predictions become commonplace.
I will go on record as saying that I’m certain the climate is far too complex for the current generation of models to predict … the “pause” has proven that beyond question.
The only idea I get is the idea that you want to reduce the effectiveness of those who disagree with you by hanging a big bogus sign around their necks that says “FAKE!” … you haven’t defined what a skeptic is, or what would make a skeptic fake, or how we could tell, but by god STEVEN MOSHERS OPPONENTS ARE FAKES!! And don’t you forget it.
Mosh, sometimes it seems like there’s two of you—one guy who posts interesting, intricate, well thought out scientific ideas, claims and questions … and another guy who does drive-by one-line postings, and has an enemies list of people he’s trying to discredit in an underhanded manner.
Which one is the real you?
Finally, let me try to define what I would call a climate skeptic in such a way as to avoid politics, and yet provide a bright-line distinction.
For me a climate skeptic is a person who thinks that the error estimates in the IPCC reports are exaggerated beyond credibility.
And as to what a “fake skeptic” might be, I haven’t a clue …
w.
Willis. My man!
Steven Mosher says:
Most of what you see on skeptical blogs is fake skepticism.
[…]
5. Folks who are certain it’s all “natural variation”
You mean people who believe the null hypothesis hasn’t been disproven are fake skeptics? Sounds like you’re doing a Kevin Trenberth, advocating the null hypothesis should be that AGW is fact. Now I remember several papers showing bad station siting and UHI—as well as adjustments to the record—have resulted in reported local and regional man-made warming. But the lingering winter in North America has shown the warming is nowhere global.
Looks like the court jester hijacked the thread with one post. Such mischief-making! Well, perhaps that’s his role… ‘made ya look, made ya look!’ Nevertheless, I’ve enjoyed the to and fro; never stop.
Katherine you are so right. There are so many micro-climates in a region, that to have one record apply to all and especially global, is sheer poor science equations. There are many variables involved, and the position of the landmass on the globe. The elevation also of course.
Seasonable variations are not new to us. Pollution of course is a real problem in some cities around the world. So is land erosion and soil depletion, that can be halted. But we are small voices until someone or some people take the principal scientists to task. When they have, they get called names or a law suit awaits them.
Maybe I missed Steven’s point. I thought by ‘fake skeptic’ he meant people who don’t apply the same degree of skepticism to AGW alternatives as to AGW. Maybe it’s a straw man. I can’t claim I can’t point to anybody specific and say ‘oh, that’s YOU.’
It’d be clearer if Steven decided to clarify. Based on past experience I don’t think anybody’s holding their breath.
Katherine,
Good point. I agree with you.
Oops.
should have read
Pardon my red face and my foot protruding from my mouth.
Willis Eschenbach said:
“Most folks know that I think that is nonsense. But how is it “fake”?”
I think the fake bit is supporting and promoting unfounded nonsense, while claiming that the “conventional” version is unfounded nonsense.
I think the best replies to Mosher were:
And
Personally, I think some misconstrued what he said but even if they didn’t, what he said can serve as a caution.
We don’t want to become as certifiable as the Wizards of COz who are certain that CO2 emissions are the doom of Man.
How about “Ninth
InternationalContrarian Conference on Climate Change”?Acronym: NiCoCliC, pronounced Nigh Coh Click.
‘a majority of …. scientists’? Really? I would love to believe that, but is it true?
===============
what a great idea. no need to actually do any scientific research. just get a bunch of scientists together and let them vote to determine scientific laws. just like politicians. pass a law and solve problems. want to end poverty, make it illegal to be poor. want unlimited green energy, pass a scientific law that solar cells are 400% efficient.
PS : or NiCCC, pronounced Nick.
Steven Mosher says:
March 27, 2014 at 9:50 am
Most of what you see on skeptical blogs is fake skepticism.
============
better a fake skeptic than a skeptical fake.
PPS: Dropping “Ninth,” which is just a temporary prefix, CCCC could be acronymized as 4C.
Very nicely rebutted, wws and Willis.
Meh, Mosher just loves to come into a room and give everyone a wedgie. The original implication of the “fake skeptic” label is to imply that skeptics know the truth of global warming but lie and refuse to acknowledge it, mostly for their own personal profit. To the best of my knowledge, this label has only been used at platoon level by the likes of Susan Anderson over at Dotearth. Mosher diminishes his brand again by employing it.
They need a speaker debunking drought Alarmism, especially with Lake Mead nearby to the conference.
Says the fake scientist,
http://berkeleyearth.org/team
Steven Mosher, B.A. English Literature and Philosophy, Northwestern University (1981); Teaching Assistant, English Department, UCLA (1981-1985); Director of Operations Research/Foreign Military Sales & Marketing, Northrop Aircraft (1985-1990); Vice President of Engineering, Eidetics International (1990-1993); Director of Marketing, Kubota Graphics Company (1993-1994); Vice President of Sales & Marketing, Criterion Software (1994-1995); Vice President of Personal Digital Entertainment [Marketing], Creative Labs (1995-2006); Vice President of Marketing, Openmoko (2007-2009); President, Qi Hardware Inc. (2009); Marketing Consultant (2010-Present); [Marketing] Advisor, RedZu Online Dating Service (2012-2013); “Scientist” [Team Member], Berkeley Earth 501C(3) Non-Profit Organization unaffiliated with UC Berkeley (2013-Present)
“And as to what a “fake skeptic” might be, I haven’t a clue …”
A fake skeptic is simply one who believes argument “A” on faith rather than evidence (or even in the face of contradictory evidence), but claims to be a skeptic by virtue of disbelieving “not A” .
There are fake skeptics, just as there are fake scientists. And then there are fake-science peddlers who are certain about “folks” who don’t buy it. Oh, the perils of marketing!
This article, in E&E News, presents warmist arguments against the idea that CO2 will help agriculture. Those arguments seem rebuttable to me.
http://www.eenews.net/stories/1059996902