World's Leading Skeptics of Man-Caused Global Warming to Gather in Washington, DC for #ICCC10

Tenth International Conference on Climate Change Offers ‘Fresh Start’ for Science-based Climate Policy June 11–12, 2015

ICCC10-bannerThe Tenth International Conference on Climate Change (#ICCC10) will take place on Thursday, June 11 and Friday, June 12, 2015 at the Washington Court Hotel in Washington, DC. The conference will explore the following important questions:

  • Is climate science sufficiently advanced to allow accurate forecasts of future temperatures or weather?
  • Are temperatures more likely to cool than warm in the next century?
  • Should policies adopted at the height of the global warming scare be repealed and replaced with pro-environment, pro-energy, and pro-jobs policies?
  • In short: Given the new science and economics of climate change, isn’t it time for a fresh start to the debate over what, if anything, to do about global warming.

Learn the answers to those questions by joining hundreds of scientists, economists, and policy experts for this conference just two blocks from the Capitol The schedule for the day-and-a-half event, hosted by The Heartland Institute, will feature five news-making keynote addresses, 12 panel discussions, and five award presentations for achievement in climate science and climate communications. (Click here to see a list of previous award winners.)

Some of the climate data the conference will present and discuss:

  • Satellite data that show the global atmospheric temperature has not risen since the late 1990s – 18 years and four months, to be exact – while human carbon dioxide emissions in that time represent 25 percent of all emissions since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution 150 years ago.
  • Sea-level rise that has not accelerated beyond the trend that began at the end of the last Ice Age.
  • The total amount of polar ice at the two poles is almost unchanged since satellites first measured it in the early 1970s.

Some of the policy questions the conference will explore and discuss:

  • Is the rising concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere a net positive or net negative for plant life, animals, and human prosperity?
  • What is the cost of restrictions on energy generation and consumption imposed by the Obama administration and the United Nations?
  • Is it moral to withhold affordable and reliable energy from poor people living in the U.S. and those in emerging countries?

This event is open to the public. Paid registration is required.

This event is open to all media: print, broadcast, and online. Apply for registration, and use the #ICCC10 hashtag in social media.

To see videos from The Heartland Institute’s nine previous International Conferences on Climate Change, click here.

For more information about The Heartland Institute, visit its website. For personal responses to inquiries, contact Director of Communications Jim Lakely at jlakely@heartland.org or 312/377-4000. You can also call or text Jim Lakely’s cell at 312/731-9364.

###

Advertisements

234 thoughts on “World's Leading Skeptics of Man-Caused Global Warming to Gather in Washington, DC for #ICCC10

    • @Daniel Kuhn
      Why?
      Insults tell more than anyone wants to know about abusers and nothing whatsoever about their victims (beyond the fact that they are being subjected to cruel treatment).
      Please explain in coherent detail why “clown parade” is an actual description of the event and not of yourself.

      • When circus owner PT Barnum said “There’s a sucker born every minute”, he probably had warmies like Daniel in mind.

      • May I suggest that we do not get into blogging with these people who abuse those with any rational alternative point of view in the global warming debate.. Let’s make it our policy that those who live by insulting scientists with genuinely held alternative viewpoints are simply idiots with closed minds in the face of overwhelming evidence to support the sceptic case. Disgusting people like Daniel Kuhn and UK(US) should not be allowed to be brought into a serious debate, no matter how they shout, So please, let us all ignore these stupid people without being tempted to waste space here, which is meant for people with a serious viewpoint, debating a very important question.
        Incidentally, I do think that WUWT have a right to ban abusive blogs and bloggers so long as they persist in living their lives through insults and abuse of those scientists and others who are sceptics. They offer no contribution to the debate whatsoever. So why engage them? How about reviewing your policy in this respect Mods?

      • In agreement with George Lawson… I, for one, would like to see troll comments ignored completely – let them blow in the wind. As the adage goes, never wrestle with a pig – you both get filthy and the pig likes it!

    • Daniel, when facts and logic are outside of your grasp, resort to insults and name calling.

  1. Grab your wifes hairdryer and try heating water through the surface. That’ll give them all the answers they need.

      • Water has a specific heat capacity about THREE ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE greater than air. Marine air temperature is determined primarily by SST, not the other way around., which is why SST is used as a proxy for near surface air temperatures.
        You do not have the slightest idea what you are talking about. Try applying to join a climate modelling team , you seem to have all the necessary qualifications.
        [Rather, “heat capacity x density” for water to air comparison. .mod]

      • Mark,
        You don’t really warm an ocean with warm air. It goes other way around. This is because the heat capacity of a few meters of water matches the heat capacity of the whole lower troposphere, and water absorbs radiation where air does not.

      • If the water is cooling the air, then by definition the air is also warming the water. Heat capacity just tells you the ratio by which the two temperatures are changing.

      • At Mike.
        “””””…..Marine air temperature is determined primarily by SST, not the other way around., which is why SST is used as a proxy for near surface air temperatures……”””””
        John Christy et al in Jan 2001 reported on the efficacy of using SST as a proxy for near surface air Temperatures. They reported on about 20 years (from about 1980 ) of simultaneous SSTs (-1 metre) and near surface (+3 metres) air Temperatures from oceanic buoys.
        Their results showed that SST is NOT a good proxy for air Temperatures; with as much as a 40% discrepancy; but most importantly, they are not correlated so one can’t be used to correct past data of the other.
        So nyet on using SST for atmospheric Temperatures. Why would anyone expect them to be the same since wind speeds can be orders of magnitude greater that ocean current speeds, so air over Hawaii to day can be over California in just a few days, so they don’t remain in contact to equilibrate.

      • George, Could you give me the reference to Christy et al 2001? I googled for it but couldn’t find it.

      • Found it: Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 28, Number 1, pp. 183–186, January 2001)
        – John R. Christy, D.E. Parker, S.J. Brown, I. Macadam, M. Stendel, W.B. Norris

      • The full paper is here: http://tinyurl.com/lamzzxl
        This explains why according to NOAA, HadCRUT4 etc. (SST and land air T) 2014 was the hottest year on record whereas RSS (air only) doesn’t show that at all.

      • But to simulate the alarmists’ model you would have to make the water at he bottom of the pot warm whilst the surface water doesn’t. Let me know when you succeed.

    • For obvious health and safety reasons hairdryers deliver heat at a very low rate, and probably work mostly by encouraging evaporation rather than by delivering heat, so this experiment of yours may not be conclusive. There may even be a drop in temperature, if evaporation heat loss exceeds hot air heat gain.

      • You clearly have not used a hairdryer. The air is ridiculously hot when on the High setting.

      • A typical hair dryer is 1500 watts. About the same energy as 15 solar panels in the noon day sun.

      • I’m afraid there is no way to “encourage evaporation” without delivering “heat”; in fact about 590 calories per gram of water is needed.
        The hair dryer blows air over a heated element, which makes the air hot, as it exits the blower.
        But the element also emits EM radiation energy, similar to what comes back from the atmosphere to the water surface, except at a higher frequency or shorter wavelength.
        You need to hold the hair dryer, so the IR radiation gets to the water but the hot air doesn’t, to simulate the effect.
        You basically blow dry your hair, which uses the hot air close to the blower.

      • ” I’m afraid there is no way to “encourage evaporation” without delivering “heat” ”
        Yes there is: wind, as in wind chill, and in hanging out the washing to dry.

      • The temperature of the clothes or skin drops because their heat energy is being used to elevate water molecules from the liquid to vapour state. Tracking temperature, when “phase change” is involved, is not a reliable way to track heat transfer.

      • Years ago, maybe the 1970’s, in the UK there was a brilliant TV show on BBC (Before BBC lost all credit with climate change alarmism) called “Tmorrow’s World”. I recall an inventer appear on the show equipped with nothing more than a 240v/ac power drill, a fish tank full of water and a spray can containing his invention. He sprayed the drill around the power switch and motor, plunged it into a tank of water and turned it on. A truely awesome demonstration and specifically targeted at divers working on oil rigs if I recall correctly.
        I can’t find a video of the original TV show, but this is possibly a product derived that that original demonstration.

      • You do not have to add heat to get evaporation. The energy comes from the temperature of the water. The evaporatiion is reduced by the specific humidity of the air.
        An interesting experiment: Place a beaker of water in a chamber and start evacuating the air. Evaporation will increase, possiblty with boiling, until the water freezes. Where did the energy or heat for evaporation come from? The water.
        In evaporation the statistical variation of the kinetic energy of the water molecules allows some of those near the surface with the most energy to escape the binding force of surface tension and become a water vapor molecule. This reduces the average energy of the remaining molecules and hence the water temperature drops, giving up energy in the form of latent heat. At the same time, depending on the vapor pressure of the water vapor, (proportional to the density of the water vapor molecules), some water vapor molecules will be captured by the water surface and reduce the net evaporation.
        However to maintain some evaporation, heat will needed to be added to the water surface to offset the cooling. In the oceans that is mostly from the sun, but also heat from below offset by cooling from radiation minus back radiation from the atmosphere and clouds.

    • Route the hot air through some tubes in the container the water is in thereby increasing the percentage of hot air that meets a cooler surface, bingo heat exchange problem solved.
      RMB no response required, I know my analogy is lame, but so is yours.

    • Quite right. A force ventilated water surface is nearly impossible to warm , though a hair dryer is probably not the best analogy for the ocean surface being supposedly warmed by downward longwave IR.
      The Guardian inadvertedly pointed out another problem with AGW today:
      http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/may/06/global-carbon-dioxide-levels-break-400ppm-milestone
      IEA data shows that CO2 due to energy generation ‘stalled’ this year at the same time as the rate of change reached 2.25 ppmv/year, ‘unprecedented’ in measurements that go back to 1958.
      That proves in one hit that energy production is NOT the dominant cause of CO2 rise. In that case what good is further strangling coal-fired power generation?
      The IPA’s case against coal just fell apart.

    • Put a radiant heater aimed down at the water, not a hot wind. Test: jump into a Canadian lake in April and then try it again in late July and let me know what your observations are.

    • Yep, as any thermometer in any pot will tell you, it does. Now, if you don’t want to be holding it forever, you need a shallow pot, but that’s a different matter entirely.

  2. Answer me this one question: What is the theoretical global mean temperature of Earth with zero CO2 in its atmosphere?
    Achieve consensus on that if you can! Without it, all other calculations are meaningless!

    • That is actually a pretty easy question to answer, assuming no atmosphere.
      12715 km Diameter of earth
      6357500 m Radius of earth
      5.07905E+14 m² Surface area of earth
      1.26976E+14 m² Area of plane at equator (A1)
      1366 W/m² Solar constant (S)
      1.7345E+17 W Total power to earth from sun (A1 X S)
      341.5 W/m² Required radiation from earth (1/4 of S because the earth radiates from the entire surface, but absorption only occurs at a plane equal to the area of a section at the equator)
      341.5 q q=εσ(T^4)
      5.6703E-08 SB constant or σ
      1 ε=1 emissivity, assuming a black body
      278.6 T=(q/(εσ))^(1/4) Kelvin, the black body temperature of the earth
      So 278.6 kelvin or 5.4 °C. Adding anything, such as an atmosphere or surface colour and roughness hugely complicates the derivation of the emissivity, but that is the only item that must be altered (well, not quite as there is absorbance and radiation in the atmosphere, but this is an illustration, not a full course) to determine the equilibrium surface temperature of the earth. Increasing the CO2 decreases the emissivity, hence requiring a hotter temperature to achieve thermal equilibrium. Basic thermodynamics as taught to engineers. If you want to be fully accurate, you need to solve an infinite number of radiative transfer equations to describe the impact of CO2 (and water and …) on equilibrium temperature.

      • Er, uhm, no.
        See, the equatorial_band received more radiation than your flat-earth “average” over a far larger area than your flat-earth average, and even more than that over your polar_band over each hour of insolation; and that equatorial band also radiates far more than your flat-earth average (because it is hotter than “average” ) and thus is radiating at T_eqtr^4 >> more than the t_poles^4 or T-temperate^4.
        Tell you what. Do that simple little exercise for the airless moon. When you can actually duplicate the day-by-day pole-to-pole ground temperatures on the moon, report back.

      • Come on, RA, that’s a more than detailed enough answer for a meaningless theoretical situation answering such a vague question. Presuming Earth is one temperature is no less ridiculous than a spherical cow.(30C vs 0C is the same order of magnitude even with a T^4 variation).
        Plus, that way doesn’t require any integration, which is just messy to type up in a message board.

      • John ,
        While I find your derivation more complex than it needs to be , your answer is correct .
        It is important to note , tho , that the 278.6K calculated is true for any gray , ie : flat spectrum , ball no matter how light or dark .
        The derivation for arbitrary source power and object absorption=emission spectra is the essence of my Heartland presentation last summer : http://cosy.com/Science/HeartlandBasicBasics.html :

      • Ben ,
        The basic physics is not “meaningless” . Only when the temperature of the earth is understood in terms of the experimentally verifiable quantitative physics will there be no “unexplained variance” left for the statist politicians to scare people with .
        All the inner planets other than Venus are within a few percent of the gray body temperature in their orbits . Just this simple calculation explains 97% ( interesting coincidence ) of our estimated temperature .
        RA ,
        Your comment is very close to the next step I’m interested in doing the analysis of and calculations for — essentially assigning a Lambertian cosine map over the sphere ( which in fact introduces the spherical geometry into the equations ) and reconciling the gray body average temperature with 4th root of the energy density distribution .
        I’m not directly interested in the moon or any other particular body ; I want to understand the basic quantitative physics in the classical more abstracted but experimentally verifiable form . Rather than guesstimate planets , let me be able to calculate the temperature distribution of a croquet ball under a sun lamp .
        I think it is nuts that I have never seen or been pointed to any quantitative introduction to this essential classical physics or its experimental foundations . These basics must be understood by anybody doing satellite work , but I know of no source available to the numerate layman .
        However , this interest is secondary to my completing development of my own APL informed Forth based language implementation , and , as with so many of us , is unfunded so when is a total unknown .

    • The theoretical global mean temperature is only theoretical. The question hinges of the cause of the atmospheric lapse rate, which provides the energy to warm the surface at the expense of cooling the atmosphere. This is still an open question.
      In theory both back radiation and convection can give rise to a lapse rate. If GHG theory is correct, then we should see a difference between the lapse rate on planets with high GHG atmosphere vs low GHG atmospheres. But we don’t.
      The obvious answer is that real greenhouses heat by limiting convection. However, in the atmosphere, the effect of GHG is to cool the atmosphere and heat the surface, increasing convection – the opposite of how real greenhouses work.

      • Descending air (half the atmosphere at any given moment) limits upward convection beneath it, just like a greenhouse.
        Descending air, warming as it descends, dissipates clouds to let more sunlight in, just like a greenhouse.
        That is the mass induced greenhouse effect which raises surface temperature from 255K as per S-B to 288K as observed.

    • It’s about 288 kelvin, same as with the CO2.
      Water vapor does not require CO2 to jump start the feedback effect; it is perfectly capable of doing that itself.
      It can also compensate for too much CO2 in the atmosphere, although we have never had that happen in living memory; nor since the Great Pyramid was built.

      • I can’t help feeling there is a similarity between Imhotep’s engineering, and that of Vestas. Although, Imhotep does deserve credit for inventing one of the world’s most popular tourist attractions.

    • If there were no CO2 in the atmopshere, there would also be no oxygen and no metazoan life on earth, making the world much different that it is now.
      Changing the queston to “How many watts of flux does the earth get on average, what part of this is. from CO2, and Michael Hammer worked it out here:
      http://jennifermarohasy.com/2009/03/radical-new-hypothesis-on-the-effect-of-greenhouse-gases/
      “Below 8 microns 45 watts/m2
      8 microns to 14 microns 143 watts/m2
      14 microns to 15.5 microns 28 watts/m2
      Above 15.5 microns 174 watts/m2”
      So about 28 out of 390 watts is the direct result of CO2 in the atmosphere.
      If the flux at earth’s surface dropped by 28 watts, the average temperature would dropdo
      (362/390)^0.25 = 0.9815 of the current temperature of about 288K.

      • There would be lots of life. It would be chowing Sulphur not Carbon dioxide. Doesn’t even need sunlight.
        Also there are bacteria living miles underground amongst the rocks that also don’t need CO2. Without CO2 the planet would probably be covered with a bubbling yellow-orange goo.

    • Apollo 13 told us what it should be if there were no heat sources but the sun (barring a small amount from 3 astronauts and minimal equipment) However, in the Earth’s case the great unknown is how much its internal heat warms the surface.

  3. What would be nice to see, is 100,000 demonstrators outside the White House holding signs with slogans something like “Quit wasting our tax dollars on worthless climate research that provides NO value!”. Here is a thought experiment: would society be better or worse off today if all moneys invested in climate research had instead been invested to dig holes in the morning and fill them in in the afternoon. Honestly, I think we would be better off! The end effect of those research dollars has been to polarize the country like never before. We’d been better off digging and filling holes!

    • Seems a little long-winded for a picket sign…
      How about: “HANDS OFF MY CO2”?
      Or…
      “RARE-EARTH MINING KILLS”?

    • It would be great to see so many demonstrators, but it won’t happen. The people who protest against CAGW have jobs and a life. They are also opposed to rent-a-mobs. Leftists have no such restrictions.

      • alexwade, I’m not talking rent-a-mob. I’m talking real engineers and scientists. I have a very busy job and life, but I would put that on hold to do this. Why? Because I both fear and hate communists and nazi’s. With a passion. And they are making inroads to controlling our government. People with jobs and a life who enjoy their freedoms should make this top priority. Most engineers and scientists are paid well enough to put their career on hold for a week to do this without feeling much pain.

      • It would be great to see if any of the many presidential aspirants visit the conference.

    • It wouldn’t require 100K. If even a couple thousand showed up it would be a media event. A few hundred with lots of signs would do it, too.

      • I am tempted to go do it myself for a week, although one guy with a sign won’t attract anything but snarks and pity. I would gladly do it if there were even a couple hundred others who would join me. Not rent-a-mobs, but actual engineers and scientists. That’s how important this is to me. Why? Because I believe it needs to be done. Our personal freedoms are at stake here.

      • average joe
        You make a good point. And there would be more to help you if we could stop the ultra-right nutters proclaiming it is only “leftists” who support global warming.
        The many ‘leftists’ who oppose global warming are inhibited from joining the demonstration when they are told their joining will tar them as being right-wing.
        Richard

      • Let me see if I have this straight. The problem is that too many right wingers say that only left wingers support CAGW.
        Therefore your left wing friends would accuse you of being a right winger if you join the demonstration.
        You are too smart to not notice the disconnect between those two statements.
        Your left wing nutter friends are equally adamant that only the right wing opposes action on CAGW.

      • MarkW, on behalf of myself (as my father can speak for himself).
        The left have evidence – see the comments here for examples.
        The right have prejudice – they just blame us.
        There is no reason for the sensitivity of weather systems to increasing CO2 concentration to be a left / right political issue. The prejudice needs to be justified.

      • MCourtney,
        Aha, so we meet again, M!
        Sorry, but your examples are falsified by a mountain of evidence. And I don’t consider myself “Right” (but merely right☺)…
        You say above: “…they just blame us.”
        Have you never noticed GW Bush being blamed by the far-Left Obama for, well, just about everything bad that happens? I could add about a million more examples, but you get the idea.
        There isn’t much difference between extremists from the Left and the Right. They both do the same things for political advantage.
        I’m not affiliated with the TEA Party in any way, but I do like their point of view: Lower taxes, reduce government bureaucracy, and leave us the hell alone! That applies to both ends of the political spectrum.
        I do agree with you that CO2 is not a political issue. The only reason it has become political is because believers in CO2 being a significant ‘control knob’ of the climate have lost the science debate. But instead of admitting they were wrong, they shifted their arguments into the political arena, where facts and evidence are unnecessary.

      • MarkW
        I rarely agree with my son, but I agree with his answer to you.
        I challenge you to cite a day when WUWT had no posts asserting AGW is a left-wing issue. The right-wing nutters who make those assertions may be trolls acting to inhibit people on the political left from opposing the scare, but I have yet to see any evidence of that.
        I add that your putting words in my mouth is offensive. There is no “disconnect” in what I said. It is simply true that many people do not want to be seen as being aligned with their political opponents.
        Richard

      • dbstealey
        I rarely agree with my son but I have in this sub-thread.
        And I rarely disagree with you but I write to do that now.
        You say

        I do agree with you that CO2 is not a political issue. The only reason it has become political is because believers in CO2 being a significant ‘control knob’ of the climate have lost the science debate. But instead of admitting they were wrong, they shifted their arguments into the political arena, where facts and evidence are unnecessary.

        Sorry, but NO! The global warming scare has been political from the start.
        Global warming was created as a scare by Margaret Thatcher for reasons of her personal political self-interest. Please read this.
        The global warming scare still ‘runs’ if you remove all references to science in the influence diagrams of the link.
        Subsequently, the scare became a ‘left vs right’ issue in the USA but only in the USA.
        Richard

      • MCourtney,
        Opinion is not evidence.
        As to the left having prejudice, just reading your posts about right wing nutters is sufficient to prove that.

      • Richard,
        I never said that there were no posters who claimed that AGW was a left wing conspiracy.
        It really is offensive when you put words in other people’s mouths.

      • MarkW
        You replied to my post by you saying in total

        Let me see if I have this straight. The problem is that too many right wingers say that only left wingers support CAGW.
        Therefore your left wing friends would accuse you of being a right winger if you join the demonstration.
        You are too smart to not notice the disconnect between those two statements.
        Your left wing nutter friends are equally adamant that only the right wing opposes action on CAGW.

        None of that has any relation to what I wrote.
        You offensively put words in my mouth. I put none in yours.
        Richard

    • “…dig holes in the morning and fill them in in the afternoon…”
      Hmm, so which creates more CO2 digging holes, human powered shovels, or diesel shovels?
      “We’d been better off digging and filling holes!”
      Whoa, shovel ready jobs, you’re above average genius Joe!

    • Heartland: you are up against a 30 year planned and systematic global propaganda exercise employing thousands of mercenaries and spending billions. The target market being the uninformed masses who have little or no understanding of science. Conferences for the converted will not do the job IMO.
      Perhaps it’s time to rethink strategy and target markets.

      • I think that the current strategy of “let them hang themselves” is working out better than anything Heartland can do. The more Heartland fights, the worse off they do because they are so outmatched. Sitting back and pointing out the ridiculousness of the claims is actually our best tactic. That’s the realm of the political cartoonist and the editorialist, not an organized group, who can be targeted as a propaganda source.
        Giving people a place to come to when they get cynical and realize the problem is a solution.

      • Letting them hang themselves would be a great strategy, if we could get any major media coverage, that is. We need a catastrophic storyline of our own about all the billions spent on this research which gives us nothing of value in return – models that are a joke, mountains of data that isn’t useful for anything, and worst of all it has provided legions of socialist loons with a vehicle to get their policies implemented. I would love to see a congressional inquiry into the basis for scientific conclusions, where expert witnesses must testify and be cross examined under oath to get to the truth of the science. For example, when senator Sessions asked Gina McCarthy about the performance of climate models, and she says “What models?” and claims she doesn’t know what he is referring to – that interchange needs to happen under oath, as she knows damn well what models he was referring to. As Inhofe said, the intellectual dishonesty of this green blob is astounding.Obama’s bizzaro science adviser Holdren needs to be queried under oath about the basis of his claims – what is his evidence? And when you hear the line “there is a growing body of evidence suggests…” or “multiple lines of evidence indicate that…” pin them down on the details – What evidence? Let’s hear it! There is enough at stake here it seems a no-brainer to me that a formal inquiry into the science is justified, with experts compelled to testify under oath., with major news coverage of the whole thing. Get it out in the open!

  4. File Under: Communication Is the Key to Freedom
    ************************************************************
    Re: “Man-caused”
    Unless this is an event designed solely to shore up the climate realist base, such outdated, sexist, language will only undermine the credibility of the message (even as powerful and true as that message is).
    Educated people under 55 reading or hearing the headline will think something along the lines of:
    “Well, if Ward Cleever says so,… laugh-out-loud,”
    and stop reading (or listening).
    ***************************
    FYI (for those not familiar with the 1950’s U.S. TV Show “Leave It to Beaver”):
    A typical Ward Cleever moment… (youtube)

    • World’s Leading Skeptics of Man Woman-Caused Global Warming to Gather in Washington, DC for #ICCC10
      So now we know it’s your fault. ;>}

    • It is not sexist, except to one who is sexist because he or she is always looking for sexism, to use “man-caused.” Anybody with have a brain knows the intended meaning. Does “human” bother you because it has “man” in it?

      • In English, Man is a generic term meaning ‘person’. Many, many years ago it was Mann with the same meaning.
        A male person is a weaman.
        A female person is a woman.
        Look it up.

    • great clip. I forgot how funny that show was.
      “A woman’s place is in the home, so she might as well be in the kitchen.”

    • The best communication outcome is exposing the Trilateral Commission members, and outlawing their existence. Scrub their technocracy agenda, which include AGW etc, alias Climate Change from the planet, start with throwing them out of the USA. Arguing over minutia is a distraction they will tolerate. Put a tab on this blog of who the members are, and what positions they hold in governments. Some who comment here are probably members: trolls. The rest is a waste of energy.

  5. Link to tenth conference comes up as hacked by some apparently islamist website

  6. Skeptics like Roy Spencer, Roger Pielke, Jr., Judith Curry? They are certain AGW exists, but only wonder how bad it’s going to get. A true skeptic, a real scientist, has grave doubts about the existence of AGW. The major attempt to predict climate based on the AGW conjecture has failed. The notions of AGW is invalid.

    • You’re being ridiculous. Of course you can disagree with them. THE RIGHT TO DISAGREE IS FUNDAMENTAL TO SCIENCE.
      However, you’re fighting an uphil battle against, as your claim that the greenhouse gas effect doesn’t exist requires magic energy that somehow doesn’t affect things because its destination is hotter than its source despite radiation not having memory.
      The difference between us and the alarmists is that I will listen thoroughly and consider your point before calling you a fool.

  7. The very first bullet point contains a rather obvious strawman, as nobody is suggesting we can forecast the weather decades out.
    That said, physics can give us a pretty good idea what the conditions in which weather occurs will be should the climate continue to warm. Conditions that should be true, physically, no matter the reason for that warming.
    For instance, there will be an intensification of the hydrological cycle. Physics demands this. And what that means for precipitation should be fairly obvious, especially anyone with a background in meteorology like Mr Watts has.

    • By “continue to warm”, I assume you mean re-commence warming, and no, there is no reason to think it will. To the contrary, rhere is plenty of reason to think we could be in for a period of cooling, possibly even a severe one.

      • seriouslysushi
        I don’t know of any reason to believe anything said by an anonymous troll who pretends the climate continues to warm when global warming stopped about 18 years ago.
        Richard

      • No hope of serious warming. We are in the Pleistocene Ice Age, with warm Interglacials every 100,000 years or so. Interglacials last about 10,000 years and we are at 10,000 years of this one. Our minute contribution of CO2 to Earth’s atmosphere halt the Pleistocene Ice Age in its tracks? Unlikely.

    • However, as the current meme for the global warming (climate change) crowd is that almost all weather is caused by global warming, this is a legitimate question.
      “. . . what the conditions in which weather occurs will be should the climate continue to warm.”
      As the surface has not warmed in over 18 years and the troposphere has not warmed significantly in 27 years (cooling actively since 2006), “continue to warm” is way beyond a strawman, just wrong.

      • I don’t subscribe to the meme that hasn’t warmed. I know the warming of surface temperatures has slowed, but I fully expect it to accelerate again, and soon.
        I don’t understand the science to say that global warming causes weather events so much as that it will contribute them in some fairly obvious ways- as physics demands.

      • seriouslysushi says: “I don’t understand the science…”
        But yet you say as physics demands. Seems odd to me. What if physics does not demand, but someone lied to you? How would you know since you don’t understand the science?

      • sushi, so you are pulling an Adam Savage on us?
        “I reject your reality and substitute my own.”
        The fact that there has been no warming is an established fact, even the IPCC has admitted as much.

      • seriouslysushi:
        You can argue endlessly about the temperature yesterday or today. Look at the bigger picture – Interglacials start very warm as this one, called the Holocene, did 10,000 years ago, and then temperatures drop in alternate warm and cool periods over roughly 10,000 years, until the return to the Pleistocene Ice Age. The previous Interglacial called the Eemian had the same pattern, as did previous Interglacials. Some were much shorter.

      • seriouslysushi
        You say

        I don’t subscribe to the meme that hasn’t warmed. I know the warming of surface temperatures has slowed, but I fully expect it to accelerate again, and soon.
        I don’t understand the science to say that global warming causes weather events so much as that it will contribute them in some fairly obvious ways- as physics demands.

        It is an empirical fact – n.b. NOT a “meme” – that global warming has stopped. The present stasis in global temperature will end with global warming or global cooling and nobody can know which until it happens.
        Science does NOT say global warming will have discernible effects on weather or anything else. The facts are as follows.
        The empirically determined values of low climate sensitivity indicate that feedbacks in the climate system are negative and, therefore, any effect of increased CO2 will be probably too small to discern because natural climate variability is much, much larger.
        Empirical – n.b. not model-derived – determinations indicate climate sensitivity is less than 1.0°C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 equivalent. This is indicated by the studies of
        Idso from surface measurements
        http://www.warwickhughes.com/papers/Idso_CR_1998.pdf
        and Lindzen & Choi from ERBE satellite data
        http://www.drroyspencer.com/Lindzen-and-Choi-GRL-2009.pdf
        and Gregory from balloon radiosonde data
        http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/OLR&NGF_June2011.pdf
        Indeed, because climate sensitivity is less than 1.0°C for a doubling of CO2 equivalent, it is physically impossible for the man-made global warming to be large enough to be detected. If something exists but is too small to be detected then it only has an abstract existence; it does not have a discernible existence that has effects (observation of the effects would be its detection).
        Richard

      • I don’t subscribe to the meme that hasn’t warmed. I know the warming of surface temperatures has slowed, but I fully expect it to accelerate again, and soon.

        These are the words of a zealot waiting for the second coming of the global warming savior. Face the facts sushi, there has been no warming for almost two decades, and cooling for about 13 years.

      • Louis,
        Sorry, but your warmist ideology is not supported by physics. Physics would imply that you have all the necessary information, which you do not. Not even close.

      • And physics is the reason for Ice Ages, vast patterns of behaviour between planets in the solar system, the Milankovitch cycles and so on which you don’t have to understand, but anyone can look at the pattern of Ice Age and Interglacials over the past million years, just as you notice the patterns of Spring, Summer Autumn, Winter on Earth. No one would say in November that there was going to be serious heatwaves in the Northern Hemisphere. No one who has looked would say that there was going to be serious warming towards the end of an Interglacial.

      • Well I guess so if you mean by physics the physical laws that control the earths tilt, rotation and orbit is the reason for the seasons. But what do seasons have to do with climate? Hopefully you do not mean the physical properties of CO2 are the reason for the seasons.
        Biologically we have been able to fine tune livestock, domestic animals, agriculture and even our own bodies to our needs using technology. We have limited ability to fine tune the environment with cities and roads, but we definitely have no record or proven method to fine-tune climate to our needs.
        Humanities knowledge and ability to carry knowledge forward has evolved exponentially in the last hundred years. There is no indication this will slow down over the next 100 years, so who knows maybe we will develop technology to fine-tune weather to our needs. Somehow I do not think that will be a priority in terms of practical application because of the breadth and risk of the task. It ain’t just physics.
        The Earths eco-system in which the climate is a player in and is affected by includes biological, evolutionary, chemical, geological and physical processes and systems, All of which affect each other while interdependently evolving over time at different rates and amount. So even if we found ways to change the climate, we wouldn’t want to unless we seriously knew all the ramifications of what we were doing.

    • seriouslysushi
      True. Physics is “the reason for the seasons”.
      But only an idiot pretends it is still summer when in the midst of winter.
      Similarly, only an idiot pretends the climate continues to warm when global warming stopped about 18 years ago.
      As I said,
      I don’t know of any reason to believe anything said by an anonymous troll who pretends the climate continues to warm when global warming stopped about 18 years ago. And “physics” is NOT a reason to believe the troll.
      Richard

      • But only an idiot pretends it is still summer when in the midst of winter.
        Maybe they are geographically inclined. When it is winter somewhere, it is summer somewhere else.

      • Another word that adds nothing to the conversation is “idiot”.
        Don’t care which side it comes from…it has no meaning.

        • u.k.(us)
          You wrongly assert

          Another word that adds nothing to the conversation is “idiot”.
          Don’t care which side it comes from…it has no meaning.

          Nonsense!
          The OED defines an idiot as “a stupid person”.
          So, the statement,
          “But only an idiot pretends it is still summer when in the midst of winter”
          means
          “But only a stupid person pretends it is still summer when in the midst of winter”.
          And the statement “adds to the conversation” by pointing out that the person who made the pretense is providing stupidity and nothing of value.
          Trolls like to inhibit discussion of matters of value by deflecting the conversation onto stupidity. Such trolling needs to be rejected as being what it is.
          Richard

    • Is there physical evidence that total global warming stopped 18 years ago, or is it more accurate to say that near-surface atmospheric temperature anomaly has leveled off for that particular time segment? Accuracy is essential to countering the CAGW misinformation.

      • I don’t see much difference. There were incessant predictions that global warming was going to accelerate. They were wrong. Not just a little wrong; global warming has been stopped since the anomaly of 1997.
        That’s a long time to be wrong. But instead of the stasis in GW convincing those people that their ‘dangerous MMGW’ premise was wrong, they continue to search for factoids to support their belief. Confirmation bias, no?

      • “Leveled off” and stopped are basically synonymous. The evidence is the data in both the RSS and UAH temperature records.

      • Louis LeBlanc
        You ask

        Is there physical evidence that total global warming stopped 18 years ago, or is it more accurate to say that near-surface atmospheric temperature anomaly has leveled off for that particular time segment? Accuracy is essential to countering the CAGW misinformation.

        Well, if “Accuracy is essential” then it needs to be acknowledged that temperature is an intrinsic property so physics decrees that temperature cannot be averaged. Hence, and for example, there is not – and there cannot be – a global average surface temperature anomaly (GASTA).
        However, that limitation applies in physics and not in ‘climate science’ where various teams calculate estimates of GASTA according to their own unique definitions of GASTA which they each change most months.
        According to ‘climate science’, global warming is a positive value of linear trend in GASTA when the trend differs from zero with 95% confidence. Starting from now and calculating back in time for each and every time series of GASTA, there has not been global warming discernible at 95% confidence for at least the most recent 14 years with only the GISS determination indicating less than 16 years and RSS indicating for the most recent 26 years.
        The most probable time since there was global warming discernible at 95% confidence is about 18 years with with RSS indicating18 years 5 months. According to each of the time series of GASTA, the previous 18-year period shows global warming was then discernible at 95% confidence.
        In other words, if there is such a thing as global warming then it stopped about 18 years ago.
        Richard

        • It needs to be repeated. “Temperature is an intrinsic property, so physics decrees that temperature cannot be averaged.”
          I would only add, “meaningfully.” Gavin Schmidt convinced me that a mathmetician can, and will, average anything, delighting in increased precision, giving him greater confidence in the models, deviation from reality notwithstanding.
          It reminded me of an Andy Rooney closer on 60 Minutes. He claimed that he would partially fill his gas tank with regular, pay for it, then immediately top it off with premium. He then averaged the octane numbers to crow about how he really put one over on the gas station. I don’t know if he actually believed it, but probably convinced many viewers that he was very clever.

          • Also, while I’m on the subject, I sometimes ask people to consider the following.
            A car is traveling at 30 mph. The drivers wishes to average 60 mph over the next two miles. The driver maintains 30 mph for the next mile. How fast must the car go for the second mile to achieve the 60 mph average?
            The common answers are 90 mph and 120 mph. Almost none even suspect that something is weird about the problem statement. Surface-based global temperature average is a totally satisfactory concept to many. Can they be motivated to think differently?

          • I always thought it was the condition of the tires first, then how well the suspension could handle the road surface, then the engine has to last, then ya gotta know the escape routes, then you gotta pay off the authorities,…. maybe it is different know ?

          • Excellent point u.k.
            The projections of GAT should give everyone the willies. Atomic mass is a fine concept in and of itself, for instance, due to a detailed knowledge of the isotopic mass distribution and the large number of atoms typically involved in a chemical reaction. To actually predict the carbon isotope ratio anomaly of a particular plant species five years from now, versus the null hypothesis of the currently accepted natural abundance with any confidence would be a massive computation, and probably a fool’s errand. I like your subtle wording too.

          • I’m going with the car would need to travel the second mile instantaneously, meaning it would need to be one extremely fast car with truly crushing acceleration.
            MPG would probably be unknown.
            /grin

        • When I was a lad my education gave me the estimated global average temp and atmospheric pressure of 14.7C and 1013 Mb, this was calculated maybe 100 or more years ago. This was gold standard and used for all calculation for example aircraft take off weight charts ETC. I have found it a rather difficult task to come to terms with the warmists anomaly charts and found one or maybe all of them are using 14C as a base. If they used the real standard their warming is not only gone but is actually cooling.

      • The “pause” is a term that suggests that the heat is about to jump back on the rising curve any day now, when we don’t know. All we know now is the warming trend simply stopped for now at least. The Titanic didn’t pause in its journey!

    • I assume you refer to increased prosperity and agriculture as in the Roman and Mediaeval Warm periods, less storms and extreme weather as the temperature gradient between the equatorial and polar regions becomes less steep?
      Yes we have an inkling.

      • Sushi, not all. a broad temperature gradient change even slight affects the convective atmospheric processes and makes a change that can be noticed. Extreme weather events such as hurricanes, storms etc are actually down in recent times in conjunction with a warming climate.
        Obviously it’s not an extrme change as it’s not an extreme warming, but it’s a fact that in the Mediaeval Warm Period as well as the Roman and Minoan, agriculture and civilisation flourished.
        There is zero evidence for any tipping point or any harmful effects from a warming climate, in fact we are likely at the peak of a Holocene Climactic Optimum heading for another ice age, which is bad. The more CO2 the better.

    • seriouslysushi:

      “…For instance, there will be an intensification of the hydrological cycle. Physics demands this…”

      Physics demands this? Just how does physics demand it? Be explicit; use detailed physics explanations with proper physics source links.
      Not forgetting that climate cooling cycles cause more precipitation as the atmosphere cools thus holding less water.

      “…nobody is suggesting we can forecast the weather decades out…”

      They’re not? Are you implying that mainstream climate scientists are nobodies? Many of us would agree with that thinking.
      Otherwise, just what are the alarmists predicting then?
      More intense storms?
      Less snow?
      Poor suffering immobile critters going extinct due to rising temperatures?
      Melting Arctic ice, (while ignoring the Antarctic situation of massive ice increases)?
      Oh, perhaps you mean the social changes that alarmists are predicting?
      Like increased rape?
      Or maybe the lowered intelligence scores?
      seriouslysushi, I think you’re just posting nonsense or hopefully, satire.

    • You are seriously catching on! Exactly! Warming of the surface is counteracted by phase changes in water. The hot moist air (water vapour is lighter than air) is convected upwards where it cools and heat loss has bypassed the thickest layer of air and a major percentage of CO2 so much of it escapes to outer space. Don’t stop the physics prematurely.

      • sushi, I’m going out on a limb and going to guess that you actually believe you have said something that is both relevant and significant.
        Sublimation is merely melting and evaporating occurring at the same time. It also isn’t relevant when the subject at hand was evaporation.
        Why don’t you just admit that you don’t know what you are talking about?

    • “……..will be should the climate continue to warm.” “Physics demands this.”
      That may be true. But would you have to go back in time to the MWP and Roman Warm Period and look geological signs of “intensification” of the hydrological cycle. Some other “physic” may play a roll as well.

  8. The trend in public perception certainly appears to be moving in the right direction. A large part of it is the fact that the media organizations that have been pushing the AGW hypothesis most aggressively are now in serious to critical condition, (FYI: NBC News, MSNBC, CNN, Weather Channel). Couple that with outrageous claims and the “old news” nature of the beast, and it looks like a plurality of people are now “very skeptical” of all or some of the nonsense.
    There’s been some “high quality” polling by Pew and Quinnipiac over the last two years, that point to the trend. I’ll try and pull some specifics together and keep them at hand for the next open thread.

    • Yes the insanely desperate amplification of the frequency and amplitude of the propaganda on the mainstream networks has shaken even some of the most hardcore liberal hipsters. Some are starting to question the motivations given what they suspect about the selfish interests of those in power.
      It’s increasingly difficult for them to blame all authoritarian corruption on the right and fossil fuels.

  9. Certainly OT, but…Late yesterday as I looked at Oulo , I saw that there had been a sizeable drop in the neutron count. I then took a look at Spaceweather and noticed that there had just been an X2 shortly right around the beginning of the Oulo drop. I was then going to leave a comment here that I felt there was a heightened chance for quake activity. After thinking on that for awhile, I decided to not say what was on my mind. Now, looking at the morning quake report I have decided to share my thoughts.
    The day before the large Nepal quake, I also came close to leaving a comment stating that I felt there was a strong probability for a good size shake somewhere around the world. Then on the 3rd of this month I noticed a good prospect for a large quake striking Papua New Guinea, due to a sharp string of six 5.0+/- quakes on the 3rd. I even mentioned this to my brother that evening, but otherwise said nothing. On the 4th, there was a 7.5 magnitude quake in Papua New Guinea. So after seeing Oulo and the X2 flare combo last night, plus this morning,s quake report at USGS I have a thought for a potential location for a large quake.
    First of all, the 24 hour quake count jumped up around 25% from last night to this morning at 2.5 mag or greater. What caught my attention was a string of 3 quakes in Concord California. Over the previous several days there had also been one quake each day at Concord, with the first one on the 3rd showing as a, red for unusual, 3.6 event. Now with this short string of 3 and the strong solar flare coming this way I see a heightened chance for a strike around Concord California. This is the upper end of the Hayward Fault, and that fault has potential for a damaging release of energy.
    There is one other spot with potential for an Earth event, and that is for an eruptive event in Hawaii. Over the last 8 or 9 days there have been multiple quakes almost every day of around 2.5 to 3.6 magnitude. Then it quieted down to 1 or 2 a day over the last 4 days except for on the 4th which had 8 events. Hawaii certainly is a current prospect for a near term volcanic/quake event. One of the caldera,s there has filed up with lava over the last several weeks.
    So there it is, my thoughts that is. After having several correct inner thoughts over the last several weeks, will my thoughts now also prove to be right? Normally, I would shy away from saying anything like this here at WUWT out of respect for what this site stand for, but this is one of those times where circumstances may warrant a comment. You can berate or laugh at me later, if this all comes to nothing.

      • I should have rounded out what I meant a bit better. In using the term “large” for that area, a quake of 5.0+ would be the starting range. And whether or not a sequence of quakes in a tight group will lead to a larger event is hard to pinpoint. There are strings of quakes every day that do not lead to further faulting above some small average range. Puerto Rico/Virgin Islands is an example of that. Strings of small quakes on and off during the day, and then occasional quiet periods. I consider the quake pattern there as a tell for the pulse of the globe.
        I have been watching the daily quake map for over 4 years now. I am not trying to forecast future quakes on a daily basis, but when my thoughts come together on their own as they occasionally do and then nature follows suit, I know my thoughts are in the right place. My best pick was predicting the area and quake off of British Columbia a full week ahead of the event back in late 2012. At that time I was actively keeping notes in an effort to see if I could forecast some basic trends which looked like they had some potential.

      • One final bit on my first comment. The day after that comment Papua New Guinea had another 7.1 quake along with a strong grouping of aftershocks. PNG is still dominating the global quake activity. That lessened the chance for stronger quakes elsewhere. My forecast was made for a window of no more than 72 hours in the Concord area. Generally if a series is going to lead into a larger event, then that event takes place within 48 hours, and the probability for a larger quake rapidly diminishes as more time passes.

    • Hi goldminer
      “You can berate or laugh at me later, if this all comes to nothing.”
      It certainly isn’t “nothing” considering the recent shake here in Michigan this past Saturday.
      As a life long resident, scariest thing I’ve ever felt and I’m about 3 hours north east of the Epic Center. Literally felt the earth move under my feet.

      • I am surprised that the media isn’t trying to blame that Michigan quake on Oklahoma fracking. I bet that was an attention getter for people in the area. I well remember the first large quake that I felt. I was home with a fake cold so I wouldn’t have to go to school that day, kindergarten. My mom had stepped out to the corner store, and all of a sudden my bed started shaking. I was so sure that there was a monster under my bed that I did not dare to look under the bed. Then my mom came running in somewhat frantic. She then explained to me what had happened, which was a great relief to my mind. That was March 22 1957. I was 6 years old.

  10. •Is climate science sufficiently advanced to allow accurate forecasts of future temperatures or weather?
    •Are temperatures more likely to cool than warm in the next century?

    It seems to me that scheduling a discussion of point 2 is a little premature if the outcome to point 1 is what I suspect.

    • Point 2 is still the wrong question, as the answer is a binary without nuance.
      Much better to ask what is the probability that the next century could cool (0.5 deg, 1.0 deg, 2.0 or more deg) and look at the historical record over the past inter glacial periods for historical insight.
      Furthermore, what would be the impact on food production (to name one effect) if these were to happen.

    • You can guess that the future will warm or cool, without putting an actual number on that warming or cooling.

    • Stop teasing us, it sounds like you have something to say.
      So say it.
      Spell it out loud, not by some video link.

  11. The only ‘scientific’ conference that includes religious indoctrination.

    NEWSFLASH: Religion and science are, by definition, mutually exclusive.

    • Max Sargent
      NEWSFLASH: Religion and science are, by definition, mutually SUPPORTIVE.
      That is why the science of, for example, Isaac Newton, Friar Mendel, Michael Faraday, and etc. was revolutionary.
      Richard

      • Richard. I am noticing an increasing number of Global Warming Bigot posts. Rather than attacking the science, they attack the person for being a Christian. (They forget that their guru Al Gore is a devout Baptist (and unashamedly so.)). I suppose this is what happens when you run out of valid arguments.
        Baptist Hospital of Miami has an excellent reputation for proving top quality medicine. I don’t see anyone disparaging it because Baptists do not believe in the theory of evolution. (BTW I am not religious, but I would have no problem receiving medical treatment at a Baptist Hospital.).

    • Wait…What? Did I hear this right? Did Roy Spencer just say in this video (at 11.35) that he went into climate science because “I was going to go where the money was.”
      But isn’t he a Christian scientist who is not like the other dirty money grabbing ones?
      It’s a funny old world isn’t it?

      • Simon, well, substitute medicine, law, etc. and hundreds of millions of people have said something similar. I don’t have anything against money earned honestly by hard work, hard study and what are you saying about Spencer? He could have feathered his nest in this richest of all pursuits if he was prepared to jettison his integrity. He could have cooked the satellite temperature record that is currently limiting the hot air zealots from even greater extremes. Climate scientists that aren’t in the money are the ones to trust.

      • It is hard to put a /sarc tag on a video when your talking. Did you think of that or only the worst of the guy?

      • Simple Simon, he’s clearly describing his past naivety regarding climate science..but then you already knew that didn’t you.

      • So to all those who replied to me…. are you saying that because Dr Spencer chose a field that had money to be made in, that this did not affect the integrity of his work?

        • So to all those who replied to me…. are you saying that because Dr Spencer chose a field that had money to be made in, that this did not affect the integrity of his work?

          No. Joseph was a carpenter, who paid his Roman taxes and the Roman census legally and properly – because he was an honest man. But he was paid for his work, just as Peter was paid as a fisherman, and others were paid as a centurion, a prostitute, a wine merchant, or a shepherd.
          Because Dr Spencer is a man of integrity and worth, his values and morals reflect in his work – And, because of his values and morals, his work can be trusted. Regardless of how much – or how little! – he is paid for that work.
          A liberal (Soros, Gore, Pelosi, Reid, Kerry, Clinton, Clinton, Steyer, Mann, Hansen, Gavin, or many thousands others) with no morals will change his work because of money, power, influence, or publicity. Or a ‘sense of justice” – regardless of whether that sense is right or not.

      • RACookPE1978
        So just to be clear…. If a person supports my view, then receiving money for their work is fine and could in fact be regarded as admirable. But if I don’t agree with them…. then they are money grabbing scum.
        MMMM… I think I am seeing why the two sides in this debate never seem to agree.

      • Simon,
        That is not what RACook wrote. You’re setting up a strawman to argue with. So of course you’ll win that argument. You control the game.
        Instead, cut and paste Robert’s words. Unless you prefer to argue with your strawman…

      • Seems pretty clear to me. RACookPE1978 thinks Roy is a great guy so he can earn all the money he likes and hold his head up high. He doesn’t rate the others so how dare they drew money from the public purse. They are merely leaches who should be squashed in the name of honest scientific endeavor.
        What part of that did you not get DB?

      • Simon sez:
        What part of that did you not get DB?
        What part of “cut and paste Robert’s words” did YOU not get?
        You’re still arguing with your own strawman fabrication. So you’re not fooling anyone here, unless you believe it. In that case, you’re only fooling yourself.

      • OK DB just for you….
        “Because Dr Spencer is a man of integrity and worth, his values and morals reflect in his work – And, because of his values and morals, his work can be trusted. Regardless of how much – or how little! – he is paid for that work.”
        Translation…. Roy is a good man, let him have all the money he needs for his work.
        “A liberal (Soros, Gore, Pelosi, Reid, Kerry, Clinton, Clinton, Steyer, Mann, Hansen, Gavin, or many thousands others) with no morals will change his work because of money, power, influence, or publicity. Or a ‘sense of justice” – regardless of whether that sense is right or not.”
        Translation…. These are the bad guys, so don’t give them any money coz they and their work can’t be trusted.
        If you needed an example for the phrase “one eyed” you would be pushed to find a better one.

      • Simon,
        Your translation is your translation. I didn’t read it that way. I read it as one group being paid, whether they’re right or wrong.
        But you’re getting better. Cut ‘n’ past keeps you honest.

      • Simon again:
        Translation…. Roy is a good man, let him have all the money he needs for his work.
        That is not what Mr. Cook said at all. See? Cut ‘n’ paste keeps you honest — or at least, it helps others keep you honest.
        And:
        Translation…. These are the bad guys, so don’t give them any money coz they and their work can’t be trusted.
        Again, that’s not what was written. Robert Cook didn’t say what you’re trying to impute.
        But I’ll let him take it from here, if he wants to. I’ve made my point.

      • So pay atttention to what you’ve been told. Whining about it doesn’t look good…
        …or is it ‘KiwiSi’? Or whatever other sockpuppet name you’re using now? You’ve been bird-dogging my comments for a few years now. And this time you’re arguing with me about what someone else (RACook) wrote. May I sugggest you go straight to the source? Because you’re pestering me for no good reason, except for your personal fixation on my comments.

      • Simon
        Your series of posts in this sub-thread provide nothing of value but demonstrate you are a whiner and a bigot who provides unsubstantiated slurs from behind the coward’s shield of anonymity.
        If you are employed to be a troll then your employers wasted their money.
        Richard

      • Richard,
        Thank you. The same guy has been bird-dogging my comments for a few years now. He has nothing worthwhile to add to the discussion. He’s just another climate alarmist on the losing side of the debate.
        We have to deal with these people because they’ve lost the science argument, so they gravitate to political arguments. In politics, there is no need for facts and evidence. So the argument becomes about what someone else thinks (RACook in this case).
        Simon can’t win a science debate. That puts him in the same category as the rest of the alarmist crowd. If I’m wrong, all he has to do is post measurable evidence quantifying man-made global warming. But as we see, none of them can produce that.

      • Richard… so nice to see you wade in again.
        Actually I think I have a very interesting and valuable point, and that is that Dr Spencer admitted part of what lead him to study climate change was the money. I have no problem with that except….If he was pro AGW he would be slaughtered on this site for saying that. How many times have we seen the quote “follow the money” as if it those who earn a living from the climate science field are corrupt for daring to be paid for their work .
        Answer me this, if it is OK for Dr Spencer to follow the money, why is it so unforgivable for scientists on the other side of the debate to earn a living. I don’t think you will find a wealthy climate scientist on either side of the debate. They are certainly not paid well on this side of the world.

      • Simon/KiwiSi, etc.,
        “Wade in”? Richard simply does not agree with you. I don’t agree with you. Gary Pearce does not agree with you. Robert Cook does not agree with you. No one else agrees with you, do they?
        Dr. Spencer is not “slaughtered” as you claim, because WUWT allows comments from all points of view, and alarmists like you can’t come up with credible arguments to use against him. Money has nothing to do with verifiable science, and that is the problem you have. All you have are your assertions, so you make ‘money’ your argument. As usual, that is politics, not science. You’ve lost the science debate.
        No one agrees with you. Since you are on the same side that believes that a “consensus” argument matters, maybe you should just give up. Because you have decisively lost the science debate over man-made global warming. And you are a ‘consensus’ of one.

      • DB. Can’t stay away can you? You seem to love the jostling really.
        Did you actually read what I wrote? If you did were you concentrating? I am NOT criticising Dr spencer. I have said I am fine with him following the money (as part of what motivated him to choose climate science). Why would it be a problem to earn a living? I am saying (and I will say it slowly) if Mann or any other recognised scientist on the other side had hinted they chose the science because it paid well, this site would have made hay till the sun shone demonising them. Tell me I am wrong. You know you want to.

      • Troll posting as Simon
        This sub-thread began when you wrote saying in total

        Wait…What? Did I hear this right? Did Roy Spencer just say in this video (at 11.35) that he went into climate science because “I was going to go where the money was.”
        But isn’t he a Christian scientist who is not like the other dirty money grabbing ones?
        It’s a funny old world isn’t it?

        You now claim

        I am NOT criticising Dr spencer. I have said I am fine with him following the money (as part of what motivated him to choose climate science).

        So, you are now claiming that “dirty money grabbing” is “NOT criticising Dr spencer”!
        Clearly, “dirty money grabbing” is an unsubstantiated slur which you have failed to support so you are now claiming you did not provide it.
        Your claim is an admission that I was right when I said to you,
        “Your series of posts in this sub-thread provide nothing of value but demonstrate you are a whiner and a bigot who provides unsubstantiated slurs from behind the coward’s shield of anonymity.
        If you are employed to be a troll then your employers wasted their money.”
        Richard

      • Simon/KiwiSi sez:
        DB. Can’t stay away can you?
        And who keeps bird-dogging my posts, for years? Oh, yeah: Simon.
        And:
        Tell me I am wrong.
        Sure, since you insist. You’re wrong, as usual. Any other questions?

      • Oh Simon, simple Simon. Back the video up to 7:16 for the actual gist of what Spencer was saying. He was mocking Warmists and their “science”.
        Now, be a good little troll and run along to whatever hidey-hole you scrabbled out of.

      • Odd attitude. Here and in your many replies.
        You have answered – by your sarcasm and your rhetoric, your visceral statements against Dr Spencer – that it is your own question that begins with a bias.
        To repeat: An honest, moral person will not be corrupted by the temptation of money, power or influence. Money offered as salary, money granted without conditions, or money paid for independent research is money honestly earned. The results of their labor and their conclusions can be trusted because the person doing the work is trustworthy.
        The opposite is also true: A person or organization who is untrustworthy and which has been shown wrong (deliberately wrong and deliberately propagandist or a biased activism, can be further corrupted by even smaller amounts of money. Thus, a CAGW religious believer can – and will! – claim that a single $25,000.00 grant 10 years ago is enough to corrupt every future result of that person while 92 billion in three will not corrupt anyone at anonymous positions within an unaccountable bureaucracy
        To believe as you do: That “Money corrupts (everybody who is paid).” you must know no honest people.
        Perhaps as a liberal, as a possible government employee, you have only been exposed to people who do cheat. You must never have been exposed to people who do not take money from the cash register, who do not cheat on their taxes (as many IRS agents and employees have), who do not take bribes as politicians (as many democrat politicians have and continue to do so), who do not change their research results to favor the government who pays their salary and their grants, to unions who intimidate their members, and to government agencies who do not tolerate laziness and ineptitude.

      • Simon, we are saying that it is up to you to prove that a desire to make money has affected the quality of his work.
        Your assumption is just that, your own personal bias.
        Come up with evidence if you want to be taken seriously.

        • Yes. And, is that not true for Big Government “scientists” politicians and bureaucrats forcing their CAGW religion onto millions of innocents who need inexpensive energy to struggle out of poverty and misery? Innocents who are otherwise condemned to early squalid deaths by disease and illness.

  12. @goldminor May 6, 2015 at 10:16 am:
    Interesting, I wonder if changes in the neutron count and other external influences cause the earths magnetic field to move/shake/quiver? Because, if the earths crust and core have substantial metal in them, then large currents will be induced by these moving fields. a large current will generate its own magnetic field which could attract/repel adjacent material causing a quake…..

    • While I strongly suspect you are right, it’s still premature to declare that cooling is in our future.
      Let’s wait for the temperatures to fall by a statistically significant amount.

  13. Jeff Glassman (May 6, 2015 at 8:53 am)
    Jeff makes a legitimate point. The fact that “•Satellite data that show the global atmospheric temperature has not risen since the late 1990s – 18 years and four months, to be exact – while human carbon dioxide emissions in that time represent 25 percent of all emissions since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution 150 years ago.” suggests that there is a fundamnetal problem with the AGW ‘theorem’
    In fact, it is even more problematic than that.
    First, if one looks at the satellite data (from 1979) there is no first order correlation between the rise in Co2 levels and temperatures. There is no steady decade by decade rise in temperature. Insead there is simply a one off and isolated temperature rise, a step change, in and around the 1998 Super El Nino. Given that temperatures were flat between 1979 and say 1997 and flat say from 1999 to date, during which time more than 35% of manmade Co2 emissions has taken place, the satellite data strongly suggests that there is little (if any) claimate sensitivity to CO2. Certainly the sensitivity if any is simply hidden in the noise and presently no signal to Co2 can be eeked out of the data.
    Second, as was noted in the previous article, there is no correlation between temperature and CO2 on any time scale, and to the extent that there are broad similarities, it appears that CO2 lags temperature rather than driving it. There is good reason why CO2 should be a response to temperature, and only weak conjecture that in the real world atmosphere it would drive temperature.
    The upshot of all of this is that as the ‘pause’ continues it is beginning to evidence strongly that the AGW ‘theorem’ is false on a fundamnetal level, and not simply around the edges/margins.
    I suspect that in 10 years time many more wil have the guts to question the fundamentals underpinning the ‘theorem’ rather than accepting the principle, but feeling able to only argue about sensitivity and the exrtent to which warming is problematic/beneficial.

  14. Agree with Tim about this conference. Basically heartland is preaching repeatedly to the converted. The only front in my view that will bring the AGW to a dead end stop is the work/data of Goddard, Homewood, Mahorasy ect actually proving without ANY doubt massive fraud by the AGW persons controlling surface temperatures. Once some greedy lawyers see some big time bucks then the AGW’s will come to a complete end.Not before this happens though.

  15. Three months ago when I put my dog out to walk, the temp. she fluffed her coat up for was 0 degrees F. This morning she was panting at nearly 80 degrees. Proving, that even a shaggy dog can adapt effortlessly to an EIGHTY DEGREE “climate” shift and more, in 3 months’ time. Can anybody who isn’t educated beyond their intelligence then explain why I’m supposed to be losing my sh*t about 0.5 degrees C. over a hundred and fifty YEARS?! The lefties just can’t see the silly!

  16. I hope this Tenth International Conference on Climate Change will offer a ‘Fresh Start’ for Science-based Climate Policy. But, how can there be a restart?
    Who’s gonna stop?

  17. OK, I’m gaining some serious understanding here thanks to many of the comments regarding GASTA.
    It appears that in order to determine a “Global Average Surface Temperature” one must first find the “Global Average Surface”.
    It’s easy after that.
    /more grin
    [and a global average atmosphere and global average humidity and global average temperature and global average cloud cover. .mod]

  18. I posted this in the wrong place (darn threading):
    “OK, I’m gaining some serious understanding here thanks to many of the comments regarding GASTA.
    It appears that in order to determine a “Global Average Surface Temperature” one must first find the “Global Average Surface”.
    It’s easy after that.”

    How’s that EdA?

  19. A pull from the post:
    …..”A growing population and a rapidly growing middle class are increasing pressure on the traditional protein sources, beef and poultry meat, making it more difficult to meet demand. We cannot continue the way we are producing and consuming meat. Obviously, this should not go as far as governments telling people what to eat.”…../
    ————————
    Read the opposite of the above……
    Stable population, shrinking middle class, governments telling people what to eat, and you begin to understand the mind of these control freaks.

  20. I don’t know what’s on the agenda, but maybe somebody could address when all the literature says PgC does C means carbon, when it means carbon dioxide, and when it means carbon dioxide equivalent. World Bank 4 C was kind of wishy washy about it and IPCC doesn’t really say.
    If it’s CO2 then just say so, i.e. PgCO2 or Giga tonnes CO2 or million billion kg CO2 or… & ppm kg or ppm vol or ppm mole
    Oh, make up your minds!

Comments are closed.