Climate Skeptics gather in Washington, D.C. for #ICCC10

By Alan Caruba


On Thursday and Friday, June 11-12, there will be a gathering of some of the nation’s and the world’s leading climate change “skeptics” in Washington, D.C. and joining them will be members of Congress and their staffs. The Tenth International Conference on Climate Change will occur and the odds are that the mainstream media, as it has done for all the previous conferences, will do its best to ignore it.

In attendance as well will be scores of scientists, economists, and policy experts for a conference being held just two blocks from a White House in which the President of the United States resides while lying about “climate change” as the greatest threat to the planet.

In March, the Gallup Poll revealed that “Although climate scientists have been in the news describing this winter as a strong signal that global warming is producing more extreme weather, Americans are no more likely today (55%) than in the past two years to believe the effects of global warming are occurring.”

The Conference is sponsored by The Heartland Institute, a Chicago-based free-market think tank and, while most of us have heard of the Rand Corporation or the Heritage Foundation, Heartland is one of the those power houses that labors without the “image” accorded others.

Founded in 1984, it has a full-time staff of 31 with approximately 235 academics and professional economists who participate in its peer-review process, plus more than 160 elected officials who serve on its Legislative Forum. In addition to the environment, its scholars also focus on education, health, budget and tax issues.

I have been a Heartland policy analyst for so long I can’t recall when I joined. Approximately 8,300 supporters contribute to its annual budget of $6 million. It does not accept government funding.

Without your knowing it, the nine conferences that preceded the current one have had a dramatic impact on your life and wallet. For one thing, you’re not being robbed by a “carbon tax” aimed at “reducing greenhouse gases.” On the other hand, you may be at risk of losing a coal-fired plant that provides your electricity if the Environmental Protection Agency is allowed to continue its vile attack on our energy resources.

It has been Heartland and a handful of other think tanks that labored to inform the public about the science that utterly debunked the lies about “global warming” and now works to do the same for those applied to “climate change.” Heartland’s power is seen in its conferences.

The problem for Heartland and the rest of us is that we are up against the U.S. government whose Obama administration is completely committed to the lies; agency by agency within the government have budgets and programs to continue to telling the lies. Beyond them is the entire system of government schools and, beyond them, much of the higher education community.

In early June the Daily Caller reported that “National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration scientists have found a solution to the 15-year ‘pause’ in global warming: They ‘adjusted’ the hiatus in warming out of the temperature record.” This is what Heartland and others have been fighting against and exposing since the global warming hoax began in the late 1980s. And we are beginning to see the Congress respond.

As reported by CNS News, appropriators in the House of Representatives have let it be known that they are taking aim at one of the Obama administration’s most cherished priorities—international climate change funding. An appropriations bill for the State Department and foreign operations excluded the Green Climate Fund, the Clean Technology Fund, and the Strategic Climate Fund, while also removing funding for the U.SN-backed Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. That’s millions in U.S. taxpayer funding that will not be wasted on the climate change hoax.

The Conference will honor some of the world’s leading “skeptics”—the alarmists call them “denier.” They include Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) as the winner of the Political Leadership on Climate Change Award, sponsored by the Heritage Foundation. My friend, Robert M. Carter, Ph.D. will receive Heartland’s Lifetime Achievement in Climate Science award. Others whom you may not have heard of include William Happer, Ph.D., David Legates, Ph.D., and Anthony Watts, all of whom have been on the front lines of the battle for the truth about the planet’s climate.

An entire generation has grown up and graduated from college since the first lies about global warming were unleashed. That’s how long Heartland and others have labored to present the truth. If the media fails to take notice of this week’s conference, you will know that the battle will continue for a long time to come.

© Alan Caruba, 2015

106 thoughts on “Climate Skeptics gather in Washington, D.C. for #ICCC10

  1. Very much looking forward to listening and watching honorable folks: all of them.
    The shite-hawks will also be listening too, make no mistake: probably in a deep bunker in the capital (Oops, did I just say that ? Which capital ? Berlin / London / Paris / the North America).
    Thank you Anthony for making this POSSIBLE. Congratulations indeed.
    Be careful out there !

  2. “and the odds are that the mainstream media, as it has done for all the previous conferences”
    I think you are being too sceptical. Most serious journalists in the press and TV seem to be bored with the rubbish they get from the alarmist camp. That doesn’t necessarily mean interest in the opposing evidence, but instead it means that if you’ve got a story that they think their readers will want to read – most serious newspapers will print it.

  3. Do we have links to the live presentations etc., like the last?
    Here is their YouTube channel. You can find last years conference in the playlists and a whole bunch of other good educational videos of other presentations over the years. This is a treasure trove of knowledge.
    Here is one for ICCC10!

  4. Warmist, alarmist, skeptic, denier… all of these childish terms have to go before anybody gets anywhere. Be better than that.

    • Personally I think “warmist” and “skeptic” are both accurate and non-derogatory. What do you propose as alternatives.

      • Christopher Paino:
        The person’s name is fine if I am just talking about one person, but what about to refer to a whole group? What word would you use to describe all the people attending or presenting at the Heartland conference?

      • Christopher Paino:
        “Why would I need to?”.
        If you wanted to make some general observation about people living in China would you name them all, or settle for a general label like “Chinese” ?

      • Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
        June 10, 2015 at 12:58 pm
        What word would you use to describe all the people attending or presenting at the Heartland conference?

      • I sign my correspondence as “Truth Disciple”— on loan from RUSH. How about “Climate Truth Purveyors”.

    • Nothing wrong with ‘warmist’; I can see the issue with ‘warmunist, though. And ‘alarmist’ seems to be fitting. ‘D*nier’, of course, is both nebulous and designed to evoke thoughts of, well, we all know.

    • Christopher,
      How about: Residents of the Climate Fearosphere in opposition to People who have taken the Red Pill?

      • How about not referring to any “group” in any way at all and just stick to falsifying claims. Folks here do that amazingly well, and everything beyond that is unnecessary and immature.

  5. Please view latest lecture by Professor Murry Salby on Atmospheric CO2 given 17 March this year Westminster London where he proves conclusively the amount of CO2 coming from man`s use of fossil fuels is insignificant! Now on youtube!

    • Salby’s presentation seems good at first blush, but is seriously deficient. Willis posted a rebuttal, and I commented to that with a second separate rebuttal. Judith Curry and I are noodling a second ‘back to back’ on it at CE, like we did recently for the new iris effect paper. In this ‘climate fight’ it is best to shoot real bullets straight and true, and not fire off blanks. Asserting that anthropogenic CO2 is de minimus, or that it has no effect, are both losing arguments since easily disproven. The big questions are feedbacks and sensitivity, natural variations, whether climate models are any good, and so what consequences. See my recent guest post here for my take on those issues.

      • Doesn’t mean of course that Salby is wrong ristvan just that you have a different opinion. Incidentally Willis has also debunked the “sensitivity” recently in his post that you have listed. So a variety of views are being presented. That’s what science is about. Nobody including yourself do not have complete answer yet.
        Best regards to all who are taking part in this important conference and to all those receiving awards, all well deserved.

      • ristvan: Yes, I agree. Don’t ask “how”. Ask “how much”.
        And the lukewarmers have been kicking ass and taking names in the journals.

      • Do the models have static or dynamic input and code?
        I agree. It is about reaction, not initial action.
        With our current understanding of climate, is anything we claim to be predictable, actually predictable?
        The word stochastic comes to mind…. remembering random behavior is a direct result of the lack of earned knowledge/understanding of such.
        And here we are 😉

  6. The conference last year in Las Vegas was a wonderful experience. I wish we could have gone to this one, too, especially since it’s in the belly of the beast, but we’ll be in the Arctic commiserating with the polar bears during their seal pups consuming hiatus which follows their spring eating orgy each year. I’m sure our National Geographic/Lindblad crew will have much to say about the polar bear’s poor summer seal hunting prospects, in total ignorance that polar bears consume 2/3 of their annual food during the spring. It will be fun trying to change at least one mind; the same challenge the conferees will face in Washington.

    • Somehow I managed to be in Florida when they were in Las Vegas, and now I’m on the west coast when they are on the East. Sigh. I really enjoyed the one I did get to. Maybe next year…

  7. We should all contact our local media and urge they cover this conference or at least publish the news releases from the conference.

  8. I hate to say it but you guys are turning me into a warmista. I mean, c’mon, can’t you have a conference in Durban, or Cancun, or Bali, or Marrakech (good hashish), or Tahiti like they do?
    Sorry, I forgot, the taxpayers pay for their conferences.

  9. Thank you, Merchant Alan, for your well balanced intoduction to the latest in the series of ICCC’s that have had such an unknown, dramatic impact on or lives, due to the ‘Heartland Powerhouse’.
    It worries me just a little that you can’t recall when you joined

  10. I think MSM will cover this especially if members of Congress attend. This is a big shift and an important one at that.

    • Republican presidential aspirants would draw even more attention than members of Congress.

  11. wolsten (above) is probably bang-on.
    This will, most likely, not feature highly on the BBC.

  12. It’s a shame about those billboards. As a skeptic, I can not use Heartland links when discussing climate change with friends because of those incendiary repugnant Billboards. Lots of good science generated by Heartland. It’s tainted by the Billboard mistake.
    I hope they stick with science going forward. It’s needed.

    • Move on, Blue Sky. That’s not even yesterday’s news. Go forward. Unless you’re a troll.

    • One Heartland billboard was up, for less than 24 hours. It’s not like Hilary Clinton’s record.
      Compare that with the IPCC’s two decade serial lies, or with Mann’s repeatedly falsified ‘Hokey Stick’ chart.
      Anyway, I liked the Heartland billboard. There are lots of similarities between Kazynski and climate alarmists…

  13. I wonder if the proof that change to the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) does not cause climate change will be discussed. The science is solid. Changing the numbers hasn’t hidden the proof. Only existing data [Phanerozoic (last 542 million years) and current ice age] and a grasp of the fundamental relation between physics and math are needed or used.
    Average global temperature changes as a transient responding to the time-integral of the net of forcings. Atmospheric carbon dioxide has always been at least 190 ppmv. If CO2 was a forcing, average global temperature would have increased fairly steadily from any start time. Because average global temperature did not increase (Hieb 2009, Veizer et al 2000), CO2 cannot be a forcing and therefore has no influence on climate.
    See more on the proof that CO2 has no effect on climate and discover what does cause climate change (explains 97+% average global temperatures since before 1900) at .
    The two factors that do cause reported average global temperature change are also identified in a peer reviewed paper published in Energy and Environment, vol. 25, No. 8, 1455-1471.

    • You must be referring to Gavin’s site or the SKS website. Anyone is free to post or discuss anything here including you, as long as it is on topic and civil. Feel free to join the debate. Nothing is stopping you.
      People who shout “The Science is Settled!” are the ones in the echo chamber.

    • Barry unfortunately I think you are correct on both sides of the debate. There need to be a lot more proper scientific conferences that discuss all of the theories and present all of the data, as low quality and sparse as it is, to allow proper scrutiny. As a geologist I have been to many conferences where all sorts of wacko theories have been presented and discussed politely. That is the beauty of real science, it is rarely black and white and as soon as someone says that have all the answers you instantly know they don’t.

    • In the past, notable people with a warmist perspective have been invited to attend, and even present a paper. They have universally declined. The echo chamber is not here.
      And that link of yours. A sociology paper which first assumes that which it wishes to find, then sets about finding it.
      To quote Princess Leia: “What a wonderful smell you discovered”

    • Barry,
      Your link refers to a “debate”.
      There is no debate, Barry. Every time a debate is suggested to the alarmist crowd, they tuck tail and run.
      Wake me when Michael Mann and Gavin Schmidt agree to debate Richard Lindzen and John Christy…

  14. I hope there is no consensus on anything, a good old bust-up between the experts would indicate they are doing a bit of science, since only thing that we know for certain is that the AGW hypothesis is no good science.
    As for myself I hardly agree with anyone, expert or otherwise, and reverse holds even more true, no one takes any note of what I write.
    My message to the congregating climate sceptic experts, since none of you has yet resolved this enigma called ‘global warming’, and one and all have failed so far to come up with ‘goods’, at least have a hearty disagreement.
    Consensus won’t look good.

    • I take note, Vuk. There’s always a possibility you’ll uncover something interesting if you keep looking in new areas. Resolution? Science is rarely “resolved.”

    • +10.
      The more we know, the more we know how little we know. How old did “science” say the earth was 100, 200, 300, 500, 1000, 2000, 5000 years ago? Do we know yet?

      • Science was only starting to be recognised as a field of study in the 17th century and very little of what we would recognise as geology had been done at that time. In 1701 Bishop Usher calculated that the earth formed on October 23, 4004 BC. The views of Kepler and Newton, for instance, were similar though perhaps not as specific.
        In 1841 John Phillips, a geologist, suggested that the earth was 96 million years old.
        In 1862 physicist Bill Thomson [later Lord Kelvin] suggested that the earth was between 20 and 400 million years old, preferring an age towards the younger end. His views were opposed by geologists such as Lyell.
        In 1897 Kelvin refined his work, based on mathematical modelling and came up with and age of 20 million years which was supported by the scientific establishment. However 2 years earlier his former assistant John Perry, an engineer, calculated an age of 2 to 3 billion years. He was ignored.
        Radioactivity changed things.
        In 1927 Holmes came up with a radiometric age of between 1.6 and 3 billion years.
        The age of the oldest rocks on the planet is bit difficult to determine. They are certainly older than 3.8 billion years. The oldest minerals are zircon crystals, from the Jack Hills in Western Australia, which have been dated at about 4.4 billion years. The rocks they were extracted from are younger.
        So the age of the earth is probably about 4.5 billion years.
        However Hindus have calculated the age of the earth based on the birthdate of Lord Brahma and come up with a figure of 155,521,972,949,115 years, or roughly 155,520 billion years. Buddhists come up with an age of about 1.28 trillion years. I might be wrong here but it’s a lot.

  15. Just to say, Obama’s not lying about global warming. There should be little doubt that he believes what he says. He doesn’t know anything about science in general, and nothing about climate science in particular. He trusts his experts. If any fault is to be laid on him, he chose his experts by their politics rather than their competence.
    If anyone in the White House is lying, it’s John Holdren, Obama’s science advisor. Given Holdren’s obvious radicalism, he should never have been chosen to advise anyone. If he’s not lying about global warming, the only alternative is that he is an incompetent judge of the science.
    On the other hand, it was probably exactly Holdren’s manifest radicalism that convinced Obama to choose him. After all, anyone so caring as to advise forced population control has got to be trustworthy and motivated only by professional integrity.
    On the other hand, I’ve heard Ernst Moniz speak. He’s Obama’s Energy Secretary (DoE), a very prominent nuclear physicist, and he is an AGW believer. With backers of such prominence around him, why wouldn’t Obama sincerely believe he’s right on the issue. So, Obama should be given a little slack. He’s a science naif. Holdren, no.

    • It’s called plausible deniability.
      A phrase made up by the lawyers that defend politicians.

    • No, when Obama tells a lie, that makes him a liar–whether he believes what he says or not. Politicians play this little game of blaming the other guy, and the guy they blame blames the politician for paying him to make the stuff up. Using trust as an excuse makes a fool out of anybody that dismisses this little game but a racist out of those who dare call them liars.

      • The correct term to describe someone who repeats bad information is ‘poorly advised’.
        Obama is poorly advised. That’s all. There is no point in demonising him. If you want to know where demons lie, see the video of Mark Steyn in Washington yesterday.

    • In his first State Of the Union address, Obama brought up Global Warming. He was obviously taken aback a bit, when instead of applause, he got giggles, and laughter. It was a telling moment, to me, that the members of the Senate and of the House do not believe it either.

    • In his Coast Guard speech, or one of his other recent speeches, Obama began by saying, approximately, “I’m not a scientist, but I have the advice of the world’s best scientists.”

      • How does he know that they are the best? He is a fool to not have a process to ensure his advisers are giving him good advice. It is not as if he is unaware that there are many qualified scientists disputing the settled science.

    • I am very skeptical that Obama has never lied about climate science. I have come to believe that Obama thinks he is a benevolent overseer who sees lies as being good for us. He is entirely cognizant of his lies.

      • Pamela, Obama isn’t qualified to judge the truth of the AGW matter. To lie requires a conscious intent to lie.
        The only way for him to actually knowingly lie, is if his trusted advisors, i.e., John Holdren, had previously told him outright that AGW is a lie. I don’t believe Holdren would say that.
        I don’t even know if Holdren thinks that. The mental gymnastics performed by those who will to believe can be very amazing when finally revealed.
        I know many very smart physicists who believe the AGW story. I suspect, though, that they look at the consensus graphs and pictures and conclude competence, without doing any detailed study. Remiss but typical.
        In any case, and regardless of the obvious (to many) dissociation from reality, the sincerity of the convictions of the self-deluded can’t be denied.

      • Pat, your ‘reasoning’ didn’t acquit many of Adolf’s men at the Nuremberg Trials. -i.e. “I’m just believing/ordering/doing what those around me are believing/ordering/doing.”

      • Adolph’s men were following orders that common morality would declare as grossly criminal, noaaprog. They knew what they were doing, and knew it was wrong.
        That’s hardly equivalent to believing the advice of guys with Ph.D.s in a relevant subject about which one knows nothing.

    • Pat,
      I beg to differ. It is inconceivable that Obama is unaware of this article, written by his Undersecretary of Energy for Science, Dr. Steven Koonin.
      It begins with, “We are very far from the knowledge needed to make good climate policy.” His demeaning references to Apollo Astronauts as “Flat-Earthers” reflect his commitment to Socialist political ideology, as expressed by Sen. Tim Wirth in 1993:
      “We’ve got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.”
      The truth and Obama are infrequent companions.

      • Koonin is no longer advising Obama, EdA, if he ever directly did. Koonin’s article is a refreshing change, that’s for sure.
        But he does make the usual obeisance to CO2 and it’s impact on climate: “There is little doubt in the scientific community that continually growing amounts of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, due largely to carbon-dioxide emissions from the conventional use of fossil fuels, are influencing the climate. … The impact today of human activity appears to be comparable to the intrinsic, natural variability of the climate system itself.
        So, for someone like Obama, Koonin is giving a mixed message.
        Holdren has Obama’s ear, and is his go-to guy in climate and other matters of science. There’s no obvious reason to think he’d even know Koonin’s view, much less credit it over Holdren’s.
        Really, though, there’s no point speculating on the question. None of us know Obama’s mind. The only thing we know for sure is that Obama is a total scientific naif, that Holdren has his ear, and that Obama believes him. I blame Holdren.

    • @Pat Frank
      If any fault is to be laid on him, he chose his experts by their politics rather than their competence
      Mind a rewrite?
      If any fault is to be laid on him, his experts chose him by their politics rather than his competence.

  16. I would expect Obama’s goons to come in and arrest everyone there for heresy. Perhaps Obama would sanction summary execution because the views and science expressed go against the “social Democracy.”
    Do note, the Fabian Society which essentially founded the UN and thus the IPCC has one of its core principles listed as “Social Democracy.” This I believe to be rule by consensus. A quote from Hitler stated that its is the role of government to mould public opinion. Rule by contrived consensus is what it is all about. We must all get alarmed that this manipulation and deceit is being conducted covertly, although the clues are there for those who look for them.

  17. Given that we are about to change our executive branch from liberal to conservative (unless of course the voting public decides to vote for the liberal mafia Clinton female), the media will look collectively stupid if they don’t cover this.

    • Pamela,
      While I sincerely hope that your political forecast is correct, unless there is some kind of game changing event before the election, then I think the free sh*t army wins.
      Mebbe next time…

  18. I was at Las Vegas last year and it was wondereful meeting the great figures of climate skepticism and hearing the presentations. I’m still reviewing my notes. It is amazing to me that MSM shows disdain. They truly are lame.

  19. I congratulate and envy all those who are able all those who able to attend this valuable event, but no matter how clearly and undeniably the real science of climate is presented here, we are still fighting a losing battle because Obama and his corrupt minions will never allow themselves to be dissuaded from their destined course by anything so irrelavent as facts. As a case in point our new overlords at the EPA have just launched this.
    EJSCREEN: Environmental Justice Screening and Mapping Tool
    As you may or may not know, whenever a fascist true believer hangs Justice off the end of anything, it’s just their way of saying you’all are so screwed and there is not a single thing you can do about it and if you even try to question anything that we are doing we will see that you are flushed down the memory hole as a hater of humanity and especially children, driven entirely by bigotry, racism, greed, and lust for destruction.
    It will be at least a year and a half before there will be even the possibility of deflecting the giant bureaucratic Battleship HMS Obama from it’s charted course and unless there is a near complete repudiation of the Obama and his whole sick crew in the coming election small deflections are probably the best we can hope for. Given the long history of the complete impossibility of doing away with government programs, rules, and regulations once they have achieved any kind of dependent constituency, we are probably looking at decades of constant and concerted effort to get to anything like a reversal.
    Sadly, I see nothing on the horizon which suggests that kind of effort is forthcoming. It took thousands of years for the fortuitous gathering of exceptional individuals who fought and sacrificed to give us the chance to live in a country where the government was subject to the people rather than the people being powerless subjects of the government, as had been the almost unanimous rule for all of human history. It took less than a decade of cowardice and greed for that exceptional dream to be completely forsaken and I weep in eternal shame that I didn’t do more to at least try to stop it.

  20. don’t wake them up!
    11 June: BBC: Helen Briggs: Alarm sounded over progress towards key climate summit
    BONN: International talks regarded as a key milestone towards a new global climate deal are due to end on Thursday, amid concern that progress has been slow.
    Negotiators have been accused of spending too much time on detail and ”not getting around to any actual homework” at interim talks in Germany.
    Countries are working towards options to limit greenhouse gas emissions from 2020 ahead of a crunch December summit.
    Christian Aid said there was a danger of ***”sleepwalking into Paris”…
    ”Negotiators have acted like schoolchildren colouring in their homework timetable and not getting round to any actual homework.”
    He said negotiations must deliver ”a robust text soon otherwise they will cause further unacceptable delays and result in countries sleepwalking into Paris”…
    Key sticking points include finance to help developing countries adapt to climate change and agreeing on immediate and binding targets for carbon emissions.
    But negotiating time is running out with only around 10 days’ worth of negotiations remaining after the Bonn talks close…
    Delegates will return to Bonn in August for another round of climate talks, before the summit in Paris at the end of the year.

    • Delegates will return to Bonn in August for another round of climate talks, before the summit in Paris at the end of the year.
      Paris is toast. China and India are all signed up to grow their emissions as fast as they want for a couple of decades, and then start cutting… maybe. The G7 just devoted all of 30 minutes (THIRTY!) out of a 2 day summit to climate change and came away promising to do something by 2050. Even more hilarious, they gave themselves very nearly an entire century to get to zero emissions. A CENTURY!
      So who is left that is going to be stupid enough to sewer their economy when everyone else is just lip syncing? Russia? Iran? Saudi Arabia? Brazil? Venezuela? Greece? Spain? Climate Change is finished, it just seems like it is still alive because history is written in slow motion, and it is still thrashing about in its death throes.
      With apologies to the bard:
      Climate Change is but a walking shadow, a poor player,
      That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
      And then is heard no more. It is a tale
      Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
      Signifying nothing.

  21. “Climate Skeptics gather in Washington”.
    I think the whole title is wrong and feeds into the alarmist meme. I’m not particularly skeptical of “climate” or that it will change, but I am very skeptical of man-made global warming being a real threat or a primary driver of “climate change”. We need to stay on point that the issue is alarming global warming and the science of such, not whether or not the climate changes.

  22. It is simply astonishing how these Europeans are desperately trying to find a way for Obama to sign a Paris agreement in December without the oversight and approval of Congress. In other words, the leaders of these countries that America saved from German tyranny in WWII, and reinstated democracy in these countries, now want to manipulate a process to specifically undermine the process of democracy in the US.

  23. Hi Alan and thank you for Heartland’s continued role in combating agenda driven science across several disciplines. Between the flawed government grant system, the new ‘pal review’ pioneered by the IPCC, and the relentless name calling and smug assertions that any scientist who has the audacity to disagree is either senile or not credentialed enough to comment, one has to wonder what kind of lasting damage is being done to science itself.

  24. It is unseemly for WUWT to publish a screed that repeatedly calls the scientific opinions and political opinions of responsible intelligent people “LIES” …. that they may be wrong, they they may be self-serving, that they may be simply band-wagoning a politically popular meme is certainly true… but very very few can be said to be intentionally lying.
    Grown-ups do not throw around such language freely….Heartland should dump this guy as a spokesperson until his communication skills grow up.

  25. I’d have to politely disagree Kip. What do you call it when a scientist intentionally truncates proxy data, then splices it with real world temperature data without mentioning it when their work is published? An ‘oversight’? Even the team refers to it as ‘Mike’s Nature Trick’. Politicians are well known for lying – there is no insult there. Scientists, not so much. All the more reason that when these guys are caught manipulating data to fit the storyline, it is called out for what it is – a big fat lie.

  26. There’s no need to be ‘sceptical’ – the IPCC is quite clear on the subject. I still believe everything the IPCC is saying – once you know where to look. Why are telling voices from the IPCC itself so widely ignored in spite of being publicly available?
    Prof. Dr H. Stephen Schneider, lead author in Working Group II of the IPCC (said in 1989): “For these reasons we have to announce terrifying scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements with no mention of any doubts whatever which we might have. In order to attract attention, we need dramatic statements leaving no doubt about what is said. Every one of us researchers must decide how far he would want to be honest rather than effective.”
    Research funds promptly flowed to those ‘researchers’ resulting in what must be the largest example of pure Lysenkoism ever, considering the combined multibillion-dollar research and public relations funds to achieve an unprecedented Gleichschaltung of this manufactured consensus in politics and the media.
    As Schopenhauer wrote: “There is no opinion, however absurd, which men will not readily embrace as soon as they can be brought to the conviction that it is generally adopted.” But the Brothers Grimm also wrote their “Die Sonne bringt es an den Tag” which idiomatically translates to “Truth will out”. Much as in the case of FIFA – which is only a storm in a teacup compared to the purely political AGW public relations smokescreen.
    To leave no doubt, in an interview published in the Neue Zürcher Zeitung on 14 November 2010, Ottmar Edenhofer, co-chair of IPCC Working Group III, said “The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War…. one must say clearly that de facto we redistribute the world’s wealth by climate policy…. One has to rid oneself of the illusion that international climate politics have anything to do with environmental concerns.”
    When further prompted by Bernhard Pötter, the interviewer: „So far, when discussing foreign aid, people usually equate it with charity“, Edenhofer replied: „That will change immediately as soon as global emission rights are distributed. …“
    Estimates of the carbon trading market were reported by Joanne Nova quoting Commissioner Bart Chilton, head of the energy and environmental markets advisory committee of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) with his prediction that “I can see carbon trading being a $2 trillion market,” which other quoted sources describe as “the largest commodity market in the world.”
    Edenhofer continued: “…When that happens on a per capita basis, then Africa is the big winner, and large sums will flow there. This has enormous consequences for foreign aid policy. And, of course, the question arises whether these countries would at all be capable of using so much money wisely”.
    While not the only recipient region in the world where dangers might lurk, Africa is a whole continent teeming with countries and fiefdoms where gene, meme, and resource based reasons fuel internecine power struggles, which copious large sums flowing there will only intensify while the distribution wadis would ensure that these sums never actually reach those in need.
    I think it is the political climate that needs spring-cleaning.

Comments are closed.