My (Dr. Spencer’s) Presentation to the Pacific Pension & Investment Institute

Reposted from Dr. Roy Spencer’s Blog

February 17th, 2020 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

Langham Huntington Hotel in Pasadena, CA.

Last week I was privileged to present an invited talk (PDF here) to the Winter Roundtable of the the Pacific Pension & Investment Institute in Pasadena, CA. The PPI meeting includes about 120 senior asset managers representing about $25 Trillion in investments. Their focus is on long-term investing with many managing the retirement funds of private sector and state employees.

They had originally intended the climate change session to be a debate, but after numerous inquiries were unable to find anyone who was willing to oppose me.

Like most people, these asset managers represent a wide variety of views on climate change, but what they have in common is they are under increasing pressure to make “sustainable investing” a significant fraction of their portfolios. Some managers view this as an infringement on their fiduciary responsibility to provide the highest rates of return for their customers. Others believe that sustainable investing (e.g. in renewable energy projects) is a good long-term investment if not a moral duty. Nearly all have now divested from coal. Many investment funds now highlight their sustainable investments, as they cater to investors who (for a variety of reasons) want to be part of this new trend.

My understanding is that most investment managers have largely been convinced that climate change is a serious threat. My message was that this is not the case, and that at a minimum the dangers posed by human-caused climate change have been exaggerated. Furthermore, the benefits of more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (e.g. increased agricultural productivity with no sign of climate change-induced agricultural harm) are seldom mentioned. I showed Bjorn Lomborg’s evidence for the 95% reduction in weather-related mortality over the last 100 years, as well as Roger Pielke, Jr’s Munich Re data showing no increase in insured damages as a fraction of GDP.

One meeting organizer took considerable professional risk in insisting that I be invited to provide a more balanced view of climate change than most of the attendees had been exposed to before, and there was considerable anxiety about my inclusion in the program. Fortunately, my message (a 30 minute PowerPoint presentation [pdf here] with a panel discussion afterward) was unexpectedly well-received. An e-mail circulated after the meeting claimed that I had “changed the dynamic of future meetings.” The Heartland Institute was also involved in making this happen.

Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti gave a speech at the first night’s dinner, in which he (as you might expect) mentioned the challenge of climate change, reducing “carbon” emissions, and his young daughter’s anxiety over global warming.

Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti addresses the Winter Roundtable of the PPI Institute, 12 February 2020, Pasadena, CA.

The experience for me was gratifying. Even those few participants who disagreed with me were very polite, and we all got along very well. In what might be considered a bit of irony, on my flight to LAX we flew past the failed Ivanpah solar power facility southwest of Las Vegas, which produced a blinding white light for about 5 minutes.

Ivanpah-facility-from-planeIvanpah solar energy facility in California’s Mojave Desert on 12 February 2020, taken from about 33,000 ft. altitude.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
holly elizabeth Birtwistle
February 17, 2020 12:13 pm

Fantastic Dr. Spencer! Well-done:))

T port
Reply to  holly elizabeth Birtwistle
February 17, 2020 2:41 pm

Yes, but I wish you could have expanded it to cover sea level rise.

Roy W. Spencer
Reply to  T port
February 18, 2020 3:41 pm

I agree. But I was able to cover it during Q& A.

Reply to  holly elizabeth Birtwistle
February 18, 2020 3:45 am

Great presentation.

I have faith that calm and logical arguments will win out. The more bluster used the more people’s bullshit detectors go off.

The longer the obvious deviations between reality and the forecasts, the better for the non warmistas/

Al Miller
February 17, 2020 12:18 pm

Well done Dr. Spencer! The truth is an inconvenient fact to some. But it must be told so our children can live free from the tyranny of the greens.

Andre Lauzon
February 17, 2020 12:26 pm

I’m pleasantly surprised you were welcomed in CA. It speaks to your talent and credibility and gives me hope
that common sense may prevail….. eventually. Thank you.

nw sage
Reply to  Andre Lauzon
February 17, 2020 7:40 pm

The “rest” of California probably didn’t know the speech was planned. The PC police weren’t called.

February 17, 2020 12:35 pm

Enjoyed the presentation but, if models assume no natural source of climate change, how do the modelers explain the history of climate change prior to the 20th century?

Reply to  AARGH63
February 17, 2020 1:10 pm

They ‘adjust’ the data so it disappears. Just look at the ‘hockey stick’ graph and the constant claims that the Medieval Warm Period only happened in areas where we had reasonable weather records.

Reply to  MarkG
February 17, 2020 1:17 pm

That’s the catch for them. History is one of my hobbies. Dr. Mann’s hockey stick set off my BS detector. Up to that point I was quite willing to believe in CAGW.

As they lie more and exaggerate more, more people will, for various reasons, have their BS detectors set off.

Michael in Dublin
Reply to  commieBob
February 17, 2020 4:27 pm

My love of history began some 60 years ago thanks to a teacher. History raises serious difficulties for those making alarmist claims. Because of meticulous journals kept by people in previous centuries, we see from their entries that what is today called “extreme weather” was as much part of their world as it is of ours. 🙂

Lorne Newell
Reply to  commieBob
February 17, 2020 11:07 pm

The CFC scam started me thinking and I did some research on the atmosphere. During that time I studied Maurice Strong and confirmed my suspicions. When the CO2 scam started my first thoughts were “nobody is going to believe that”. I, to this day, cannot fathom how this came to be. It is incredible.

mario lento
Reply to  commieBob
February 18, 2020 5:54 pm

Hi CommieBob: Al Gore did it for me… before his “inconvenient Truth”, I had not thought there was any reason to disbelieve in AGW… though I did not see it as CAGW at the time. What nailed it though, and started my search which led to WUWT, was “State of Fear”.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  commieBob
February 27, 2020 8:03 pm

I have always felt how realests in dealing with this terribly corrupted science have failed the great majority who have been inveigled and frightened into the scam because not enough space has been given to history.

Although physics is important of course, the nature of climate is complex and the majority have no understanding of the math and physics. Its made worse by by the admission by physicists that its a chaotic indeterminate system so nobody knows what’s going to happen. This makes it a draw!

History is understandable to the majority and used properly, they can readily conclude for themselves that, for example, it must have been warmer in the medieval period because Viking settlers in Greenland raised farm animals and grew grain. The subcontinent had larger ice free land then, because farmsteads buried under ice from the Little Ice Age are beginning to appear as the ice melts back in the present warm period. There are literally hundreds of such revealing, simple examples. A wine industry in Scotland, the “Frost Faires” on the frozen Thames etc. etc.

Gerald Machnee
Reply to  MarkG
February 17, 2020 4:13 pm

The models do not go back to the MWP.

Paul Penrose
Reply to  Gerald Machnee
February 18, 2020 10:01 am

No, but some of the temperature “reconstructions” (which are really models) do.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  AARGH63
February 17, 2020 3:15 pm

“if models assume no natural source of climate change, how do the modelers explain the history of climate change prior to the 20th century?”

The Alarmists claim that CO2 is the control knob of the Earth’s climate all through history. They claim that natural increases in CO2 cause the temperatures to rise and natural decreases in CO2 cause temperatures to fall.

Skeptics say it might just be the other way around: That temperatures rise and this causes increases in CO2 in the atmosphere, and then temperatures fall and this causes reductions in CO2. Warm oceans outgas CO2 and cold ocreans absorb CO2 so it makes sense, and there are also records which seem to show that CO2 levels *follow* temperature changes, they do not lead them or control them.

M Courtney
Reply to  Tom Abbott
February 17, 2020 3:33 pm

Not sure the argument is as simple as that.
But it must be noted that Antarctic ice cores show CO2 following temperature by about 800 years.

Only in Climate Science does Effect precede Cause.

Henry Pool
February 17, 2020 12:38 pm

Thx. Good show. The net effect of more CO2 in the air has never been proven.

Bill Rocks
February 17, 2020 12:41 pm

Thank you, Dr. Spencer. Very skillful and direct, but diplomatic. Excellent idea to use this to invite a discussion. And, again, the fact that the CAGW purveyors were affraid to show …

February 17, 2020 12:41 pm

Well done, Roy!!

Thank you for including a link to your PowerPoint presentation.


Claude Harvey
February 17, 2020 1:07 pm

As we discovered during Y2K hysteria, the financing and investing community is forced into taking positions it knows to be fantasy-based if enough of the investing public believes that fantasy. “Reality” for an investment banker is whatever his investors believe it to be. If you dare mention “over the long haul I’ll be proven right” to a group of investment bankers, they will chant back in unison, “Over the long haul we’re all dead!”

Reply to  Claude Harvey
February 17, 2020 1:14 pm

I disagree. Some time after the dot-com bust Vanguard published an article in an investor newsletter acknowledging the pressure to create a mutual fund investing in that sector, but they decided the risk was too high.

Claude Harvey
Reply to  Ric Werme
February 17, 2020 1:34 pm

The corporate bond rating agencies forced corporate America to squander $ billions on “proving a negative” with Y2K compliance procedures rather than focusing on actual date sensitive algorithms. That obscene overkill was driven by public perception that on the magical date gasoline pumps would not work, traffic signals would go bananas, airliners would fall from the sky, etc.

Even though the bond rating agencies knew the tales were untrue, they forced corporations into Y2K compliance certification (under threat of catastrophically reduced corporate credit ratings) for one reason only; to placate bond investors.

February 17, 2020 1:17 pm

I know Dr Spencer was obviously having to keep his presentation to 30 minutes, but I would have also included 1 slide to remind that audience of the 1970’s Global Cooling scare, and then 1 more slide on how domestic energy scarcity of the 1970’s (lines at gas stations) and the 1973 OPEC embargo was the result of a rise of the Middle East oil nations as a significant Geo-political concern and costs for the US military to defend. (The oil embargo and skyrocketing energy prices led to 70’s recessions and inflation that required crushing interest rates to control.) The message there is we’re going to get the oil (for transportation needs) from somewhere and burn it. It might as well be domestically and keep the money and jobs here, along with the national security that domestic sourced energy provides.

That audience would have understood that linkage to affordable energy, recessions, and interest rates. All together it would show how the Fear mongering industry just shifts the goalposts when the cooling or warming science consensus changes and why fossil fuel divestment will ultimately fail.

February 17, 2020 1:44 pm

Dr. S, thanks for a good talk. A question – Your seventh slide shows radiant energy leaving land, but not the sea. Willis Eschenbach has educated us in one or more of his articles that sea surface temperature hardly ever exceeds 29C because at that water temperature, evaporative heat loss is roughly equal solar heat input. The resulting water vapor rises and eventually condenses releasing the heat energy that evaporation removed from the sea. Half that released energy goes down and half up. The up part seems to deserve a red up arrow from the sea. Or perhaps it is too small to count overall? Could you explain please?

February 17, 2020 2:03 pm

I wouldn’t call Ivanpah a fail until it goes bankrupt; stops producing electricity. As long as it’s producing whilst not polluting, I’d call it a win for the wackos, regardless of cost. At some point, market forces WILL intervene, it will fail. Until then, it’s not a failed project; it’s only a poorly producing project for now.

Gordon Dressler
Reply to  Bruckner8
February 17, 2020 2:52 pm

Did anyone notice that in Dr. Spencer’s aerial photo of the Ivanpah CSP facility, only two of the three solar units were operating. That’s probably OK with those who like the phrase “regardless of cost.”

Reply to  Gordon Dressler
February 17, 2020 6:39 pm

I noticed that. I was surprised any were actually aiming their mirrors their tower.

Reply to  Gordon Dressler
February 18, 2020 4:40 am

Good catch!

In general it’s been a bad winter output wise for the facility. As you pointed out part of the poor capacity factor for the plant can’t be explained by it’s a cloudy intermittent sun day. PG&E is contracted to take, via a long term PPA, the output of plant 1 and 3. SCE under a separate long term PPA takes the output of plant 2.

The grid is experiencing a bit of a log jam as noted in the rather high levels of curtailment that are occurring these days.

It would be interesting to find out if plant 2 was curtailed due to congestion (and who pays for the lost output…….. etc..)

Reply to  Bruckner8
February 17, 2020 5:07 pm

Invanpah requires massive quantities of natural gas to keep it warm so that it can produce power during the day, so much so that they have to buy carbon credits.

Reply to  Bruckner8
February 27, 2020 12:53 pm

The fleet of CSP facilities set an all time low for monthly output in December of 2019- with a combined capacity factor of 5.4%. The nuclear fleet clocked in with a capacity factor of 100.1%.

mario lento
Reply to  kakatoa
February 27, 2020 3:09 pm

I’ve visited the nuclear plant, Palo Verde. That three reactor plant is the highest producing Nuclear GS in the US… clean and steady! 4.2GW.

What’s surprising is the name plate power of The Ivanpah, is very high even though it was scaled back from 4400MW to l3ss than 4GW because the desert tortoise complained. That still didn’t save John Q Public from donating a $1.6 billion loan guarantee for the 2.2B plant. What’s not surprising is that it’s nameplate power was always an order of magnitude lie or misguided value. The nameplate is usually the truth for conventional energy production… but a lie when applied to green energy.

Harry Cummings
February 17, 2020 2:05 pm

Things have always been dire (or so we are told)

In New York,(probably same in LA) it was estimated that on a daily basis there was 1.8 million kilos of horse dung and 150,000 litres of equine urine to be ‘handled’.

The outlook was so dire a meeting was convened in New York…

‘In 1898, delegates from across the globe gathered in New York City for the world’s first international urban planning conference. One topic dominated the discussion. It was not housing, land use, economic development, or infrastructure. The delegates were driven to desperation by horse manure.’

‘The situation seemed dire. In 1894, the ‘Times’ of London estimated that by 1950 every street in the city would be buried nine feet deep in horse manure. One New York prognosticator of the 1890s concluded that by 1930 the horse droppings would rise to Manhattan’s third-story windows. A public health and sanitation crisis of almost unimaginable dimensions loomed.’


John Harrison
February 17, 2020 2:33 pm

Well done Roy. Keep up the great work. To me one of the most telling points was that no alarmist was prepared to debate the issue. I hope that the audience appreciated the significance of a their persistant refusal to debate the issue, an essential component of any true science.

February 17, 2020 2:55 pm

POLAR STRATOSPHERIC CLOUD ALERT: Arctic sky watchers should be alert for Type II polar stratospheric clouds (PSCs) this week–possibly on Feb 19th or 20th. PSCs form in the Arctic stratosphere when the temperature drops to a staggeringly low -85 C (188 K). NASA’s MERRA-2 climate model suggests that such temperatures could occur in the days ahead.

High Treason
February 17, 2020 3:04 pm

Well done. The big question is whether they will retain the fossil fuel section of their portfolio. Great that nobody went crazy, although having said all that, it is good to have a crazy making the rest look bad. It is a classic leftist tactic- have a stooge making a goose of themselves to make the entire conservative movement look like “right-wing nutjobs.”

As for Ivanpah, it is only failed when it stops producing power or is shut down because it has fried one too many birds. Even if they go bankrupt, someone will buy up the distressed asset for cents on the dollar ( unhappy pension fund that held the shares for the banks that financed it) and get the money for the power it generates. When the purchase price plummets to near zero, then the only cost is the few staff to maintain the facility and the fines for fried birds. Even a hardnose like myself can see that the biggest cost was the capital cost with debt servicing, which takes pretty well all of the money for power generated when not necessarily needed. If they had any brains, they would send the unused power to desalination plants or even to hydrolyze water for hydrogen to burn whenever.

I trust you mentioned that renewables have a poor track record of making money, even with subsidies. At some stage, renewables will have to be forced to stand on their own feet.

If there is an economic downturn, with crashing tax revenues, the money simply will not be there for the subsidies. If people are FORCED to pay what little money they have to subsidize unreliable power, they WILL eventually revolt. If they are denied food on the table because of a hard to swallow ideology that they can identify as the source of their hunger, revolt and discontent must ensue. Governments will be forced to stop the subsidies immediately or face a very angry and hostile public.

Starvation is probably the most frequent trigger for violent revolution throughout history. As the revolution itself does not bring back food, anarchy and violent chaos will rule the streets even after the warmists that caused the problems face the same fate as many during the French Revolution. Alas, as has been the case throughout history, things get to the beyond desperate stage before they rise up.

After the dust of Revolution settles and the blood on the streets washes away, those that survived the purges of the deposed cult will be elevated to hero status.

February 17, 2020 3:06 pm

“My understanding is that most investment managers have largely been convinced that climate change is a serious threat. ”

Not sure that is the case. Property and Casualty Insurance Premiums aren’t increasing abnormally, Insurance Company Stocks aren’t collapsing which they would if NYC was really going to be underwater, Coastal Property Values aren’t dropping, Energy Company Valuations aren’t discounting a Tobacco Type Settlement, neither are airlines, Climate Lawsuits have been failing, Alternative energy stocks are valued at their regulatory subsidy benefits, not as viable investments, and the markets aren’t demanding these products, they only exist because someone passed a law. Lastly, any analysts with the paper his degree is written on, would run a simple correlation between CO2 and Temperatures and know there is something funny.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  CO2isLife
February 17, 2020 5:06 pm

“Lastly, any analysts with the paper his degree is written on, would run a simple correlation between CO2 and Temperatures and know there is something funny.”

By which you mean that CO2 and temperatures correlate too well? Artificially well?

Reply to  Tom Abbott
February 18, 2020 8:45 am

If you run a correlation between CO2 and temperature you basically get an R-Square of about 0.00. Especially on a geological scale of 600 million years. What correlation does exist is when you lag CO2 by 800 to 1,500 years, lining up today’s CO2 with temperatures from the past. Today’s CO2 is a function of past temperatures. Why? It takes time to warm the oceans, and the oceans degas CO2 (Henry’s Law). Lastly, the W/m^2 of LWIR back-radiation (a proxy for temperatures) shows a logarithmic decay with the increase in CO2 concentration. The linear models of the IPCC will never work, never. They model Temp = f(CO2) when in reality the model is Temp = f (Log(CO2)). Climate Scientists aren’t statisticians, mathematicians, data scientists, econometricians, they are activists, and they make obvious mistakes people that are clueless about the real science would make. Just look at the work Tony Heller does. He eviscerates them. Data scientists should manage the data, not climate scientists. There is a conflict of interests.

Reply to  CO2isLife
February 18, 2020 8:49 am

I forgot. Look at the 600 million year reconstruction of CO2 and Temperature. The W/m^2 of CO2 approaches a horizontal asymptote as concentrations increase. That is why in 600 million years temperatures never get above 22 degree C, even when CO2 was 7,000 ppm. anything above about 700 ppm has a slope of 0.00, so increasing CO2 won’t increase temperatures. The date proves that, why else didn’t 7,000 ppm CO2 cause warming?

February 17, 2020 3:15 pm

Dr. Spencer, next time you talk to Financial Experts, remember they talk in terms of Alpha, Beta, and R-Square, the 3 factors of Modern Portfolio Theory. They also understand regressions and econometric techniques to control for factors. All you need to do is show an audience a chart of Alice Springs’ temperature going back to the late 1800s. It is flat as a board, yet CO2 has increased by over 25%. In other words the Beta is 0.00. Also, analysts are highly regulated by the SEC as to what they can publish regarding their numbers. Data integrity is 100% critical to make a credible investment decision that won’t end up getting you fired, sued or arrested. Simply show them how NASA “adjusts” the data. They will be horrified. Simply ask them “if a drug company used this kind of data to support get FDA approval, would you invest in that company?” Analysts know data, and climate data is a joke.

J Mac
Reply to  CO2isLife
February 17, 2020 7:04 pm

Good points!

February 17, 2020 3:40 pm

I hope Ivanpah wasn’t simply abandoned with its mirrors still focused, given the claims about birds being incinerated mid-flight.

Reply to  BC
February 17, 2020 5:50 pm

It’s not in operation?

Reply to  Scissor
February 17, 2020 8:11 pm

But are the mirrors still focused, having simply been left where they were when everyone was locked out? This would mean that at least once a day there would be a hazard to birds in the area. If things were done properly, all of the mirrors would have been turned to face the ground.

Another Paul
Reply to  BC
February 18, 2020 4:59 am

With no maintenance, I suspect the mirrors will be covered in dust soon enough.

February 17, 2020 3:49 pm

Plenty more largesse for the climate changers activists and subsidy miners –
Jeff is here to help until they can get rid of that scroogy Trump feller.

Gerald Machnee
February 17, 2020 4:19 pm

It can still be noted that natural disasters will occur and they should be prepared. They should also be prepared for cold as well as warm. All this weather comes in cycles.

Steven Mosher
February 17, 2020 7:38 pm

Good job Dr. Spencer.

Imagine that skeptics, a guy who knows how to avoid stupid arguments
– its the sun, its a hoax, its a leftist plot, but c02 is a trace gas.
Imagine that skeptics a guy who publishes papers! , excatly where the science debate happens!

And what was the reaction? folks who disagreed were polite and some think he changed the conversation.

Now Imagine if all of you followed his example, or Nic Lewis’ example?
Imagine instead of repeating dumb arguments and destroying your credibility
you all picked up roy’s argument.. and worked harder on the better arguments?

A) folks might actually listen to you if you stopped saying dumb things like its a hoax,
or its a fraud, or we dont know if its warming, or c02 can do nothing,
B) More people working on the same argument might actually improve the argument.
C) You might get young people to learn what roy has to say and follow in his footsteps
he wont live forever
D) you might actually get published.. you know a real debate.

Its been 10years or so telling skeptics to drop the dumb arguments and focus on the best arguments.
Here is a clue and it’s really funny. you can’t follow Roy’s lead. Why? because I told you to.
and the last thing you want to do is agree with me that Roys’s arguments are the best.

Sun Spot
Reply to  Steven Mosher
February 17, 2020 8:24 pm

Mosher you’re sounding like a 12 year old, A,B,C,D not addressing a single point Dr. Roy Spencer mentioned much less addressing the MSM and junk-science promoted by the alarmist media.

Sun Spot
Reply to  Steven Mosher
February 17, 2020 8:27 pm

. . . regarding D) you might actually get published . . . that’s some kind of joke. . . am I right ?

Reply to  Steven Mosher
February 17, 2020 9:52 pm

Serious question: I’ve been trying to find USHCN time of observation data to check Tony Heller’s claim that the historical temperature slope for stations that used to measure in the mornings is the same as the slope for stations that used to measure in the afternoon (but later switched to the morning). Does anyone know if the data are available?

Martin Howard Keith Brumby
Reply to  Steven Mosher
February 17, 2020 10:09 pm

Interesting comments from Mosher on how he’s spent ten years “telling skeptics to drop the dumb arguments and focus on the best arguments.”

My hand reached to my bookshelf and picked up a book by the same Steven Mosher and Thomas W. Fuller, titled Climategate – The Crutape Letters”.

There, Steve. A free plug.😀

Never seen much from Steve since 2010 pointing out the errors of “The Team, led by Phil Jones and Michael Mann, in attempts to shape the debate and influence public policy.”

Nowadays we get to see Steve daily showing up to defend the ridiculous and indefensible.

Obviously it must have been a Damascene Conversion somewhere along the road.

Go on, Steve, was it painful?

Or just profitable?

Reply to  Steven Mosher
February 18, 2020 2:40 am

CAGW is not just about the science.
We have supposedly gone beyond the science.
So let’s get into the analysing the damages(benefits) and the evaluating options.
You do need peer review papers by academics for that. You need real world economists and engineers.
As an engineer with more than twenty years experience in flood mitigation and urban drainage design, I can tell you my governments (Victoria, Australia) position of more droughts and more flooding is BS – I don’t need to carry out peer review, it’s just wrong.
It is my understanding you are a “lukewarmer” with the opinion ECS is between 1.5 and 3c.
I value you opinion, so I would like to know you views on people who scare people with exaggerated claims of damages based on ESC being far greater than 4.5. Do you think they have more rights to free speech than sceptics?

Reply to  Steven Mosher
February 18, 2020 4:45 pm

At you will find the “List”- Scientists who publicly disagree with the current consensus on Climate change.
There are 85 names including Dr. Roy Spencer.
You choose to identify extreme positions in deriding such scientists. All or nearly all do not advocate what you deride.
The issue is whether the identified warming from Greenhouse gases is noticeable, dangerous or catastrophic.
If the warming is not, why base world public policy on it?

February 17, 2020 8:57 pm

Mosh everyone (sane) is welcome here.
This is nothing like a lefty safe-space PC conformist site.
We don’t have a burning desire to convince anyone of anything really (unlike you and your comrades).
The primary objective of this site is to highlight the ridiculousness of so many alarmist papers and articles.
If a few crazed theories get a gig here, that’s good because it’s entertaining and you never know what can come out such brainstorms.
WUWT the most popular site on global-warming yes Mosh?
You don’t get it do you . . .

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Warren
February 18, 2020 5:57 am

“We don’t have a burning desire to convince anyone of anything really (unlike you and your comrades).”

Good point!

My burning desire is to hear something other than speculation with regard to human-caused climate change.

February 18, 2020 2:02 am

There are still some receptive people out there who will recognise good science when it’s presented to them.

Hopefully the word will spread about the positive input from Dr. Spencer and Heartland.

I hate to admit it, but before my conversion from climate alarmism, perhaps 10 years ago, I was persuaded that Heartland was some sort of coven of witches. That illusion lingered for some time even after I realised I was the problem.

Make no mistake, negative campaigning by alarmists does work rather well. Nor is their much point in persuading scientists of the rights and wrongs of climate science, they can figure it out for themselves. Even if 100% of scientists were persuaded climate science was junk, they only represent 10% or so of the worlds population. The remainder are largely ill educated laymen like me, but they all have one vote each (at least in democracies they do).

My enduring refrain is that what little money there is available to sceptics, needs to be directed at counter PR campaigns. To this end, and although it’s predominantly used to present positive right wing politics rather than climate change, PragerU is doing a good job on Twitter and Facebook, and they do include some sceptical climate science.

Iain Reid
February 18, 2020 3:49 am

What is this audience going to think when there is so much alarmist noise everyday, I would think that their reasoning will be overwhelmed by it?
Hopefully, some, at least, will think about it and dig a bit deeper but the sheer volume of alarmism must have an effect on even the most rational person. As has been said earlier we do need a much louder voice in trying to get a balance, but how can that be acheived in the opposition to even just the mSM?

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Iain Reid
February 18, 2020 6:24 am

“but the sheer volume of alarmism must have an effect on even the most rational person. As has been said earlier we do need a much louder voice in trying to get a balance, but how can that be acheived in the opposition to even just the MSM?”

The most effective push-back to CAGW would have to come from the Trump administration. Trump has to cast doubt on the narrative publicly and has to question the notion that CO2 is the control knob of the Earth’s climate.

That ought to get the public debate started.

Trump will have to take a public stand on Human-caused Climate Change when the presidential debates roll around later this year. Donald, don’t let CO2 get its foot in the door! Don’t concede that CO2 needs regulating. There is no evidence to support this. Put Dr. Happer out as your spokesman on the CAGW issue. His position should be your position.

Coach Springer
February 18, 2020 6:12 am

“his young daughter’s anxiety over global warming.”

I wonder where she got that from- assuming he’s not just using her as a Thunberg puppet. The searing record temps she has experienced in her short life? Her readings of Michael Mann’s CO2llected works? I’ll go with the indoctrination from her parents and teachers. And they say that racism is taught.

Barnes Moore
February 18, 2020 6:43 am

Great presentation. Hopefully, you will be invited back and maybe even have the opportunity to debate. One question – you mention the failed Ivanpah solar installation. Can anyone provide current data on what is happening there or with Crescent Dunes for that matter? There is a lot of news that is a few years old, but I am not finding much about how well these farms are currently working. Are they meeting their objective? How much fossil fuel are they using to compensate for any gap in energy production., etc?

Bill Parsons
February 18, 2020 1:02 pm

“Their focus is on long-term investing with many managing the retirement funds of private sector and state employees.”

Well, I don’t know if this qualifies, but…

Trump wants to plant a trillion trees. Google says we already have 3 trillion of them on Earth, and the Earth is already greening, but assuming we want more…

Tree-planting is sustainable, anybody can do it, and it soaks up evil CO2. It’s healthy exercise. And best of all for investors, lumber is expensive, hence it yields profits down the line.

Deja-Vu All Over Again!
February 18, 2020 4:07 pm

I remember way back when the investment community divested themselves of Big Pharma companies that did business in targeted “racist” African countries. These same “portfolio managers” soon discovered that some of the very same divested Big Pharma companies also provided drugs that made childbirth easier and safer for black women. Without these beneficial drugs, those very same black women would be exposed to birth-related complications and even death. That’s what happens when money managers mix their deals–the Law of Untended Consequences takes over. A good thing most of these dim-witted investment managers were not smart enough and IQ challenged to get into medical school.

Bill Parsons
February 19, 2020 10:18 pm

Dr. Spencer,

Thank you for sharing your presentation with WUWT readers.

You say on slide 4 of your power point presentation, “MY MESSAGE: 1. Slow warming is occurring, probably mostly from CO2, but there is no climate “crisis” or “emergency.”

The next slide says: “1. The climate system has warmed in recent decades, with 2010-2019 the warmest decade in the instrumental record (last ~150 yrs). 2. At least some (most?) of this warming is due to increasing carbon dioxide (CO2) from fossil fuel burning”

Your next slide says, “Natural causes of climate change are largely not understood. Climate can change without any forcing (it’s a chaotic system).”

Several slides later you cite an alarmist headline that claims, “Global Warming of Oceans Equivalent to an Atomic Bomb per Second”; but this is followed by your own remark, “But Guess What…? The sun puts the energy equivalent of 300 atomic bombs into the ocean every second.”

Although you aver that the modest warming of the Earth is probably due to CO2, you also claim that natural causes are “largely not understood”; midway through the lecture you state that the solar input to the oceans is at least 300 times the rate of CO2 forcing.

Would you explain this seeming contradiction? I appreciate any comments.

Ulric Lyons
February 27, 2020 5:58 am

“Natural causes of climate change are largely not understood.
Climate can change without any forcing (it’s a chaotic system).”

The first statement invalidates the second statement.
But the second statement implies that the first statement will not change.

%d bloggers like this: