Guest essay by Tom Harris
The mainstream media’s attack on the 16th International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC16) held last week in Washington, D.C. tells The Heartland Institute, the principal organizers of the event, that they are right over the target and should keep bombing away. The press doesn’t waste its time criticizing events that don’t matter. They would not be even remotely concerned were it not for the fact that the leading experts at ICCC16 so effectively dismantled the most cherished and vulnerable asset of climate activists, namely the supposedly “settled science” propping up the climate scare.
This is analogous to the experience of Air Force bomber pilots. An enemy won’t waste ammunition defending something unless they consider it both valuable and vulnerable.
In 2013, World War II Lancaster bomber pilot “Sandy” Mutch (then 93 years of age) explained to me, “On bombing raids over Europe, we could tell we were closing in on the target when we started to get the most flak.” That was because important German assets were often surrounded by anti-aircraft guns that filled the sky with AAA fire. And rather than being deterred by the resistance, it told Bomber Command exactly where the next wave of aircraft should concentrate their attack.
That is why we need to carefully examine media assaults on ICCC16 (Heartland lists many of them here), to help climate realists focus our efforts to win the war for the hearts and minds of Americans.
Arguably, the most significant of the attacks on ICCC16 appeared on April 9 in the New York Times in the article “Climate change denial sees a resurgence in Trump’s Washington” by Maxine Joselow.While the article was largely nonsensical, its repeated use of the term “denial” is instructive, nonetheless. Climate activists recognize that any point of view can be effectively discredited by making an analogy, even indirectly, with Holocaust denial. We can take advantage of this by pointing out that it is both irrational and offensive to Holocaust survivors and their families to equate the remote possibility of future climate problems with one of the most horrific events in history.
Then we should explain that the speakers at ICCC16 were the opposite of climate change deniers—they say that climate change occurs all the time and has done so since the origin of Earth’s atmosphere billions of years ago. And thank God for that. Otherwise, we would be stuck in the climate of 25,000 years ago when mile-thick glacial ice covered almost all of Canada and the northern US. As I told the audience at the start of my presentation, “I deny that I deny climate change. I am a denial denier!”
In reality, speakers at ICCC16 sensibly questioned how much the climate has changed in recent years and the degree to which it is has been caused by human activity. They showed that both are undoubtedly very small and are nothing to be concerned about.
None of this seems to have gotten through to Times writer Joselow, however, who repeatedly called conference attendees “deniers” and lamented that “The event made clear that climate change deniers are experiencing a triumphant resurgence in Trump’s Washington after years of feeling sidelined by the scientific and political establishments.”
That is partly correct—there was indeed a triumphant air to the conference as, at last, the federal government is actually basing energy and environmental policy on reliable science. However, it was left-leaning media, political establishments—especially the Democratic Party—and some research grant-seeking scientific establishments who had sidelined climate realists, not the science itself. Genuine science welcomes skepticism over compliance with politically correct narratives. When critics would call him a skeptic, historical climatologist Dr. Tim Ball, Heartland’s 2019 Winner of the Lifetime Achievement in Climate Science, would simply respond, “Thank you!”
Joselow incorrectly paraphrased Heartland president James Taylor when she wrote, “Taylor said the second Trump administration had done more for the climate change denial movement than any other administration in history.” In describing the immense boost the current Trump administration has given those of us who promote unbiased science, Taylor asserts that he never referred to us as part of “the climate change denial movement.”
The fact that Joselow was so concerned that Environmental Protection Agency administrator Lee Zeldin was a prominent keynote speaker at ICCC16 tells us that he was exactly the right person to lead off the conference. Unlike most government officials, even most of those on our side of the issue who make vague statements designed to offend no one, Zeldin hit the nail right on the head with a sledgehammer.
“We aren’t just following blind obedience to whatever the dire, doom-and-gloom prediction of the day is,” Zeldin, never one to pull his punches, told the audience of about 220 in the main ballroom (and thousands more online). “We won’t sign up for the script that the world is imminently about to end.”
Referring to the Obama administration’s finalization of the 2009 Endangerment Finding, the EPA administrator told ICCC16, “They don’t ever talk about what’s good and necessary about carbon dioxide for the life of the planet.”
Zeldin concluded by congratulating the audience, “You never accepted flawed, pessimistic assumptions. You never accepted taxpayer dollars getting lit on fire. You never accepted having agency heads getting creative with the law and saying, if the law doesn’t say we can’t, then I guess we can.”
“This morning and today, all of you gathered here in DC is a moment to celebrate. It is a day of vindication!”
No wonder Joselow was upset. As EPA Administrator, Zeldin is clearly a keeper!
Sandy Mutch, who passed away on April 15, 2018, at the age of 98,told me:
“I lost many of my best friends and colleagues in the war, but we were doing it to defend our society from deadly enemies. Canada [and indeed the world] now needs leaders with the courage to stand up to today’s deadly enemies, climate campaigners who are bent on destroying the energy sources we need to maintain a prosperous society.
“No one is asking politicians to risk their lives as many in my generation did. But they must be strong enough to take the flak that always comes when you are directly attacking your enemy’s most important asset. In this case, it is also their most vulnerable asset…”
Mutch, who held a Master of Science degree from the University of Toronto (1951) and who even prepared some of his own YouTube videos on the topic, explained:
“Anyone who wants to kill the dangerous and unfounded climate scare … should focus on exposing the shaky science behind climate alarm. That is the Achilles heel of the whole movement. Shoot it down, and you win the war!”
The Heartland Institute, and ICCC16 conference co-hosts CFACT, the CO2 Coalition, and Watts Up With That, and their allies are today’s bomber pilots. We should give them all the support they need to finally defeat the climate change disease plaguing our society.
Originally published in America Out Loud.
Tom Harris is Executive Director of the Ottawa, Canada-based International Climate Science Coalition, and a policy advisor to The Heartland Institute. He has 40 years experience as a mechanical engineer/project manager, science and technology communications professional, technical trainer, and S&T advisor to a former Opposition Senior Environment Critic in Canada’s Parliament.
In the AI image at the top, those CO2 bombs should be bombing wind and solar energy “farms”. 🙂
““The event made clear that climate change realists
deniersare experiencing a triumphant resurgence in Trump’s Washington after years of feeling sidelined by the unscientific and far left political establishments.””fixed it
Have just been watching the videos for the 16th Conference and am proud to have been involved on WUWT and elsewhere on the right side of history having been contributing at WUWT and other sites since 2007.
Trump gets some things wrong (in my opinion) but on the climate aspect he is 100% right.
I have been a member of the Royal Meteorological Society since 1968 and know that it has lost its way on this issue.
Congratulations to Anthony and all his supporters.
Hopefully you can tell the clowns at the Met Office to grow up and stop fiddling the numbers.
In 1938, the participants in the Royal Meteorological Society discussion of Callendar’s attribution of reported warming to incremental CO2 was right on the money.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2026/03/15/open-thread-181/#comment-4174555
“Anyone who wants to kill the dangerous and unfounded climate scare … should focus on exposing the shaky science behind climate alarm. That is the Achilles heel of the whole movement. Shoot it down, and you win the war!”
Good point!
The attribution of any portion of the reported warming trend to incremental CO2 has been unsound from the start. This is clearly seen using the computed values of dynamic energy conversion within the general circulation. This time-lapse video of plots shows the problem. Even ~4 W/m^2 increased IR absorbing power in the atmosphere in the 2XCO2 case is a fraction of the thickness of the index mark at “0” on the vertical axis. Stop the video to read the full text description.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDurP-4gVrY
Thank you for your attention to the target.
Yes, but none of the presenters at the conference seemed particularly inclined to challenge the phenomenological physics of radiative transfer theory, which, in contrast to your graphic, enables the alarmists to get away with only a passing nod toward the importance of convective heat transfer in the troposphere.
Expanding on the article’s metaphoric reference to WWII bombing, the Allies would never have won the war had they never targeted the Axis’ most vital assets.
phenomenological physics of radiative transfer is what we called “curve fitting’ 50 years ago. And it’s really not even “phenomenological” since they are not curve fitting sctual observations but “made up” average values that are not mathematically correct.
when this topic was being discussed, the limitations of the technology as well as the sampling and the location of the satellite orbits were all noted as confounding and complicating.
The shedding of energy, which here was called radiative transfer, from a planet in space can ONLY be by radiative transfer. Get it? Conduction and convection require matter.
All the instruments named in the different studies sampled the electromagnetic spectrum. Peeking through little windows through little periscopes.
We are talking about black-body radiation as a conceptual foundation for deciding what wavelengths will be bearing the majority of the energy in question, up at the higher frequency bands for energy input to the planet and the lower frequency bands for the energy loss into black deep space.
The radiative transfer from and to space is a time function. What happens during any specific time interval *is* dependent on the movement of heat throughout the object via conduction and convection. The Earth is not a black body where the body is in thermal equilibrium throughout. Therefore surface radiation varies around the Earth and at any point in time is determined by the inner conduction and convection of heat energy.
Radiation-in happens over a 12 hour interval (daytime). Radiation-out happens over a 24 hour period (daytime and nighttime). Radiation-in is a constant. Radiation-out is not a constant, it is an exponential decay. You can’t “sample” the electromagnetic spectrum at any instant and use it for anything because what it is at that instant in time depends on what has happened before. Radiation-in and radiation-out measurements will never be the same at any instant in time (except perhaps at some crossover point – good luck trying to guess when and where that will be).
Thus there can never be a radiative transfer balance. There can be a *heat* transfer (joules of energy) balance over time but determining that requires measuring the in and out radiation profiles over a time period long enough to recognize the balance. It also requires measuring the output of the totality of the surface since it is not a black body with the same surface radiation at all points on the surface.
Way too many “assumptions” are involved today to allow finding a differential between in and out heat gain/loss at the level of 4 W/m^2. The measurement uncertainty legislates against that level of resolution.
‘Get it?’
Absolutely. What’s also apparent is that you missed that I was referring to energy transfer through the troposphere.
You should read this if you’re interested in knowing why many folks have reservations re. the application of radiant transfer models to the troposphere:
https://andymaypetrophysicist.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Shula_Ott_Collaboration_Rev_5_Multipart_For_Wuwt_16jul2024.pdf
Subsequently, I can give you some references re. what your ‘instruments’ or ‘little periscopes’ are actually measuring, which is why the term ‘phenomenological’ is so very applicable to the physics underlying climate modeling.
PC’s statement of “We are talking about black-body radiation as a conceptual foundation for deciding what wavelengths will be bearing the majority of the energy in question” is, as laid out in the paper you reference, a large part of the uncertainty budget that should be propagated onto any differential values for radiation balance.
The GUM states that the ability to define the measurand is a major component of measurement uncertainty. As you point out with the words “actually measuring”, ASSUMING you are measuring black body radiation when you are really not is a prime example of an ill-defined measurand.
Took me a few minutes to figure out that your reference to “GUM” and “measurement” was NOT what my dentist was referring to during my last visit.
All kidding aside, I think the authors of the article I cited above make a good case that the ‘modelers’ have way over-emphasized the role of radiative energy transfer through the troposphere.
Whether the modelers did this because it was easier than modeling tropospheric convection (and dealing with the Navier-Stokes equations) or because they erroneously conflated the thermal radiative properties of condensed matter with the radiative properties of GHGs or because they didn’t fully consider the effects that collisions between GHGs and non-GHG species have on the radiative properties of the former, the entire physics of climate modeling seems suspect.
There are all kinds of non-physical assumptions in climate science.
Examples:
I could go on for pages. Suffice it to just sum up that climate science and its models are decidedly non-physical.
you mean scientists don’t understand convective heat transfer? How do you know something that absurd?
see my note that the author of the hit piece is a stand-up comic – a target for much clever jokers than I am!
Excellent, truly excellent. I’m not that young anymore (closer to my thirties than my twenties), but I’m not that old either. It makes me sick to see people from my generation, as well as kids who could be my children’s age (if I’d had them very young), paralyzed by completely unjustified climate anxiety, given the actual data and the state of the world. I’m infinitely happy to finally see the stifling fog of climate alarmism begin to lift. Let’s hope Western Europe takes this path as quickly as possible!
Well, I am in my ninth decade. I was a science nerd 80 years ago, graduated University in sciences and medicine late 80’s and have never failed to keep up with all the sciences as a substitute for stamp collecting or shouting for victory in silly ball games. I have observed one by one the different disciplines winkling out periodic variants attributable to different mechanisms altering insolation and energy shedding. The Fourier analysis getting closer and closer to observation as the decades passed. One which amazed me was detecting the passage of our solar system into and out of galactic arms in the Milky Way (cosmic ray flux isotope proxy data)
Never once fooled by the Ice Age crap, scientists theorised a coming cooling and media invented Ice Age – interesting enough, the predicted cooling has started in about 2020.
Perhaps if you fully understood how rapidly the planet is warming, and its cause — human activities, primarily fossil fuel burning– you would realize
Global warming is real
Its harmful to humans and other species
scientists agree on the cause and its effects
We have the technology to fix it
All nonsense.
Maxine Joselow’s writing suggests she heard or read the information provided by the many “deniers” — and learned nothing!
And there’s the rub, as Hamlet reflects on the nature of death.
That she also invokes “Trump’s Washington” suggests an infection of the TDS virus. She looks to be under 30 in web photos so has been immersed in the Mann/Gore/Greta inconvenient lies and falsehoods her entire life. [Mann’s hokey stick came in 1999; Al’s movie was in 2006]
I wonder if it is possible for such folks to rise out of their ashes like the proverbial phoenix.
Or learned nothing new.
It’s also possible she have read a blurb included with talking points.
Yep! Back in the day my Granma told me “A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still”. Human nature has not changed.
B-25 Mitchell; that takes me back to my Airfix model days. There was something really satisfying about the round fat dumpy looking US planes. F6F Hellcat, F8F Bearcat, F4U Corsair, B-26 Marauder, A-20 Havoc; I can almost smell the paint and glue.
I was an armor kid. Built so many Tamiya models in the 70s that I lost count.
I did some of both. MrGrim forgot to mention the P47 “Jug” talking about round fat and dumpy looking (but magnificent) airplanes of WWII.
It was a great conference with many brilliant , clear , and detailed talks .
No AlGretaWarming crowd could assemble such a counter group .
I agree. A stellar crowd of experts with real data and truthful analysis.
Deniers come together to do what?
Lucky Alarmists! Given nearly unlimited public funding and the near total support of every institution that has been overrun by the Left, the only thing that remains for them to do is provide some modicum of evidence that CO2 has ever been the ‘control knob’ of Earth’s climate. So far, no joy, based on detailed analyses of ice and carbonate rock core records dating back many thousands and millions of years, respectively.
Btw, if many of the beatdowns of alarmist ‘science’ here at WUWT were authored by a mere ‘massage therapist’, you might want to consider becoming a ‘denier’ yourself, or at least refrain from the use of ad-hominem attacks.
Warren demonstrates that he lacks any ability to think for himself and can only repeat what it has been told to believe.
!) Better to have no explanation than to have one that has been proven wrong time and again
2) Consensus is not the realm of science
3) Pointing out that the leaders of the climate panic movement have sworn to keep out any paper that disagrees with their position, going so far as to have senior editors fired for straying from the party line
4) Pointing out that hiss one and only claim to fame has been falsified is not hyperventilating. Laughing at his fragile ego and lack of mental capacity is not hyperventilating.
5) Attacking the messenger instead of the message, is an example of hyperventilating.
6) Knowing that the world has been getting hotter and colder since the planet had an atmosphere, many times faster and greater than what we are seing now, without CO2 playing any role whatsoever.
7) Says the team that claims any cut in federal funding is an existential threat.
When thousands of researching scientists come to the same conclusion, and no one has published any peer reviewed papers contradicting those conclusions, it’s time to ask where Deniers get their information (answer — not from the body of scientific research)
Unfortunately, you are correct that thousands of researching scientists have come to the conclusion that they will neither be funded nor published in any ‘peer reviewed’ journal should they ever contradict the alarmist narrative of CAGW.
No, you have twisted what I said. I mean thousands of scientists publishing their work in peer reviewed journals. None –and I mean none-of peer reviewed papers disagree that human activities are the cause. That also means that Deniers haven’t created a single competent work product dealing with the cause of climate change. So they talk to each other at their Denier conference and beg for money.
‘I mean thousands of scientists publishing their work in peer reviewed journals. None–and I mean none-of [their] peer reviewed papers disagree that human activities are the cause [of climate change].’
That’s a pretty damning quote, Warren. If they were really ‘scientists’, as in followers of the scientific method, they would know better than to incorrectly state the null hypothesis along the line that ‘human activities are the cause of climate change’.
Perhaps we can all agree that a proper science-based null hypothesis would state something along the line that ‘human activities are not the cause of climate change’, at which point you and your ‘scientists’ could bugger off until such time as you / they have acquired the physical evidence to reject it.
Since you have no basis to argue against the body of science, you invent absurdities. Why not try the flat earth society? I’m sure they’d love you to join
Why would I join any club that would have you as a member?
Youre good at snark, but at substance not so much