It's called, The 2009 International Conference on Climate Change and bills itself as "the world's largest-ever gathering of global warming skeptics." The conference, whose theme is "Global warming: Was it ever really a crisis?," runs from Sunday, March 8 and concludes Tuesday, March 10 in New York.
Produced by The Heartland Institute and 57 (mostly conservative leaning) co-sponsoring organizations, the conference is "devoted to answering questions overlooked by the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change." [Oddly enough, a scan of the program didn't turn up anything that hadn't already been covered by the IPCC.] According to the Heartland Institute's press release for the event, "the IPCC concluded global temperatures may already have reached crisis proportions, and that human activity was a key driver in raising temperatures, primarily because of the release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere." Not surprisingly, the participants of this conference say they will present "a substantially different viewpoint."
The Heartland Institute indicates that there will be over 70 speakers at the event, including as you might expect some of the usual skeptics like S. Fred Singer, Willie Soon, Lord Monckton, etc., as well as the founders of various conservative and skeptic think tanks like Fred Smith of the Competetive Enterprise Institute and Joseph D'Aleo of ICECAP. The most notable speaker is the Honorable Vaclav Klaus, President of the Czech Republic (and currently President of the EU by virtue of the rolling 6-month EU presidency structure). Trained as an economist before going into politics, President Klaus has expressed his dissatisfaction with various scientific pursuits, including global warming and the new REACH chemical control legislation in Europe.
It will be interesting to see what science might come out of the conference and whether it impacts the consensus that human activity has contributed to the increased rate of global warming.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 275
You can listen to last years speakers here;
http://www.heartland.org/NewYork08/newyork2008-audio.html
You can watch video of last years speakers here;
http://www.heartland.org/NewYork08/newyork2008-video.html
And if they used a power point presentation you can see it here;
http://www.heartland.org/NewYork08/newyork2008-ppt.html
The purpose of the conference is to help promote awareness that there is science and research that conflicts with the IPCC doctrine.
The more people who know this the less likely it will be that the politicians will be able to push through costly uneeded regulation.
No David that is not what you say! I am well aquainted with your position.
You say, 'all the science has already been taken into account by the IPCC'..Case closed.
The Flat Earth Society
The Flat Earth Society
Wiki Article
Thanks Dan. Did you attend?
No, that is not what I said, Dan. That is how you have misinterpreted what I said. What I have said repeatedly and consistently, in reference to the information you have cited, is "Science has incorporated all the available relevant and reliable data. Science will continue to incorporate any and all new relevant and reliable data that become available."
So all the relevant and reliable data presented to date have been incorporated. Any new relevant and reliable data that become available will also be incorporated. If this conference presents some new relevant and reliable data of which climate scientists were somehow already unaware, it will be incorporated into the analyses.
I never said "case closed." You made that up. To science, the case is never closed, because unlike political and ideologically-driven opinions, science will always incorporate any new valid data. The conclusions follow the data.
Case closed. You're right David it's not a case of case closed it's a case of your mind is closed. You don't want to get confused by other ideas on the subject.
Humans have a tendency to think that there is always a secret thing going on, that the truth is out there but hidden from us, that something was left out. A politician demands for another politician to reveal all his links with Delbert Slepkiss. If he refuses to cooperate, he is guilty of something. If he agrees, he is filmed doing so, and then his response is never enough. How do we know that you did not leave something out? In reality, there are knowable things. The sun comes up every morning. Snow melts in the spring. If you try to breathe with a plastic bag wrapped arond your head, you die.
We have this notion that a different viewpoint always adds value to a conversation. Not always true. did Lamarck help our understanding of evolutionary processes? Nope. Did Ptolemy help by getting us to accept for more than a thousand years that the planets orbit Earth? Nope. Hope about that one scientist who argued stridently that AIDS is not caused by the HIV organism. good thing we refused to listen to him, and instead got to work on drugs to kill HIV. How many lives would have been lost if we had listened to that. How many lives could be lost if we refuse to listen to prevailing science on climate change? Millions? Billions? The scientists who argued for "spontaneous generation" of living things back in the 1600s, who stood in the way of germ theory and the discoveries of vaccines and disinfection. Boy they were a big help, those guys with the alternative viewpoint. Yes that is sarcasm.
There is a distinction to be drawn here. It's okay for a real scientist to look at a climate model and say, interesting but this satellite data is inconslusive, we need a follow up project to nail it down. It's not okay for someone who is scared of the consequences of accepting climate science to attempt to throw a monkey wrench into the gears by denying the validity of the entire scientific process, of playing a delaying game with the most urgent challenge of our generation. The difference is one of helping survival and hindering human survival.
David, you knew what you would get from me, I expect.
From the Heartland Institute's website: "Heartland's mission is to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems. Such solutions include parental choice in education, choice and personal responsibility in health care, market-based approaches to environmental protection, privatization of public services, and deregulation in areas where property rights and markets do a better job than government bureaucracies."
David: "John - I say put all the science on the table. Again. And see if it changes anything."
A few questions. How many of these "skeptical" scientists are actually doing climate research (and is the President of the Czeck Republic a climate scientist)? Isn't this a political conference masquerading as a scientific conference? Are there any scientific organizations, which hold scientific conferences, disputing the IPCC Reports? Have any of these "skeptical" scientists presented their findings at any of those conferences? Do any of these "skeptical" scientists publisn in scientific journals? What scientific credibility would "the Heartland Institute and 57 (mostly conservative leaning) co-sponsoring organizations" have relative to - say - the National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union? Just asking....
You certianly have your tail in a knot regarding Heartland Institute. What did they ever do to you Steve?
"There is a distinction to be drawn here. It's okay for a real scientist to look at a climate model and say, interesting but this satellite data is inconslusive, we need a follow up project to nail it down. It's not okay for someone who is scared of the consequences of accepting climate science to attempt to throw a monkey wrench into the gears by denying the validity of the entire scientific process, of playing a delaying game with the most urgent challenge of our generation. The difference is one of helping survival and hindering human survival."
If commenters skipped Chris' comments (a couple above this), please have a look.
Science is based on probability. Evidence is significant when probability is greater than 95%. Evidence is compelling when probability is greater than 90%. Unlike ideology, which is based on certainty of belief, science actually deals with an external (to the psyche) world, which you refer to here as "data". The point is that in science "the case is never closed" because probability is not a certainty principle. Anyone, with just the rudimentary understanding of science, knows this.
Here's a quick article on the satellite for backgrounding purposes.
The loss of that satellite is a serious problem, but not to the extent that would justify your statement: "...we are just arguing BS until the cows come home." That is a certainly an unwarranted stretch. No scientific organization has disputed the IPCC Reports that the fact of warming is "unequivocal" and that there is a 90% probability that it is anthropogenic.
I was surprised to see that so many of the "57 co-sponsoring organizations" have no apparent connection to climate change research or science in general. Many are libertarian societies, anti-tax organizations, and pro-business growth associations. There are many that have been accused of being "front groups" for various agendas. While they all certainly have a right to express their opinions, I'm not sure how most would have any knowledge of the science behind global warming.
Talk about politicizing a scientific issue.
I would agree that widespread panic is not a good thing, but neither is widespread denial of something that is actually happening.
"A hospital in Africa that, because of global warming policy, has to choose between running the refrigerator or a few lights at night because they must use a primitive solar cell system and cannot use a real practical generator."
What is the source of this example, Christopher? I would be shocked that some government policy would force some impoverished community in Africa to use solar power if it is unreliable and electricity for generators is available. Frankly, I think it highly more likely that the impoverished hospital in Africa would simply not have reliable electrical generation or fuel for a generator in the first place. In which case, the solar cell generator may be the only way they have electricity. So it's not a "global warming panic induced policy" but a "solar power is my only chance to have any electricity policy."
I noted that you denigrated the speakers at this conference by referring to them as "the usual skeptics", so I assume that you agree with the supporters of Al Gore's theories. I also assume you refer to conferences sponsored by those you agree with "mainstream", rather than "liberal", and to those speaking as "distinguished scientists", rather than "the usual advocates".
I just wanted to point our that your bias is showing.
The denial squad needs to do some soul searching. The guys who are a front for Exxon, does your job security outweigh human survival? How about the Chamber of Commerce guys, the Massey energy guys, the Christian Dominionist faction, the Rush Limbaugh crowd- is there no financial payoff for the position that you have taken?
I would love to take a denial position on climate change, because then I could argue that gasoline prices are too high, cap and trade is crazy and will cost me money, etc. I would love for gasoline to be free, why can't it be free? I deny my own interests in the search for good science and in service to the needs of my great grandchildren. Are you denial guys doing the same? I don't see it.
As is yours, Randy. We all have biases. But this isn't about bias, this is about science. Science is not political opinion or ideology. It's about data. Data are collected, evaluated, tested, compiled, discussed, retested, rediscussed, reevaluated, etc. and eventually a consensus is achieved.
I admit to being biased towards data-driven scientific analysis.
Randy, I've pointed this out before, but these are not "Al Gore's theories." As you well know, Al Gore is not a scientist, he's a former politician and current businessman, albeit much more in-tuned and educated about science than most politicians and businessmen. When you say "Al Gore's theories" it sounds like you are saying that Al Gore invented climate change (or global warming, which are used interchangeably) and that somehow he was able to retroactively talk climate change scientists into doing research for the past few decades to support "his" theories. That would be silly. Al Gore merely related (in his own way, with more than a little flamboyance) what climate scientists have been saying for some time.
The "usual skeptics" characterization may seem a bit gratuitous, but was meant not to denigrate the speakers at the conference as much as it was to point out that "the usual skeptics" would all be there. By that I mean that there are a handful of skeptics that pretty much show up everywhere (kind of like "the usual advocates," James Hansen and Al Gore do for the consensus side). And they all pretty much repeat the same thing.
Well, Peter, usually scientific data from conferences are presented in scientific proceedings and any data that would significantly impact the prevailing consensus would be published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.
I don't see any coal and oil industry representatives directly listed, though ExxonMobil is a key contributor to many of the organizations.
The full list of cosponsors are listed in the program linked above.
Just stopped by to let you know that this post has been featured at "Barack Obama's Presidential Appointments, Bills and Policies."
http://obamasupporters.gather.com/
Keep up the great work.
Your friend.
Lloyd
Gee David that sounds an awful lot like what I said you said.
"I never said "case closed." You made that up."
Yes I did, but if one takes a look at your postings there is no misunderstanding that you think the "case is closed".
Despite the fact that the facts show that our earth is cooling in the face of a less active sun and the inability of the IPCC models to predict that cooling, you claim all of the pertinent information concerning solar influence has been taken into consideration by the IPCC.
You have faith that the IPCC doctrine is correct even if the facts cast doubt on that doctrine, if the truth was even your scope of vision concerning this subject, you would not be defending the IPCC with such vitriol.
Did you attend? Didn't get the chance. maybe next year.
"David- I lament the existence of this group of know-nothings and want-to-know-nothings."
This is the type of ignorant comment that shows that the global warmists do not care what the science is, they only care about their ideology!
Chris,
These skeptical scientists (know nothings as you put it) are at least as well credentialed as any the IPCC has to offer.
"How many lives could be lost if we refuse to listen to prevailing science on climate change? Millions? Billions?"
In light that the science is questioning the validity of the IPCC doctrine......Fear mongering prevails with the global warmists! The Sky is falling.
Chris,
These are scientists providing science and research that casts doubt on what the IPCC has been telling us for years, they are not just people who are trying to throw a monkey wrench into the works, they are scientists who know the IPCC's conclusions are wrong.
But ideologs such as yourself would silence them because you have fallen for the Algorian propaganda of the sky is falling.
"A few questions. How many of these "skeptical" scientists are actually doing climate research"
Steve we can ask the same of the IPCC authors and we find that a greater percentage these skeptical scientists are working in or have a history of working in a climate related fields than do the IPCC authors.
"Isn't this a political conference masquerading as a scientific conference?"
Nope the purpose of the conference is clear,
"Produced by The Heartland Institute and 57 co-sponsoring organizations, the conference is devoted to answering questions overlooked by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. That panel concluded global temperatures may already have reached crisis proportions, and that human activity was a key driver in raising temperatures, primarily because of the release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
But the 80 experts scheduled to speak at the Heartland conference say they will present a substantially different viewpoint."
To make the public aware that there are differing viewpoints on global warming and it's causes and that there is credible science out there that casts doubt on the IPCC doctrine.
Is Al Gore? Yet he's out there attracting winter weather and preaching about "global warming" all the time. yet I haven't seen any slights to his character being posted. I guess be cause he's been fighting the good fight for 30 years(yet not once looked at his electric bill in 30 years and saw that he was powering a small town.) he's ok to speak publicly.
What anyone who looked at my postings would find it that I have consistently and repeatedly said "Science has incorporated all the available relevant and reliable data. Science will continue to incorporate any and all new relevant and reliable data that become available."
There is a consensus.
Charles: "Is Al Gore?"
I agree with Charles that Vaclav Klaus doesn't need to be a scientist to have an opinion, as does not Al Gore. The difference, of course, is that Al Gore is communicating scientific data (with embellishment) while Vaclav Klaus is expressing a political opinion.
From the Wiki entry for Vaclav Klaus:
"Klaus is a vocal critic of the notion that any global warming is man-made (anthropogenic): "Global warming is a false myth and every serious person and scientist says so." He has also criticized the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as a group of politicized scientists with one-sided opinions and one-sided assignments. He has said that other top-level politicians do not expose their doubts about global warming because "a whip of political correctness strangles their voices."
"In addition he says "Environmentalism should belong in the social sciences" along with other "isms" such as communism, feminism, and liberalism. Klaus said that "environmentalism is a religion" and, in an answer to the questions of the U.S. Congressmen, a "modern counterpart of communism" that seeks to change peoples' habits and economic systems."
As I have said before,
There is a consensus of scientists that think the theory of man made global warming is valid and a consensus of scientists that think the theory of man made global warming is not valid.
But all in all consensus is political and science is about research and fact.
The research is showing that the doctrine of the IPCC is in error.
You misunderstand the meaning of consensus in this case. A scientific consensus is built upon years of research and data that lead to a conclusion supported by the preponderance of the evidence. This is what the IPCC consensus entails. It represents the best understanding of the all of the data available...the state-of-the-science.
But even if you had not misunderstood the definitions, your definition would be like saying there is a consensus of people who believe that Elvis is dead and a consensus of people who believe Elvis is alive.
I know there is a great debate over whether global warming is real or imagined. I don't know if the wild weather we've witnessed over the last decade or so is related or can be attributed to humans or natural weather patterns.
What I do know is that I want people in political office who are concerned about the warming of our planet and that is why I'm happy with Barack Obama's decision to listen to what our scientists have to say about this issue.
For those of you who don't believe that humans have an effect on the environment, just look at the pollution in Bejing, China before the Olympics, and the lack of air pollution during the Olympics. The difference was like night and day. The reason for the reduction in pollution was due to mandatory restrictions that reduced the amount of vehicles on the road and restrictions placed on factory emissions during the Olympic games.
That proved to me that humans do effect the environment. Now only if we can find the proof that humans are contributing to global warming.
But the government there realized they had to do something for the Olympic games and so took steps to cut back emissions (as you note). And it had a noticeable effect. Unfortunately, they just reverted back to the old way after the games and things have gotten bad again, but the fact that they could actually show a marked difference was important.
I say you probably haven't read it because I don't care for Crichton's books, and I'm sure you probably don't, either. But this appendix isn't fiction. It's excellent.
_State of Fear_, fiction, is about the global-warming and climate-change movement. The fiction is pretty lame, full of impossible exploits, although I appreciated what Crichton was getting at.
This appendix, Crichton's essay on the subject of the movement, is something I wish everyone would read.
The Appendix you mention is used to offer his opinion on climate change. It is his opinion.
Here are some Answers to Questions regarding the novel and Appendix from the Pew Center.
Al Gore has not addressed a fake-science conference, making a political argument under the guise of science. In fact, Al Gore has addressed conferences of actual scientific organizations, specifically the American Geophysical Union and the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Both conferences applauded him enthusiastically. So your comparison of Al Gore with Vaclav Klaus doesn't wash.
Charles: "'with embellishment' nice save Steve."
Try reading more carefully, Charles. I never said "with embellishment." No wonder you're confused on this issue.
You do realize Crichton distorted the science he then claimed was political - don't you? Peter Doran is one scientist, who has written on Crichton's (among others) distortion of his research.
Give it up, David. Dan doesn't misunderstand - he misrepresents. The skeptic mantra is to continually "present" the science as being uncertain. I have referenced the infamous Frank Luntz memo to this effect on many occasions. Incidentally, Luntz since has accepted the science of climate change.
Skeptics accuse climate science of being "political" while having "free-market think tanks" host a "scientific conference" on climate change. Not one of them have ever presented even one scientific organization that disputes the IPCC Reports. Not one.
In any case, the scientific "debate" has been over for some time. Corporations don't even argue with the science any longer. Now - even the politicians (for the most part) accept the science. Only these "die hard" skeptics remain, apparently not realizing that the limb they've crawled out on has already been sawed off.
Technically, Steve, they don't say this is a "scientific" conference, just a conference in which skeptics can offer their views. Scientific conferences generally have an open call for papers in which anyone with a study to discuss can offer it to whatever session is relevant to that topic. This ensures that new research gets a chance to be heard and a wide range of viewpoints can be presented. All the speakers for this Heartland conference appear to have been invited by the organizer and seems to be more of an issue advocacy event as opposed to a scientific event.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is what happens when you have non-scientists (IPCC) trying to prove something, that is a naturally occurring event, on being "man made". This has been another media blitz-hollywood ploy to hype something we cant change yet certain few want to profit from (Gore).
~M
Richard S. Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, says: "Please keep in mind what the proposition is. It is not a debate over whether the earth has been warming over the past century. The earth is always warming or cooling, at least a few tenths of a degree…. Indeed, as far as I can tell, even our opponents do not claim that global warming is a crisis at present. Rather, we are primarily addressing the future. Now, much of the current alarm, I would suggest, is based on ignorance of what is normal for weather and climate."
In this debate, the proposition was: "Global Warming Is Not a Crisis." In a vote before the debate, about 30 percent of the audience agreed with the motion, while 57 percent were against and 13 percent undecided. The debate seemed to affect a number of people: Afterward, about 46 percent agreed with the motion, roughly 42 percent were opposed and about 12 percent were undecided.
It will be proven that humans cant do a thing about it, nor caused it. It will get cooler in another 10 years and then it will be just like the 1970 scare that we were cooling too much.
the alarmists make money on both sides...nice. Nothing like filtering money during an actual crisis - our economy.
~M
Regardless, thanks David for posting this. I too will be interested to see what comes of it.
While we argue the glaciers melt, the oceans warm and nothing is bing done other than more hot air being expelled into the air from those who would argue the opposite of any side just to do so. You can present facts until you are blue in the face and they will say it isn't so. Their minds are closed to anything but what they think and no scientific research will change that.
:O\
I should have wrote David. My mistake.
Here are some words from one of the 2008 speakers and participants:
The conference was organized by the Heartland Institute along with some 50 co-sponsors. According to Heartland’s president Joe Bast, Al Gore had been invited, and even offered his usual speaker fee of $200,000. Others from the Gore camp were also invited, yet did not show. Scientific accountability is not among their strong suits, when deceptions are so much more lucrative. Dozens of media did not take notice.
Dr. Fred Singer continued to contribute solid analyses of the global warming issues which he presented. He and 23 co-authors have written an excellent new summary (http://tinyurl.com/327vkg). Singer introduced the recent findings of global warming complexities entitled Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate. This was the Summary for Policymakers from Singer’s new group the Non-Governmental International Panel on Climate Change or NIPCC. The report is the perfect foil for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Summary for Policy Makers.
What many people do not appreciate is that the UN’s IPCC has been an activist program from the very beginning. It has not been devoted to better understanding of the climate, but to develop documentation “proving” only a human link (read capitalist) to climate change. Considering natural forces on climate such as the influence of the Sun were off limits.
Those IPCC documents have been historically drafted by international bureaucrats to better fit the UN and the IPCC political agendas. They have been known to re-write scientific conclusions without knowledge or approval of the originating authors. This is not science, nor a scientific process, but is hubristic (and destructive) politics, unbecoming of “world class” scientists.
In sharp contrast was Singer’s NIPCC Summary document written by 23 solid, identified scientists, a number of whom were quite available for discussion and questions at the meeting. This was quite a refreshing difference in candor and openness than what we’ve seen from the IPCC.
Singer briefly describes some of the history behind the global warming scare which can be traced back to the early 70’s. Manmade CO2 emissions were recognized by the left as the ideal “threat” by which western economies could be crippled. This is in spite of the fact that 97% of the atmospheric CO2 is from natural sources such as the oceans.
It requires a lot of energy to run these industrial economies such as ours, much of it coming from fossil fuels with the necessary production of CO2. Portraying manmade CO2 emissions as a global menace by which to frighten an uninformed public appears to be working. The hysteria is widely promoted by the media which seems to be invested in “catastrophe”, again. It is enough to make one wonder why teach or study science at all, if it is to be so uniformly ignored.
For his entire article: 2008 International Conference on Climate Change: An Intellectual Feast
Comparing the two is crazy.
Mistakes like these show that scientists, with actual science degrees, should be doing the science and not the IPCC who only have 1/3 of their group with science degrees.
Joe, come on. Isnt there just a piece of you that questions a movement like this? 1970 was a cooling period and the doomdayers said we were cooling too much. Now its too hot except this time, they have a movement making hundreds of billions in profit.
When it turns around and people realize that it was thievery, Gore will have a lot to answer for. Also, even if they are right, which they are not, we still cant spend the hundreds of billions right now during an "almost" depression.
the subject is moot for 5 years and by then we will know one way or another.
~M
The International Conference on Climate Change has yet to occur, but it has already concluded that climate change is either not occuring or is not related directly to human activities.
This is the difference between science and ideology: science reaches conclusions upon review of facts because those conclusions are consistent with the available facts; ideology begins with foregone conclusions and either finds fact irrelevant to the process or excludes facts that don't agree with the conclusion.
Public policy should be drawn from scientifically supported conclusions rather than merely from ideology. Of course, it is true that scientifically supported conclusions may change and evolve as new facts present themselves. But the risk posed by the conclusions supported by the currently available facts are great, the timeline for addressing them appears to be short and public policy takes time to implement.
The problem here seems to be that we cannot really afford to allow intentional skepticism based on ideological conviction impervious to factual evidence to delay action or obstruct the implementation of effective public policy.
Nice to see you're setting your sights high. Good luck.
MDP (to Georgianna): "Comparing the two is crazy."
Is it? Skeptics like to reference S. Fred Singer, who also denied the relationship between second-hand smoke and cancer/cardiovascular disease. Heartland Institute "challenges" the consensus around the tobacco/disease correlation in addition to the consensus around climate change/human activity.
Marilyn: "Those IPCC documents have been historically drafted by international bureaucrats to better fit the UN and the IPCC political agendas."
Partly true - but you have the significance exactly backwards. The bureaucrats, who were tweaking the IPCC Reports, were from the U.S., China, and Saudi Arabia. They were watering down the scientific findings and projections.
David: "Technically, Steve, they don't say this is a "scientific" conference, just a conference in which skeptics can offer their views. Scientific conferences generally have an open call for papers...."
Operative word = "technically". The suggestion that this is a "scientific" conference is clearly there. Otherwise, there would be clear disclosure that the challenge to the IPCC Reports is political or economic - not scientific. No - they go right at the IPCC process and completely ignore that the IPCC Reports are endorsed by every major scientific organization in the world.
Exactly. Even Rupert Murdoch understands that.
As Rory says so very well a few comments above, scientists look at the data and draw conclusions consistent with and supported by those data. Most of the attendees at this conference actually came to their conclusions from a political, ideological and business standpoint and then sought out data (real or contrived) to support their conclusions. They sought that one window missing in the Empire State Building and conclude because of it the other 6,499 windows don't exist. In other cases they merely deny the existence of the Empire State Building in itself for no other reason that it is convenient for them to do so. Well, the Empire State Building with its 6,500 windows is still there, despite those who deny it, and luckily there are people who recognize that its 6,500 windows need cleaning.
The really crazy thing is that after blatantly coming to an ideological conclusion themselves, they accuse the scientific community of doing what they have done.
Frankly, I'm sure sure which is worse...the ignorance or the dishonesty.
Scientific truth is not decided by majority vote
And it might surprise many at this conference that some of the big firms (we'll leave their names out for now) who front them are at the same time already acknowledging that global warming is real and that their operations are contributing to it. They have already taken steps to make changes. Their goal has shifted from complete denial to merely delaying tactics so they can position themselves for competitive advantage. Eventually they will shift into support for the science that they already know exists.
And with that shift comes decrease and eventual elimination of the denialist funding.
I wonder how that will make the denialist movement feel to know that they are being played for fools by the very companies that support them. Perhaps they don't care, and they will just shift from this particular funding boom to the next obfuscatory campaign. After all, that's what they do.
In the end, the science is the science. And the science on this topic is clear.
Exactly. I always laugh when I hear politicians accuse scientists of playing politics with science. It is both dishonest and ignorant that this "conference" is being pitched as "scientific", when it is nothing but politically, economically (or a version of economics - which we presently see doesn't work either), and ideologically based.
Another factor that is not considered is that 10,000 years of global warming has been a boon to mankind and life in general--not a hindrance. 5000 years ago, Great Briton was covered with ice and inhospitipal to the life that is now there. Global warming was a benefit and spawned the rise of civilization and agriculture. Now suddenly its a crisis?
OK, what predictions have the advocates made that have come true? Let's see, in the 1970's an ice-age was predicted because there was a slight drop in temperatures. Then it started to warm up again and global warming was predicted in the 1980's. Back then it was predicted that Florida would be underwater by 2000. It was also predicted that the U.S. would suffer major famines by 1995.
I need not tell you that none of the predictions made came to pass. That is why I am skeptical. Skepticism is healthy--and is the culture of science, or at least it once was.
The problem with the satelite data is the margin of error is around 5%. You never hear anyone in the media talk about margin of error, but they should. Temperatures could be 5% higher or "lower" than reported estimates.
You will also note that the term global-warming has given way to "climate change." Since global temperatures change over time, any change is now dangerous and of course a "crisis!" Is any change ever not a crisis?
One final nail: The butterfly effect makes it terribly complicated to predict next weeks weather, but some climatologists would prefer that you believe that they can predict global temperatures 50-100 years hence. Uh huh.
Yes, I'm a skeptic and I am proud! You see skeptics are more open-minded than non-skeptics. Non-skeptics are political zealots, their minds are made up. Plus they get more grant money if they can convince our gov. that any change in the climate is a crisis. They can sell more carbon credits. What a racket! P.T. Barnum was correct: "There's a sucker born every minute." But I digress. The point is, to be truly open-minded you have to have not one but three positions: 1. the crisis is real; 2. the crisis is not real; 3. the crisis is partly real.
I let the evidence (or lack thereof), not the media lead me. So I look forward to seeing some hard evidence posted on this thread. Bring it on!
I'm sorry, your ignorance is showing in that you quote concepts already demonstrated to be either misrepresented or entirely false. In fact, it's hard to even follow your logic, which is often contradictory, largely incorrect, and scientifically unsupportable .
"You see skeptics are more open-minded than non-skeptics. Non-skeptics are political zealots, their minds are made up."
I believe you confuse the dictionary definition of "skeptics" with the ideologically motivated "climate change skeptics" most of whom, if you look at the list of sponsors, are libertarian, free trade, anti-tax organizations. Ask yourself why a libertarian organization would be interested in denying the existence of global warming. Now ask yourself what qualifications they might have to deny the existence of global warming. Now ask yourself why most of the scientists presenting at the conference are the same scientists that routinely write the same thing over and over again for the network of industry or free-trade front groups. It might be a useful exercise.
The problem with global warming "skeptics" is that they do exactly as you accuse the "non-skeptics" of doing. The "skeptics" minds are made up based on political and ideological beliefs, while they brand anyone who acknowledges the scientific consensus as "political zealots." I have to say, the hypocrisy is so blatently obvious that it has become laughable. Which is why the world's scientists understand the problem, the world's governments are beginning to take action, and the public sees the denialists for what they are - political shills.
And the corporate funders of the front organizations are starting to pull their front money. So I guess the professional denialists will have to find another "cause" to shill for.
Define relevant data.
"that it involved the rise of global average temperatures, that it seemed to be driven by increasing CO2 levels which in turn also seemed to be related to human activities particularly the burning of fossil fuels."
The key word is "seemed." In other words, at best, a correlation or an association was noted between climate change and human activities. But there is also an inverse correlation between climate change and womens' dress sizes. A cause and effect connection has not been established.
"The International Conference on Climate Change has yet to occur, but it has already concluded that climate change is either not occuring or is not related directly to human activities."
It has? I thought they were just skeptical. Are you sure your mind was not made up when you wrote that political spin?
"This is the difference between science and ideology: science reaches conclusions upon review of facts because those conclusions are consistent with the available facts; ideology begins with foregone conclusions and either finds fact irrelevant to the process or excludes facts that don't agree with the conclusion."
I agree with you here in part. Advocates don't like to factor in ice-age cycles. That data does not conform to their world-view that climate change is a man-made crisis. However, you are mistaken about what science is. I refer you to the scientific method:
The scientific method is very simple, and consists of five basic steps. They are:
Observe some aspect of the universe
Form a hypothesis that potentially explains what you have observed
Make testable predictions from that hypothesis
Make observations or experiments that can test those predictions
Modify your hypothesis until it is in accord with all observations and predictions
The problem with the greenhouse emissions hypothesis is the lack of testable predictions and modifications. All conclusions in science are tentative at best. Nothing is written in stone, and to treat a hypothesis as a hard fact is unscientific. Such conduct demonstrates the ideological problem you complain of.
"The problem here seems to be that we cannot really afford to allow intentional skepticism based on ideological conviction impervious to factual evidence to delay action or obstruct the implementation of effective public policy."
Without skepticism, science is nothing but a superstition. A skeptic (aka: a scientist) would ask you to show the "factual evidence" you speak of. He/she would also point out that scientific facts are tentative and are always open to skepticism.
Huh?
"[A skeptic] would also point out that scientific facts are tentative and are always open to skepticism."
Whereas a scientist would point out that scientific consensus results from the majority of scientists who study a particular issue and agree on the conclusions to be drawn from the data. To say that "scientific facts" are always open to skepticism is to confuse ideology with science. Science is always evolving, as new information is incorporated into the analysis and our understanding is refined. Skepticism as you describe it is an ideologically driven emotion that has nothing to do with science. There are skeptics that we landed on the moon, that Booth shot Lincoln, and that Elvis is dead. Real scientists who disagree provide real science which gets reviewed, analyzed, and tested by other real scientists and incorporated into our understanding of the science. If new data persuasively changes our understanding, then our understanding is changed.
What global warming skeptics refuse to admit is that they offer two types of information: 1) pure bunk, which has been disproven over and over as fallacioius and/or specious and/or irrelevant, and 2) occasional real science that has already been incorporated into the analysis, despite their disingenuous declarations that it hasn't. It has.
But the goal is merely to repeat themselves with a false aura of self-described credibility under the belief that "if you keep serving garbage often enough people start eating garbage."
"After ExxonMobil was chastised by senators for giving $19 million over the years to the Competitive Enterprise Institute and others who are "producing very questionable data" on climate change, as Sen. Jay Rockefeller said, the company has cut back its support for such groups. In June, a spokesman said ExxonMobil did not doubt the risks posed by climate change, telling reporters, "We're very much not a denier." In yet another shock, Bush announced at the weekend that he would convene a global-warming summit next month, with a 2008 goal of cutting greenhouse emissions. That astonished the remaining naysayers. "I just can't imagine the administration would look to mandatory [emissions caps] after what we had with Kyoto," said a GOP Senate staffer, who did not want to be named criticizing the president. "I mean, what a disaster!"
"With its change of heart, ExxonMobil is more likely to win a place at the negotiating table as Congress debates climate legislation. That will be crucially important to industry especially in 2009, when naysayers may no longer be able to count on a friend in the White House nixing man-datory greenhouse curbs." [The article goes on to point out that both now-President Barack Obama and Republican Senator John McCain back taking action on climate change.]
As I said, when ExxonMobil and others decide to kill funding for those "purely scientific libertarian, anti-tax, free-market" think tanks, their members will simply latch on to the next obfuscatory project, as many did when they shifted from denying that smoking caused cancer to denying that global warming exists. [Remember, this was a 2007 article, and ExxonMobil and others have cut back on funding these front groups even more since then.]