EPW Blog: Climate Skeptics Reveal "Horror Stories" of Scientific Suppression (NYC Confernce Report)
Thursday, March 6, 2008Posted By Marc Morano - 6:05 PM ET - Marc_Morano@EPW.Senate.Gov
Climate Skeptics Reveal ‘Horror Stories’ of Scientific Suppression
NYC Climate Conference Further Debunks ‘Consensus’ Claims
(The Blog of Record for the International Climate Conference)
New York, New York – Scientists skeptical of man-made climate fears meeting at the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change in New York City described the “absolute horror stories” about how some scientific journals have engaged in “outrageous and unethical behavior” in attempting to suppress them from publishing their work in peer-reviewed journals. The March 2-4 groundbreaking conference, which featured about 100 speakers with over 500 people attending, presented the report of a team of international scientists who formed a group to counter the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (UN IPCC). [Note: The author of this report attended and participated in the conference.]
The event, which garnered significant international and U.S. media attention, featured many current and former UN IPCC scientists from around the world. (See: “Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate” and see climate declaration signed by the scientists at the conference here.)
The conference occurred just months after the release of a blockbuster U.S. Senate Minority Report featuring over 400 prominent scientists who recently disputed man-made global warming claims. (LINK) The more than 400 scientists featured in the report thoroughly debunk the assertions that "all scientists agree" about man-made global warming. But as New York Times environmental reporter Andrew Revkin noted today, science is ultimately not a numbers game. "As we all know, climate science is not a numbers game (there are heaps of signed statements by folks with advanced degrees on all sides of this issue)," Revkin wrote. (LINK)
During the conference, scientists revealed the lack of tolerance science journals and institutions have exhibited for skeptical climate views.
“We [fellow skeptical scientists] talked mostly of work and upcoming papers and went through the standard ritual of griping about journal editors and the ridiculous hoops we sometimes have to jump through to get papers published. But some of the guys had absolute horror stories of what happened to them when they tried getting papers published that explored non-‘consensus’ views. Really outrageous and unethical behavior on the parts of some editors. I was shocked,” wrote conference participant Dr. William M. Briggs, a climate statistician who serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review, on his blog on March 4. (LINK)
Prominent Hungarian Physicist Dr. Miklós Zágoni, who recently reversed his views about man-made climate fears and is now a skeptic, explained at the conference that he resigned from his post working with NASA because he was disgusted with the agency’s lack of scientific freedom. Zágoni said he wanted to publish his new research that significantly countered man-made global warming alarm, but he claims NASA refused to allow him.
“Unfortunately, my working relationship with my NASA supervisors eroded to a level that I am not able to tolerate. My idea of the freedom of science cannot coexist with the recent NASA practice of handling new climate change related scientific results,” Zágoni said according to a March 6 Daily Tech article. (LINK)
Meteorologist Joseph D'Aleo, the first Director of Meteorology at The Weather Channel and former chairman of the American Meteorological Society's (AMS) Committee on Weather Analysis and Forecasting, noted that many of his scientific colleagues did not attend the conference because they “feared their attendance might affect their employment.” D’Aleo described the fear of retribution many skeptics face as a “sad state of affairs.” But D’Aleo noted that he believes there is “very likely a silent majority of scientists in climatology, meteorology, and allied sciences who do not endorse what is said to be the ‘consensus’ position.”
Other scientists have echoed these claims. Atmospheric scientist Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, author of almost 70 peer-reviewed studies, asserted in December 2007 that skeptics have a much harder time publishing in peer-reviewed literature.
"Many of my colleagues with whom I spoke share these views and report on their inability to publish their skepticism in the scientific or public media," Paldor, who was not in attendance at the New York conference, wrote in December. [Note: In February 2008, Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki publicly called for politicians skeptical of a man-made climate ‘crisis’ to be thrown “into jail because what they’re doing is a criminal act.” (LINK) - See also July 2007 comprehensive report detailing how skeptical scientists have faced threats and intimidation - LINK ]
‘Best conference I have attended in my 30 years in professional societies’
Many prominent scientists participating and attending were very impressed by the New York City climate conference. Hurricane researcher and Meteorologist Stanley B. Goldenberg of NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) in Miami praised the Heartland Instituted sponsored conference.
“The fact is that this conference is evidence that there are numerous respected, established and in many cases world-renowned scientists who have done careful research in various areas of ‘climate change’ that sharply differ with the [UN] IPCC results,” Goldenberg told the New York Times. (LINK)
Meteorologist D’Aleo had nothing but praise for the conference. “It was the best climate conference I have attended in my 30 years in the professional societies. The two-day meeting featured over 100 excellent presentations made by scientists from Australia, Canada, England, France, Hungary, New Zealand, Poland, Russia, Sweden, and of course the United States,” D’Aleo wrote on his website www.IceCap.US on March 4. [Note: The oft repeated notion of “hundreds” or even “thousands” of scientists affiliated with the UN agreeing to a single “consensus” does not hold up to scrutiny. Out of all the scientists affiliated with the UN, only 52 scientists participated in UN IPCC Summary for Policymakers, which had to adhere to the wishes of the UN political leaders and delegates in a process described as more closely resembling a political party’s convention platform battle, not a scientific process. - LINK & LINK –Many current and former UN scientists disagree with the IPCC Summary for Policymakers and many of them attended the skeptical climate conference in New York. In addition, the so-called “consensus” statements by scientific groups like the National Academy of Sciences, the American Meteorological Society, and the American Geophysical Union are only voted on by two dozen or so governing board members with no direct vote cast by rank-and-file scientists - LINK ]
D’Aleo addressed the complaints of some mainstream media reporters who noted that the climate conference did not produce a focused scientific message, but instead posited multiple explanations of climate changes. “There was a variety of opinions as there should be in science and all were tolerated. There was no group think or stagnant thinking as we find at other so called Climate Conferences,” D’Aleo wrote. [Note: Why would the media ever expect a uniform scientific message at a large climate conference? It appears that reporters need to be reminded that the UN IPCC (after all it is the InterGOVERNMENTAL Panel on Climate Change) is the unusual event, not the international climate conference in New York City this past week. It is true that the skeptical conference presented an array of scientific views, but reporters should not be surprised by this diversity. Instead, the question for reporters should be, Why do UN IPCC climate events have such conformity and a lack of dissent? Many reporters are so used to attending virtually scripted UN IPCC Summary for Policymakers meetings which reach the predetermined “consensus” that mankind is driving a climate crisis. (To read more about how the IPCC Summary for Policymakers has been tainted by politics, see LINK & LINK ]
Media Coverage of Conference
The climate conference garnered the attention of many media outlets including: The New York Times; BBC; Washington Post; ABC News; Associated Press; Reuters; China Post; CNSNews.com; CNN; New York Sun; Fox News; Times of India; Czech’s Ceske Noviny; Investor's Business Daily; Canada’s Financial Post; United Press International; WorldNetDaily.com; and the Wall Street Journal. (Note: Some of the mainstream media coverage reached bottom quickly – See CNN’s Miles O’Brien accuses scientists at conference of being ‘Flat Earthers’ – LINK )
Some of the mainstream media coverage, including several articles in New York Times, presented fair coverage. See here, here and here. [Note: Despite many mainstream media outlets efforts to mock the gathering, it was a semi-victory for the conference that reporters likes Miles O’Brien of CNN and Bill Blakemore of ABC News even showed up For info on O’Brien’s past climate reporting, see here. For info on Blakemore past climate reporting see here. ]
The Business and Media Institute (BMI) also released their comprehensive study during the conference which reveals how the news media reports on global warming. The report, titled “Global Warming Censored” found that network TV news stifles debate, relies on “politicians, rock stars and men-on-the street for science’ reporting. (LINK) BMI also critiqued the news media coverage of the International Conference on Climate Change. (LINK) WorldNetDaily has a critique of the media coverage titled “Mainstream media's mockery.” (LINK) American Thinker weighed in with a very comprehensive report from the conference. (LINK)
Funding myths exposed
One of the most incisive articles about the conference came from John Tierney of the New York Times. Tierney exposed the erroneous notion that “industry” funding fuels climate skepticism. “Do the critics really think there’s more money and glory to be won by doubting global warming than by going along with the majority? I ask this question not because I doubt the integrity or competence of the researchers and environmental groups who are getting billions of dollars from government agencies, corporations, foundations and private donors concerned about climate change,” Tierney wrote on March 6. (LINK) [Note: An August 2007 report detailed how proponents of man-made global warming fears enjoy a monumental funding advantage over skeptical scientists. LINK ]
Tierney quoted Joseph Bast, Heartland’s president, stating: “Donations from energy companies have never amounted to more than 5 percent of our budget in any year, and there is no corporate sponsor underwriting any of this conference.” Tierney also presented the case that so-called global warming “solutions” are money makers for many. “A cap-and-trade systems for curbing carbon emissions (the kind criticized at this week’s conference) is popular in Washington in no small part because of corporate lobbyists who see a chance to make money from the carbon credits,” he wrote. “And there’s lots of money to be doled out to researchers studying climate change and new energy technologies,” he added.
Dissenters of climate fears growing in number
The New York City conference of dissenting scientists comes after many declared 2007 the “tipping point” for climate alarmism and referred to it as the year man-made global warming fears “bit the dust" as an abundance of peer-reviewed studies countered rising CO2 fears. (LINK) Many of the scientists featured in the December 2007 U.S. Senate Minority Report of over 400 scientists attended the conference. (LINK)
In such nations as Germany, Brazil, the Netherlands, Russia, Argentina, New Zealand, Portugal, and France, groups of scientists have recently spoken out to oppose and debunk man-made climate fears. In addition, many scientists who are also progressive environmentalists believe climate fear promotion has "co-opted" and “hijacked” the green movement. (LINK)
Former Vice President Al Gore’s film An Inconvenient Truth and the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) reports have prompted many skeptical scientists to speak out and join the growing resistance.
"Al Gore brought me back to the battle and prompted me to do renewed research in the field of climatology. And because of all the misinformation that Gore and his army have been spreading about climate change I have decided that ‘real' climatologists should try to help the public understand the nature of the problem,” Climatologist Robert Durrenberger, past president of the American Association of State Climatologists, declared in May 2007.
Since the release of the December 20 Senate minority report detailing the hundreds of skeptics, a steady stream of scientists from around the world have continued to declare themselves dissenters of the alleged “climate crisis.” Just days before the international climate conference began, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, Dr. Joanna Simpson, declared she was “skeptical” of catastrophic man-made warming.
“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly,” Simpson, formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies, wrote in a public letter on February 27. Simpson was described by former Colorado State Climatologist Roger Pielke, Sr. as “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.” (LINK)
“The main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system. We only need to watch the weather forecasts,” Simpson explained. “But as a scientist I remain skeptical,” she added.
Number of Skeptical scientists continue to grow
Also last week, Geologist William F. McClenney, a California Licensed Professional Geologist and former Certified Environmental Auditor in Victoria, Australia, announced that he had reversed his views about man-made global warming. McClenney now says he has done “the math and realized that you just can’t get to global warming with CO2.” See: February 28, 2008 full statement here. (Note: McClenney joins other scientists who recently converted from believer to skeptic of man-made climate fears. See - LINK)
Geologist Dr. Don Easterbrook, an emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University who has authored eight books and 150 journal publications, announced earlier this week that he was putting his “reputation on the line” by predicting global cooling. “The average of the four main temperature measuring methods is slightly cooler since 2002 (except for a brief el Niño interruption) and record breaking cooling this winter. The argument that this is too short a time period to be meaningful would be valid were it not for the fact that this cooling exactly fits the pattern of timing of warm/cool cycles over the past 400 years,” Easterbrook wrote on March 1, 2008. (LINK)
Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Art V. Douglas, former Chair of the Atmospheric Sciences Department at Creighton University in Omaha, Nebraska, and author of numerous papers for peer-reviewed publications, also publicly announced his dissent from man-made climate fears in February 2007. “Whatever the weather,” Douglas said, “it's not being caused by global warming.” (LINK)
Atmospheric Physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh and a founding member of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry, also announced his skepticism on February 18, 2008. “Sorry folks, but we're not exactly buying into the Global Hysteria just yet. We know a great deal about atmospheric physics, and from the onset, many of the claims were just plain fishy,” Peden wrote. (LINK)
Lamenting use of term ‘consensus’
The number of scientists who are now publicly dissenting from Gore’s and the UN’s view of climate change has become so overwhelming that promoters of man-made climate fears now lament the use, or the “overuse of the term ‘consensus’ in the public discussion of global warming.”
“I do think the scientific community, the progressive community, environmentalists and media are making a serious mistake by using the word ‘consensus’” to describe climate change impacts, wrote Joseph Romm of Climate Progress in a February 27, 2008 commentary in Salon.com. [Note: Despite the growing scientific dissent and the increasing number of peer-reviewed studies which debunk rising CO2 fears, Romm now advocates that the term “consensus” be dropped in favor of a stronger term to promote man-made climate fears.]
In addition, at least one scientist publicly pondered reconsidering his view of man-made climate fears after Senate report of 400 scientists was released in December. “It (the Senate 400 scientists report) got me thinking: I'm an environmental scientist, but I've never had time to review the ‘evidence’ for the anthropogenic causes of global warming,” wrote environmental scientist Professor Rami Zurayk of the American University in Beirut on December 27, 2007. (LINK)
“When I said, in my opening speech for the launch of UNEP's (United Nations Environment Program) Global Environment Outlook-4 in Beirut: ‘There is now irrevocable evidence that climate change is taking place...’ I was reading from a statement prepared by UNEP. Faith-based science it may be, but who has time to review all the evidence? I'll continue to act on the basis of anthropogenic climate change, but I really need to put some more time into this,” Zurayk wrote.
‘Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate’
The Heartland Institute’s International climate conference built on the momentum of growing number of skeptics as the conference showcased a new report by a team of international scientists who formed a group to counter the UN IPCC called the “Nongovernmental International Panel of Climate Change” (NIPCC). The skeptical scientist report was titled “Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate.”
Key findings of the NIPCC’s climate findings:
1) Most of climate change is caused by natural forces.
2) The human contribution is not significant.
3) Solar-activity changes are the main cause of climate change.
Climate Scientist Dr. S. Fred Singer, former director the US Weather Satellite Service and past vice chairman of the U.S. National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmosphere, told the conference that the IPCC “chose to ignore these facts, because they conflicted with the conclusion that global warming is anthropogenic (man-made).
‘Not a global crisis’
The International Climate Conference in New York also featured hundreds of climate experts from around the world, who issued a March 4 “Manhattan Declaration” on man-made global warming, stating in part:
1) “That there is no convincing evidence that CO2 emissions from modern industrial activity has in the past, is now, or will in the future cause catastrophic climate change.”
2) “That attempts by governments to inflict taxes and costly regulations on industry and individual citizens with the aim of reducing emissions of CO2 will pointlessly curtail the prosperity of the West and progress of developing nations without affecting climate.”
3) “That human-caused climate change is not a global crisis.”
The declaration resolved that “scientific questions should be evaluated solely by the scientific method.”
# #
‘Warming Island’ not so new
Former Virginia State Climatologist Dr. Patrick Michaels addressed the conference and debunked fears of unprecedented melting in Greenland. Michaels noted the media hype recently about the “discovery” of a “new” island in Greenland caused by melting glaciers dubbed “Warming Island.” (See April 2007 article titled: “An island made by global warming.” LINK)
But Michaels ridiculed the claim that the island was “new” by citing a 1957 book called “Arctic Riviera” by Swiss explorer Ernst Hofer which featured an illustration clearly depicting the same island in the early 1950s. Michaels noted that Greenland temperatures were as warm or warmer in the 1930s and 1940s than today’s temperatures. [See July 30, 2007 Report - Latest Scientific Studies Refute Fears of Greenland Melt – LINK]
# #
Sampling of key quotes from scientists participating in the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change:
Former UN Scientist Dr. Paul Reiter of the Pasteur Institute in Paris (who resigned from UN IPCC in protest): “As far as the science being ‘settled,’ I think that is an obscenity. The fact is the science is being distorted by people who are not scientists.”
UN IPCC scientist Vincent Gray of New Zealand: “This conference demonstrates that the [scientific] debate is not over. The climate is not being influenced by carbon dioxide.”
Canadian Climatologist Dr. Timothy Ball: “If we are facing [a crisis] at all, I think it is that we are preparing for warming when it is looking like we are cooling. We are preparing for the wrong thing.”
Climate researcher Dr. Craig Loehle, formerly of the Department of Energy Laboratories and currently with the National Council for Air and Stream Improvements, has published more than 100 peer-reviewed scientific papers: “The 2000-year [temperature] trend is not flat, so a warming period is not unprecedented. […] 1500-year [temperature] cycle as proposed by [Atmospheric physicist Fred] Singer and [Dennis] Avery is consistent with Loehle climate reconstruction. […] 1500-year cycle implies that recent warming is part of natural trend.”
Hurricane expert and Meteorologist Dr. William Gray: “There are lot’s of skeptics out there, all over the U.S. and the rest of the world. [Global warming] has been over-hyped tremendously; most of the climate change we have seen is largely natural. I think we are brainwashing our children terribly.”
UK Astrophysicist Piers Corbyn: “There is no evidence that CO2 has ever driven or will ever drive world temperatures and climate change. The consequence of that is that worrying about CO2 is irrelevant. Our prediction is world temperatures will continue to decline until 2014 and probably continue to decline after that.”
Weather Channel founder and meteorologist John Coleman: “Serious scientists and serious students of global warming have concluded after a lot of effort that there is little basis for the thought that we are going to have catastrophic global warming.”
Dr. Benny Peiser of the Faculty of Science of Liverpool John Moores University in UK: “Global warming cap-and-trade bills have caused so much trouble in Europe. It’s not working, it’s never going to work. It won’t have any effect on the climate, but only that there will be more unemployed in Europe. If that helps the climate, perhaps that is a solution.”
Atmospheric physicist Ferenc Miskolczi, formerly with NASA’s Langley Research Center: “The runaway greenhouse effect is physically impossible. […] The observed global warming has nothing to do directly with the greenhouse effect; it must be related to changes in the total absorbed solar radiation or dissipated heat from other natural or anthropogenic sources of thermal energy.”
Meteorologist Art Horn: “There are thousands of scientists around the world who believe that this issue is not settled. The climate is not being influenced by carbon dioxide.”
German Meteorologist Dr. Gerd-Rainer Weber: “Most of the extremist views about climate change have little or no scientific basis. The rational basis for extremist views about global warming may be a desire to push for political action on global warming.”
Physics Professor Emeritus Dr. Howard Hayden of the University of Connecticut: “The fluctuations in Earth’s temperature are caused by astronomical phenomena. The combined effects of all ‘greenhouse gases,’ albedo changes, and other Earthly changes account for no more than about 3 degrees C of the changes during transitions between ice ages and interglacials.”
Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review: “It is my belief that the strident and frequent claims of catastrophes caused by man-made global warming are stated with a degree of confidence not warranted by the data. […] Too many people are too confident about too many things. That was the simple message of the Heartland conference, and one that I hope sinks in.” (LINK)
# # #
Round up of Media Coverage of 2008 International Conference on Climate Change:
CNN: Climate Conference Attendees are Like Flat Earthers
Excerpt: On Monday, climate alarmist Miles O'Brien of CNN actually had the gall to imply that speakers and attendees of this conference are Flat Earthers. I kid you not. During Monday evening's "Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees," O'Brien concluded his videotaped report concerning this conference (video available here at end of blog post): Even the Flat Earth Society didn't fold its tent in 1493. How disgraceful. Of course, O'Brien didn't mention that the leaders of the anthropogenic global warming movement, Nobel Laureate Al Gore and Goddard Institute for Space Studies chief James Hansen, were both invited to speak at the conference, but refused.
Talk show host Glenn Beck interviews climate researcher Lord Christopher Monckton, the Viscount Monckton of Brenchley:
Excerpt: “What happened is that I looked at Al Gore's movie with mounting horror and I identified three dozen scientific errors in it. So I had a weather mate of mine who takes an interest in these matters and also had the money to pay for a court case and I said I thought this film was rubbish. Two weeks later he rang up and said he wanted to do something to fight back against this tide of unscientific freedom-destroying nonsense, which is what global warming is really all about. And so I said, well, the best thing is that you dish your review, a rather peculiar kind of court case in the high court in London in front of custard faced judges. […] And what I can say is that you will have exactly the same success here as we had there because Gore's film is full of such obvious stupid exaggerations that any judge in the end, when confronted with the facts, will have to find that this film cannot be shown to innocent schoolchildren unless corrections are made.”
Hurricane Forecaster William Gray Predicts Global Cooling in 10 Years
Excerpt: “We should begin to see cooling coming on,” Gray said. “I’m willing to make a big financial bet on it. In 10 years, I expect the globe to be somewhat cooler than it is now, because this ocean effect will dominate over the human-induced CO2 effect and I believe the solar effect and the land-use effect. I think this is likely bigger.” Gray, 79, wasn’t sure if he’d be around to see his prediction come true. “I may not be around by that time,” Gray said. “But, I’ve asked some of my students to put dandelions on my grave if that happens.” Gray criticized NASA scientist and global warming alarmist James Hansen, calling him “the most egregious abuser” of data. According to Gray, Hansen’s alarmism is exaggerated because the models he uses to predict the increase in global warming count on too much water vapor in the atmosphere. “[S]o he puts that much vapor in his model and of course he gets this,” Gray said. “He must get upper troposphere where the temperature is seven degrees warmer for a doubl[ing of] CO2. Well, the reason he got that was – why this upper-level warming was there – was he put too much water vapor in the model.”
Stossel: 'Socialist Media -- Maybe They Will Just Never Get It'
Talk Show host Glenn Beck interviews Weather Channel Founder and meteorologist John Coleman:
Excerpt: I'm asking the question that if Al Gore knows that CO2 forcing, that is, carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from our fossil fuels, is not causing global warming, isn't he committing financial fraud when he sells carbon credits to people to offset their use of fossil fuels and putting carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? I've asked the question and believe me, a lot of people were really interested in that question. And I -- GLENN: But Al Gore doesn't ever answer any questions. COLEMAN: Well, he is going to have to answer this one because I have found that I am not alone and that's the wonderful thing that's going on here in New York is that 500 of us from all over the world who are climate change skeptics are together for a conference for the first time and I'm discovering that there are numerous people in this group who are working on just that concept of getting this carbon credits scam into court. And think what that would mean if Al Gore scientists and our skeptical scientists are to go into a court, their documentations, you know, had to meet the legal requirements, they had to take the witness stand. Now we would really get down to the facts.
Climatologist’s New Study Finds Lower CO2 Impact on Atmosphere - Reason Blog:
Excerpt: In fact, using satellite data combined with a small model, [Climatologist Dr. Roy] Spencer finds that changes in cloudiness appear to drive changes in temperature. If this is so, Spencer suggests, this means that models have fundamentally mixed up cause and effect. He reported that his study had been peer-reviewed by the two of the climatologists on whose work the IPCC relied for estimating climate sensitivity. "Both came back and said 'you're right,'" claimed Spencer. If Spencer's results are confirmed—and this is a huge if—it would mean that the climate is far less sensitive to perturbation by carbon dioxide than the models suggest. Spencer says that if he is right about climate sensitivity that would imply that the average temperature of the planet might rise by +0.5 degrees centigrade by the end of this century due to the effects of rising carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere. (I will report more fully on Spencer's claims once the study is published and the climatological community has gotten a chance to respond to it.) (LINK)
Heartland Institute’s Joseph Bast's Opening Speech at International Conference on Climate Change
Excerpt: The alarmists in the global warming debate have had their say – over and over again, in every newspaper in the country practically every day and in countless news reports and documentary films. They have dominated the media’s coverage of this issue. They have swayed the views of many people. Some of them have even grown very rich in the process, and others still hope to. But they have lost the debate. Winners don’t exaggerate. Winners don’t lie. Winners don’t appeal to fear or resort to ad hominem attacks. As George Will also wrote, “people only insist that a debate stop when they are afraid of what might be learned if it continues.” We invited Al Gore to speak to us tonight, and even agreed to pay his $200,000 honoraria. He refused. We invited some of the well-known scientists associated with the alarmist camp, and they refused.
AP: Czech president rouses climate skeptics at conference where some worry about global cooling
Excerpt: A lot of the people at this climate conference — headlined by the self-described "politically incorrect" Czech president — wanted to talk about global cooling. More than 500 people from 23 countries, including some 100 scientists, attended a three-day climate conference that ended Tuesday in New York and was organized by Chicago-based Heartland Institute. "Some of the scientists here believe we are entering into a cooling period, and that's just based on well-known solar cycles," said Heartland's president, Joseph Bast.
Global Warming Schemes Will Curb Freedom, Czech President Says
Excerpt: Centralized planners with "megalomaniac ambitions" are now working to restrain democratic development and economic activity under the guise of environmentalism, said Vaclav Klaus, president of the Czech Republic. […]Hayek argued that humans are not equipped to reshape the world based on any particular set of wishes and have a limited capacity to process complex scenarios. Those who argue in favor of man-made global warming theories are making the very mistakes Hayek warned against, Klaus said. The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which is often cited by such advocates, relies upon incomplete and faulty data, he argued.
Natural Forces, Not Man, Causing Global Warming, Scientist Says
Excerpt: "The science is settled in the sense that we have evidence that most of the climate change taking place today is caused by natural forces and not by human activity," Singer said during his luncheon address at the conservative Heartland Institute. As was previously reported by the Cybercast News Service, Singer is a long-time critic of the "alarmist" view of global warming. He was among 100 speakers and panelists taking part in the climate conference, which was attended by scientists from a dozen countries, including Australia, Canada, England, France, New Zealand, Russia and Sweden. The conference is designed to give so-called "contrarian" scientists the opportunity to freely express their views on climate change.
Washington Post: Conference of skeptics says humans have little to do with climate change
Excerpt: When Christopher Monckton, who served as a special adviser to former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, ponders the political push to curb greenhouse gases linked to climate change, he thinks of King Canute. According to Monckton, Canute - the Viking who ruled England along with much of Scandinavia nearly 1,000 years ago - took his courtiers to the ocean’s edge one day, set down his throne and ordered the tide not to come in. The tide, of course, came in, and the king got wet. The lesson? The king taught his advisers humility, Monckton said, by showing them that even he, a king, could not control nature. In the same way, he said, modern-day politicians should not fool themselves into thinking that humanity is having a major effect on climate.
Report #3 from the Global Warming Conference in New York CityExcerpt: Dr. Klaus was followed by Dr. William Gray, one of the country's preeminent hurricane forecasters and a pioneer in tropical meteorological research. Gray described what he called the huge errors in the treatment of water vapor by computer models used to forecast future weather conditions and pointed to evidence showing the warming predicted by the models was not occurring at the altitudes and latitudes predicted by the models. Following Gray's presentation, scientists were urged to come to the front of the room for a group photo to commemorate the event and drive home the fact that "real scientists" were willing to speak out against global warming alarmism.
NY Times: On the Dot: More Population and Climate Questions
Excerpt: Climate Not a Crisis: The International Conference on Climate Change, sponsored by the Heartland Institute, wrapped up Tuesday. Very different assessments of its sessions are here (Reason), here (John Tierney) and here (DeSmogBlog). The assemblage proposed a Manhattan Declaration: 1) That current plans to restrict anthropogenic CO2 emissions are a dangerous misallocation of intellectual capital and resources that should be dedicated to solving humanity’s real and serious problems. 2) That there is no convincing evidence that CO2 emissions from modern industrial activity has in the past, is now, or will in the future cause catastrophic climate change. 3) That attempts by governments to inflict taxes and costly regulations on industry and individual citizens with the aim of reducing emissions of CO2 will pointlessly curtail the prosperity of the West and progress of developing nations without affecting climate. 4) That adaptation as needed is massively more cost-effective than any attempted mitigation and that a focus on such mitigation will divert the attention and resources of governments away from addressing the real problems of their peoples. 5) That human-caused climate change is not a global crisis.
NY Times: Lessons from the Skeptics’ Conference
Excerpt: Yesterday I asked you to analyze a report presented at the Heartland Institute’s conference of global-warming skeptics. A lot of readers had the same reaction I did after I read the report and attended the conference yesterday: There are some interesting points here, but who knows? The skeptics point to some genuine discrepancies between the climate models and what’s actually happened; they’re probably right in criticizing the United Nations’ I.P.C.C. for not paying enough attention to the impact of solar variations on the Earth’s climate. But climate is so complicated, and cuts across so many scientific disciplines, that it’s impossible to know which discrepancies or which variables are really important. Considering how many false alarms have been raised previously by scientists (the “population crisis,” the “energy crisis,” the “cancer epidemic” from synthetic chemicals), I wouldn’t be surprised if the predictions of global warming turn out to be wrong or greatly exaggerated. Scientists are prone to herd thinking — informational cascades and this danger is particularly acute when they have to rely on so many people outside their field to assess a topic as large as climate change. So I’m glad to see contrarians raising awkward questions and pointing out weaknesses in predictions made with computer models. As S. Fred Singer, the editor of the skeptics’ report, said at the conference yesterday: “Models are very nice, but they’re not reality and they’re not evidence.”
NY Times: Global-Warming Payola?Excerpt: All right, let’s talk about the money. After I asked readers to focus on the substance of the skeptics’ arguments at this week’s conference on global warming, readers insisted that I should have focused on the financing of the sponsor, the Heartland Institute. Others objected to my (and my colleague Andy Revkin) even writing about a conferenced sponsored by this group. I’m used to this sort of criticism, but I still find it baffling. Do the critics really think there’s more money and glory to be won by doubting global warming than by going along with the majority? I ask this question not because I doubt the integrity or competence of the researchers and environmental groups who are getting billions of dollars from government agencies, corporations, foundations and private donors concerned about climate change. If I write about prominent climate scientists like James Hansen of NASA, I don’t feel obliged to note how much research money they get — or how much extra money is going to their field because of the concerns they’ve raised about climate change. I don’t dismiss Al Gore’s warnings just because his campaign against global warming has been so good for his career. I don’t obsess about show much gets per lecture or what he does with the money. At RealClimate , the blog that touts its devotion to sober scientific analysis, the Heartland Institute was written off as “a front group for the fossil fuel industry,” the same them that was picked up by some commenters on this blog. […]A cap-and-trade systems for curbing carbon emissions (the kind criticized at this week’s conference) is popular in Washington in no small part because of corporate lobbyists who see a chance to make money from the carbon credits. There’s money to be made in developing alternative energy — even when it’s not so green, like the ethanol industry that has been collecting subsidies for decades. There’s money to be made by cultivating a green image. And there’s lots of money to be doled out to researchers studying climate change and new energy technologies. [...] But more important, how long do we have to keep talking about money? Should I be doing more to focus the debate on substance by screening out the comments from readers who’d rather discuss finances than debate ideas?
The Media Destruction Machine at Work (Alan Caruba)
Excerpt: Since the early 1980s it has published some of the most astonishingly idiotic articles about it global warming including the claim that the North Pole was melting. The latest in a line of Times reporters on the subject is Andrew C. Revkin. He began his March 4 article, “Cool View of Science at Meeting on Warming”, by writing that, “Several hundred people sat in a fifth-floor ballroom at the Marriott Marquis Hotel in Times Square on Monday eating pasta and trying hard to prove that they had unraveled the established science showing that humans are warming the world in potentially disruptive ways.” This is not journalism. This is opinion. It belongs on the opinion pages, not in the news section. Moreover, the suggestion that the speakers and attendees were “trying hard” suggests that it took anything more than a review of actual climate data to dispute the claim that the Earth has warmed dramatically and is likely to warm more. Even Meteorology 101 students know that the Earth has warmed barely one degree Fahrenheit since the end of the last mini-ice age in 1850. This is a quite natural warming and hardly attributable to human factors. Thereafter Revkin larded his report with the kind of qualifiers intended to discredit anyone named. The famed climatologist, Patrick J. Michaels, was identified as having “a paid position at the antiregulatory Cato Institute…” Presumably, everyone attending the conference had a paid position of some sort or they could have ill-afforded to be there.
Planet Gore: Skeptics gather, alarmists squirm
Excerpt: My presentation at the conference spoke to these hilarious media contortions in the name of the global-warming agenda. A single year or weather event is newsworthy and meaningful . . . unless it’s the wrong kind. Individual research papers warrant coverage . . . and what coverage! . . . but only when their results are alarmist. Otherwise, they’re just one paper. We have learned that three years is a pattern . . . unless it is on the cooling side of the ledger. We know that ten years is conclusive . . unless it’s the past ten years, when no warming is evident. Unseasonably warm weather is clear evidence of global warming, exceptional cold is merely an anomaly — or better yet, further proof of climate disruption. Warming temperatures — over whatever period the press chooses — and retreating glaciers — whatever the season — are sure signs of “global warming.” Cooling temperatures and advancing glaciers signify nothing. The alarmists and their press proxies are also quick to point to funding and financial interests . . . if you disagree with their agenda. Meanwhile, absolutely no one on the skeptics’ side of the argument has earned as much money as Al Gore and his tiresome advisor James Hansen have off of their high-profile climate alarmism.
WorldNetDaily.com: “Mainstream media's mockery.”
Excerpt: To the New York Times' Andrew Rivkin, it was a "quirky conference" of people "driven mainly by libertarian passions or a nonconformist streak." In a companion article, Rivkin highlighted a claim that the conference was "a harmful distraction" from the agenda of the climate-change mob. […]Straightforward reporting in daily newspapers, including an article in the New York Sun, unfortunately was rare. And while other cable and broadcast outlets ignored Heartland's meeting, "Fox & Friends" did not. Steve Doocy began an interview with, "Is there another side to this story? Many scientists would say yes, but most media outlets – the mainstream media – only cover Al Gore's 'Earth has a fever' perspective." How true. John Coleman, founder of the Weather Channel, also drew minimal coverage for suggesting that Al Gore and others be sued to help expose what Coleman called "the fraud of global warming." That's newsworthy, but few Americans heard about it.
Video: Glenn Beck Interviews Geologist Dr. Bob Carter and Harvard Astrophysicist Willie Soon
Video: Glenn Beck Interviews Czech President Vaclav Klaus
Video: Glenn Beck Interviews Meteorologist Anthony Watts
NY Climate Conference: Journey to the Center of Warming Sanity (American Thinker)
Excerpt: There were a total of 32 discussions between the opening shredding of temperature records and biased recording mechanisms offered by Prof. Robert Balling and Ross McKitrick and the closing session's critique of media bias by ABC News correspondent John Stossel. Of those, 11 were purely devoted to science and another 8 studied impacts, which were often scientifically inclusive. If I have any complaint at all about the conference it is only that with 5 sessions running concurrently, one was constantly forced to make the difficult decision of which to attend. That said, moving about as best I could landed me in the midst of many fascinating forums. .
Global Warming Schemes Fueled by 'Megalomaniac Ambitions,' Czech President Says
# #
Related Links:
Senate Minority Report Debunks Polar Bear Extinction Fears
Breakdown Of Key Points Debunking Cilmate Fears
Earth's 'Fever' Breaks: Global COOLING Currently Under Way
Hypocrisy exposed: Comparison of Media's Coverage of a Warm Winter vs. Cold Winter
Analysis of how Hollywood Is Promoting Climate Fears to Kids
Analysis of Costly "Solutions" to Global Warming
Over 100 Prominent Scientists Warn UN Against 'Futile' Climate Control Efforts
Skeptical Scientists Urge World To ‘Have the Courage to Do Nothing' At UN Conference
NEW SENATE CAP-AND-TRADE BILL CALLED ALL ‘ECONOMIC PAIN FOR NO CLIMATE GAIN'
Debunking The So-Called 'Consensus' On Global Warming
Scientists Counter AP Article Promoting Computer Model Climate Fears
New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears
Newsweek's Climate Editorial Screed Violates Basic Standards of Journalism
Newsweek Editor Calls Mag's Global Warming 'Deniers' Article 'Highly Contrived'
Latest Scientific Studies Refute Fears of Greenland Melt
EPA to Probe E-mail Threatening to ‘Destroy' Career of Climate Skeptic
Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics
Senator Inhofe declares climate momentum shifting away from Gore (The Politico op ed)
Global Warming on Mars & Cosmic Ray Research Are Shattering Media Driven "Consensus'
Global Warming: The Momentum has Shifted to Climate Skeptics
Prominent French Scientist Reverses Belief in Global Warming - Now a Skeptic
