What is to be done when the world’s leading experts in a field come together in the largest, most extensively peer-reviewed inquiry in the history of science and arrive at a conclusion that is diametrically opposed to your own long-held worldview? Most of us would reevaluate our ideas so they actually mesh with reality. That’s called learning.
But if you are the staunchly “free market,” anti-regulation think tank called the Heartland Institute and the conclusion is that humanity must cooperate to get the world out of a worsening climate crisis ... well, then what you do is simply manufacture a conclusion that is more to your liking.
Make no mistake, this is what the Heartland Institute‘s “International Conference on Climate Change” is all about. Set to begin Sunday in New York, the gathering’s guest list includes the standard roster of “scientist-denialists”—a large group of “experts” who have never published a single peer-reviewed study in their lives, along with a handful of fringe researchers who do (though rarely) publish in the field of climate science. The conference tagline is: “Global Warming: was it ever really a crisis?” and the conclusion is predetermined. “Was it ever a crisis?” ... as if it isn’t right now.
By conception, the Heartland gathering seeks to establish itself as an authoritative gathering of genuine experts in climate science. The claim the Heartland Institute makes is pretty simple: “more than 70 of the world’s elite scientists specializing in climate issues” will be there.
So, Heartland says to the unsuspecting, the experts are all coming to this event, and they all say there is nothing to worry about. That actually makes the whole charade pretty easy to unmask.
We don’t have to examine every particular scientific or pseudo-scientific argument that will be advanced during the conference (that’s been done repeatedly), because the whole thrust of this conference is about who is attending, not what they are saying.
Heartland promises the “world’s elite scientists specializing in climate issues.” Really? Let’s have a quick look at the top-billed attendees as described by conference’s official agenda:
- American astronaut Dr. Jack Schmitt.
- William Gray, Colorado State University, leading researcher into tropical weather patterns.
- Richard Lindzen, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, one of the world’s leading experts in dynamic meteorology, especially planetary waves.
- Stephen McIntyre, primary author of Climate Audit, a blog devoted to the analysis and discussion of climate data.[...]
- Arthur Robinson, curator of a global warming petition.
- Willie Soon, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.
- Roy Spencer, University of Alabama at Huntsville, principal research scientist and team leader on NASA’s Aqua satellite.
Astronaut? I thought we were talking about climate!
But seriously, who are these people and should we rely on their views?
Jack Schmitt indeed has a Ph.D., but his educational training has nothing to do with climate. After earning his doctorate in geology, Schmitt became an astronaut (he walked on the moon) and later a Republican senator from New Mexico; he teaches engineering physics and promotes the acquisition of lunar resources for the private sector as chairman of Interlune Intermars Initiative Inc.
William Gray is a well-respected scientist in the field of hurricane prediction—but that is weather forecasting, not climate science. He actually compared Al Gore’s belief in global warming to Adolf Hitler’s belief that Jews are subhuman.
Steve McIntyre has studied mathematics and economics and spent 30 years in the Canadian mining industry. He is a well-known face in the climate wars as founder of Climate Audit, a blog devoted to criticizing the work of several prominent climate scientists.
Arthur Robinson is the founder of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, a paper-only “institution” with no students and no courses. He himself is a chemist by training; his claim to fame in the realm of climate change skepticism is that he created the “Oregon Petition,” a fraudulent document that pretended to come from the National Academy of Sciences.
Willie Soon is an astrophysicist whose work on solar-based explanations for the current planetary warming is mostly published on the websites of the Marshall Institute, the Fraser Institute and the Science and Public Policy Institute, hardly reputable journals of climate science literature.
These, then, are the “world’s elite scientists specializing in climate issues?” Or so the Heartland Institute hopes to trick you into believing.
I have not yet mentioned Richard Lindzen and Roy Spencer, who, by the way, disagree with Soon, Robinson, Gray and Schmitt. While these two legitimate climate scientists express doubt about the dangers of climate change, they both acknowledge that the world is warming and that it is due to human activity, primarily greenhouse gas emissions. Actually, this puts them at odds with most of their fellow panelists.
Lindzen is a fading star in climate research, as he hitched his wagon to the Iris Hypothesis, a proposed sort of natural thermostat for the earth that would supposedly counter any large, CO2-forced warming. Scientists trying to investigate Lindzen’s theory have reached different conclusions, and Lindzen is no longer very active in publishing peer-reviewed research.
Similarly, Spencer gained notoriety with his analysis of satellite readings of atmospheric temperatures. For some years, this analysis disagreed markedly with what climate models predicted—showing cooling rather than warming in the middle and upper troposphere. However, a few years ago, a series of errors and data problems were uncovered, and his latest work on this topic now shows tropospheric temperatures that are well in agreement with general model expectations—these parts of the atmosphere are indeed warming along with the surface.
Aside from the star billings, who else is attending?
Looking at the listing on Heartland website, we see blogger Anthony Watts, a retired weatherman (meteorology is NOT the same as climatology!). And then there’s Myron Ebell, Marlo Lewis, Fred Smith, Sam Kazman, Steve Milloy, and Chris Horner—all from the extreme free market Competitive Enterprise Institute (the organization that tried to stage a “pro-coal” counter-demonstration early this week in Washington, DC.
Lawrence Solomon, a columnist at the conservative National Post in Canada, is on the list, and British aristocrat-turned-politician-turned-journalist-turned-skeptic Christopher Monckton will be there.
Hardly “the world’s elite scientists specializing in climate issues.” In fact, none of these experts is a trained climate scientist. In the community of actual experts, the consensus is:
- The earth is rapidly warming (over .6 degrees celsius in the last century)
- Human activities are the primary cause
- Warming will continue and accelerate if greenhouse gas emissions continue unabated
But in the world of political persuasion, where message trumps reality, the Heartland Institute wants you to just gas up your SUV and not worry about a thing. Like damning with faint praise, far from undermining the scientific consensus, this list illustrates just how strong that consensus really is.
Beck is the principal author of the “How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic” series.
Cap-and-trade death knell, revisited and revised
When it comes to energy, Mark Jacobson thinks big
Comments
View as Flat
tidal Posted 3:45 am
06 Mar 2009
Speakers list here.
Permalink
HalSF Posted 4:59 am
06 Mar 2009
Permalink
Coby Beck Posted 10:22 am
06 Mar 2009
Yes, what's good for the goose is good for the gander, and one can disregard claims of expertise from environmental activists in just the same way. I don't recall ever seeing a group of activists masquerading as a conference of elite climate scientists before.
A and simple way to evaluate the level of real expertise is using Google scholar to see peer review publishing records and citations of work by other scientists. When one is truly an expert in a field, others in that field will be frequently referencing their work.
Check out this page for an example of what that information can show.
As for who can attend Heartland's event, I believe the speakers were specific invite only, I don't know about the audience.
"The universe is a big place, perhaps the biggest."
-- Kilgore Trout
Permalink
JohnMashey Posted 1:18 pm
06 Mar 2009
It's worth knowing that:
a) Getting something published in Science or Nature isn't easy. Likewise PNAS and AGU professional journals.
b) Watch out for "Energy & Environment" - publishing there is not a plus. Also,watch out for non-peer-reviewed society "newsletters", which sometimes publish odd things, like happened last summer with the American Physical Society's FPS/Monckton kerfuffle.
c) An important article has a high citation count, and not just from the authors(s) and their associates. Important articles get cited over years. Be careful, though, sometimes Google Scholar ends up with multiple references to the same article, splitting the citation counts.
Still, if you see something with hundreds of citations, it's pretty serious. It can also be worth Googling such an article to see where it's referenced outside the more restricted set done by Google Scholar.
d) Sometimes an article will get published, expressing a set of conclusions from some data, and relatively quickly, there will be a flurry of refutations, either finding real errors, ore reflecting new data. Then citations die off.
e) Some articles just aren't interesting, and nobody cares.
2) HOWEVER, some of these people actually have published peer-reviewed articles in serious journals, in some cases, many.
a) In some cases, they have published many peer-reviewed articles in some other disciplines, and then have gone off into anti-science around climate, at which point they write OpEds, web articles, etc, etc. This often happens near/at retirement time.
For example, Coby didn't mention the Heartland attendance of Syun-Ichi Akasofu, a fine aurora researcher with hundreds of legitimate publications ... who upon retirement started putting out truly embarrassing material on climate. If a senior person, with hundreds of peer-reviewed articles, has real science, they know how to get it published in credible places.
It is a serious red flag if Instead, he puts out material on a website, writes OpEds, etc.
See my analysis of one of his website papers. This is very sad, a bit akin to Linus Pauling's forays into Vitamin C or William Shockley's into eugenics.
b) In some cases (like Lindzen), people have published many peer-reviewed articles on legitimate climate science. Here, you have to do more work, like looking at citations and seeing if the work stood up. If someone else cites a 20-year-old paper, you want to check out what happened since.
You want to check out what someone writes in their peer-reviewed research and what they write in OpEds, say in interviews, etc. Modulo the inherent differences in audience, its is a red flag if those are too different. No scientist with some truly world-shaking science (like disproving AGW) does it in a WSJ OpEd, they send it to Science or Nature.
Lindzen is a rarity in this area, and for some useful insights, see Logical Science comments, including especially quotes from old students. Perhaps compare with different reasons for anti-science.
It takes a while [years], but it is very instructive to watch people. If they make mistakes, are they usually in the same direction? Do their opinions change as new data arrives, or not? Do they cite long debunked claims (at least in OpEds)? (One of the useful features of Coby's list is to see how often the same junk gets recycled again and again.]
Of course, people with experience in this turf learn who's who after a while, but it takes work.
I'll admit there are some people in this, who, if they said the Sun would rise in the East, would cause me some worry, and I'd have to go check :-)
-John Mashey
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 2:05 pm
06 Mar 2009
Book 'em Dano...
"I am excited about the possibility of the County of Hawaii and Hawaii state government to partner with the Army to allow and enable our local government fleet to fuel up at a hydrogen fuel station," said Representative Cindy Evans, a former vice chair of the House Energy & Environmental Protection committee.
http://www.fuelcellsworks.com/Supppage9620.html
Hydrogen deniers, delayers, foot draggers and blindsiders can't hold out in the Obama Homeland of Hawaii!
Permalink
Grosvenor Posted 7:51 pm
06 Mar 2009
These deniers/sceptics are an underwhelming minority but the fact is that the more we prove that human induced climate change is real, the more these people are going to deny it. It's like a religion - they have "faith" that they are right. Do we really think the minority of deniers, albeit some in very powerful political or corporate positions, are going to change their mind? Of course they won't. In fact, they'll even go to the extent of paying someone to come up with their own science to prove to their supporters and those that sit on the fence that climate change is all very natural and nothing to do with humans.
I actually think we'd be better off using our time to explain the non-scientific reason why everyone needs to take action...the decline in natural resources. We are simply running out of resources to help us live. Demand for resources such as fossil fuels, trees, agricultural land, residential land, land for waste landfill etc etc is far greater than the earth's ability to supply it. It is the fundamental rationale behind why we need to be more energy efficient, water efficient, waste efficient etc etc.
You might find that the deniers find it hard to argue this logic as everyone understands the rationale behind this problem - it's high-school mathematics, not doctorate science. In other words, the deniers can't get away with telling fence sitters that this isn't a problem when everyone knows that it is. Well, everyone would know that it is if we stopped wasting our time trying to explain the climate change science. And because it hits an economic note (ie prices increase for resources that start running out), many of the deniers from an economic background start sitting up and taking notice.
Of course, as it turns out, preaching the need to live more sustainably based on declining natural resources will ultimately address climate change as well ... you just don't need to tell the deniers and fence sitters that it will!
www.sustainablelivingtips.net
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 10:19 pm
06 Mar 2009
I'd be quite happy to see some censorship on sites like this. When someone drags out one of the tired, old, often-disproved talking points just erase their post and send them a like to the appropriate "How to Talk to" page. *
Then there are the George Will types. Leaving these people unchallenged can cause problems for the decision makers. My feeling is if these guys are wrong, then they should be slapped down.
--
* Or hide their post behind a click as is done on Digg. If someone wants to read their post, let them. But don't let them muddy the conversation with their crap.
Permalink
JohnMashey Posted 1:34 am
07 Mar 2009
a)Will not even look at any real science. Some will not even read one introductory book by a real scientist. They insit they know enough, although most won't say what their sources are. [I suspect I would recognize the blogs. :-)]
Many of these:
b)Think oil & gas are forever, no matter what TheOilDrum and other serious petroleum people say.
But, other people are legitimately confused, and want to learn some real science, and if one can help them, as others have helped us, it seems a good idea.
This is a lot like elections in politics, where the real battle is often over the Independent vote.
-John Mashey
Permalink
GonzoDon Posted 5:40 am
07 Mar 2009
As a scientist, I always remain open to the possibility that our interpretation of data is mistaken, and that long-term global warming is not happening. Unfortunately, from my experience, it's very much happening, at least in our hemisphere. Glaciers are melting. Ice caps are shrinking. Northern Alaska is visibly warming. Species migrations are occurring earlier, and they are shifting substantially northward. Snowpacks are melting a little earlier every year, peak runoff is coming sooner. Extreme storm events, when they do occur, seem to be more extreme. Invasive species are thriving.
As a scientist involved in water management in the dry interior west, I don't have the luxury of kibbitzing with a cold beer while all this happens around me. Almost all the water managers I work with -- many of whom, I'm certain, have never voted for a Democrat in their lives -- are in a mild panic over adapting to the changes we're all seeing in the West. Not because they are becoming tree-huggers, but because they are responsible for keeping farmers and cities supplied with water, and for generating hydropower, and for protecting real people from real floods. If they screw up, they get their asses handed to them on a platter. Unlike George Will, who just gets to write another editorial.
When it comes down to actually managing real resources in the real world, global warming is not an abstract hypothetical concept. Those of us on the ground can see it happening. Or at least that appears to be the case, until someone more informed than the Heartland Institute can present convincing evidence to the contrary. I'm hoping that person comes along, I really do. But it hasn't happened yet.
Maybe the Heartland Institute CEO can take my job, figure out how to adapt to the climate changes I'm seeing, while I can sit in his cushy office chair congratulating myself on bravely challenging the prevailing wisdom. I'd probably get paid better in his shoes by the oil & gas & auto industries, and I've got little to risk if I'm wrong.
This is becoming a ridiculous argument.
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 7:28 am
07 Mar 2009
The Cathedral is crumbling...
The Bazaar is flourishing!
Word Up to the 21st Century of Intellectual Freedom!
Permalink
Ted Clayton Posted 10:51 am
07 Mar 2009
Common familiarity with the stifling of dissent is not favorable. In fact, the mainstream of our culture has an immediate strong aversion to the gagging of opposing viewpoints.
The stature of Environmentalism with the public is damaged, rather than strengthened, by suggesting that critics of Anthropogenic Global Warming ought to be silenced.
Permalink
GonzoDon Posted 2:38 pm
07 Mar 2009
The real question is whether the Heartland Institute understands and respects what 'science' is? And how 'science' works?
Given that fundamentalist religious forces in the United States have managed to completely confuse several generations of Americans about the difference between a well-established framework of scientific theory (i.e., the evolution of species via the process of natural selection) versus non-scientific wishful thinking (intelligent design), it's no wonder so many Americans can't grasp the difference between the two.
Permalink
Ted Clayton Posted 1:44 am
08 Mar 2009
A couple crucial points here.
#1) Religion is Constitutionally protected. 'Iron-clad', actually.
I recognize the basis of your frustration with the religious agenda, and have some sympathy.
However, the 'beautiful theory' that containing the religious agenda will clear the way for environmentalist goals encounters one seriously 'ugly fact':
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution"Congress shall [1] make no law respecting an establishment of religion, [2] or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; [3] or abridging the freedom of speech, [4] or of the press; [5] or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, [6] and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." [anno. added]Notice that there are 6 (six) parts to the First Amendment. Freedom of Speech is #3. Freedom of the Press is #4.
The order of the Guarantees & Rights of the 1st Amendment is not an accident, is not incidental. Freedom of Speech & Press are of lower priority than Religious Protections.
#2) We are not a Scientocracy. Ain't gonna happen.
Science does not rule us. We are governed by values and principles selected by the citizens & their representatives - not by scientific publications or an academic 'priesthood'.
GonzoDon, you point at the religious and cry 'Wishful thinking!', but building an argument that clearly overlooks the existence of the First Amendment is closer to clinical hallucination. It's a full-blown delusion for anyone or group to imagine they will shoulder aside the cornerstone of the Constitution (which is what has to happen, to 'go after' religion).
We will continue to be a representative, political democracy (with a strong religious streak), and the idea that scientific arguments will overwhelm the values-and-principles basis of civil & lawful society ... Well, that's just dead-ender delirium.
Get a grip. Religion is flatly guaranteed (before & ahead of Speech & Press). Science plays a subservient, advisory role and can be laid aside at the citizens' & government's discretion.
(And actually, it's worse than that, for Science. Science has historically proven itself incapable & unworthy of the leadership role in which environmentalism in general and the Anthropogenic Global Warming movement in particular has sought to install it. Science is simply bereft of the essential qualities necessary in Authority.)
GonzoDon, AGW isn't going to do anything about religion. Nothing at all. It's not within it's capability. Neither will beating people over the head with science-papers take AGW where it would prefer to be.
No, guys, by all means use science to inform yourselves, and any others who are also open to learn, but give up on trying to use science as an authority or pry-bar. Science has already defiled itself ... there are way too many examples like the fact that homosexuality was rather recently an official, scientific mental illness.
Science is inherently & demonstrably unfit for the role of authority. And it won't take much to remind the population of the fact.
Permalink
redambrosia99 Posted 3:58 am
08 Mar 2009
But you're right, science can only be part of a policy building tool. What we really need (imo) is for people to be taught the scientific way of thinking, as way for considering problems especially. For analyzing problems and coming up with solutions science is great.
What science isn't good at is morals and ethics (as Hume discovered when he applied empirical analysis to philosophy [sorry, I just got done reading about Hume and it's stuck in my head lol]). So to a certain extent we need something like religion to go hand in hand with science to apply some ethics and morals to it.
Permalink
GonzoDon Posted 6:45 am
08 Mar 2009
I 100% support people's First Amendment right to express their faith in whatever they want -- be it Jesus, Buddha, Zeus, the Dow Jones Industrial Average, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
I just don't want any particular religion trying to compel teachers to incorporate their religious beliefs into the science classroom, is all. First, because religion ain't science, and mixing the two just confuses young impressionable minds. Second, as you note, there's this little thing called the First Amendment. (The founders demanded separation between religion and instrusive government as much to protect religion as to protect government).
If we teach science correctly, we are also teaching youngsters how to think critically, evaluate the validity of information, and rationally weigh evidence -- whether they are buying life insurance, investing their 401K money, choosing a political candidate, supporting particular public policies, or choosing a career.
Of course not all life is 'rational weighing of evidence'. Art and love and mysticism don't lend themselves very well to that straightjacket. Thank, er, god.
But when it comes to developing enlightened public policy, that's the best tool we have, however imperfect it may be.
If you doubt me, you might brush up on your history of medieval witch-burning, the Spanish Inquisition, several centuries of using religion to justify slavery and racial segregation, and -- oh yeah -- flying jet airliners into the World Trade Towers to kill innocent civilians. Humans may have done those evil things anyway, but it took religious superstition to 'justify' those repellant behaviors.
We didn't move beyond those dark chapters in human history BECAUSE of religion, but rather IN SPITE of it.
Yeah, I know, atheists and agnostics can be just as obnoxious and as unlikeable as anybody else. But at least they don't commit random acts of mass terrorism for the sake of trying to convert people to their areligious point of view. That's a start.
Permalink
Ted Clayton Posted 9:05 am
08 Mar 2009
Science - the same deal. The Movement marches under this Flag of Science, but that orientation is going to spread beyond the Flock, only in the form of trite political flattery mumbled at what the operatives figure are suitable moments.
It's basically disabling, to imagine changing our overall situation, by somehow 'addressing' the embarrassment of religion, and glorifying science.
Religion is not the problem, and Science is not the solution.
===
You'll get no argument from me, that religion is a mixed bag of assets, at best, has a seriously checkered past, and isn't doing so hot in the current setting, either. But it is Item #1, Amendment #1. As societies evolve, it may become a fundamental human right, generalized to Belief & Faith (separated from but still 'enabling' formal institutions?) ... to the right to dispose of our mind as we each see fit (to cripple or empower ourselves).
And though science is indeed tone-deaf to morals and ethics, it is what I pay attention to most, and would like to see better-developed in (what now passes for) school, especially in the formative grades. (I.e., 'low & broad' science is much more important socially, than the 'high & narrow' variety.)
But railing at religion & saluting science ... is what the omega rooster does when he comes around the corner and finds himself too close to the alpha rooster. He takes a sudden profound interest in some insignificant diversionary object to cover for his insecurity.
Breathless pursuit of red herring, the brave confrontation of straw-men, that sort of thing.
It's almost as embarrassing as waiting for Jesus to come thundering through the sky behind six white horses ... or watching modern medicine trying to rehabilitate the lobotomy. ;-)
Permalink
GonzoDon Posted 11:53 am
08 Mar 2009
I tell ya, though -- I could do with a lot less of the fundamentalist dogma that drives politics and public policy in the United States to a frankly embarassing extent. Irrational religious thinking inserted into serious public discourse (e.g., teaching unscientific "Intelligent Design" in biology classes) is simply not tolerated in, say, France, or Denmark, or Finland, or Spain, or Canada, or even that very homeland of the Catholic Empire, Italy. They think we are loco.
So why is such superstitious public behavior so tolerated in the United States?
'Nuff said.
Permalink
Last of the Amphibians Posted 1:40 am
09 Mar 2009
"Shall I not have intelligence with the Earth? Am I not leaves and vegetable mold myself?"
Permalink
NHsolarguy Posted 6:11 am
09 Mar 2009
There are some legislators on the national level that refuse to believe in climate change because of dependence on old technology in their home state. For others, it's become a matter of honor to defend the failed policies of the Bush administration that they supported for partisan reasons (and guess where that got us!) It doesn't take much analysis to see that increasing efficiency and converting to cleaner alternative energy sources (where the "fuel" is free once the equipment is paid for) will not only pay for itself, it will be the engine that drives our economic future.
NHsolarguy
Permalink
Ted Clayton Posted 7:07 am
09 Mar 2009
Obama's targets are weak - activists are bitting their tongue. Congress is up to their butt in alligators - Copenhagen? What's that? Oh - that! Uh, um...
Polls show voters walking away from climate-concerns. A lot of unusual cold weather in the news - some hot weather & fires - but a lot of untimely, unseasonable cold headlines parading in front of voters.
The mainstream media has gone from panning anti-warming stories or burying them D-6, to actively seeking them out and working up the crowd with them.
As a political campaign, what do you make of the trends & key junctures up-coming?
Permalink
jwebb Posted 7:40 am
09 Mar 2009
Personally I think the biggest negative toward AGW (or as my mom called in in the 80s- the greenhouse effect) is that costs are passed on to the lowest citizens. Look at Africa and how controlling charcoal sales ends up keeping starving people from cooking the little food they have. Why would the government want to ration out propane if it costs them more than just burning charcoal trucks and killing people. Off-subject, but i'm tired of this thread debating science and religion. Science is only as good as the data, religion is only as good as the promised afterlife.
Permalink
willsi Posted 8:27 pm
18 May 2009
Permalink
santikuku Posted 7:32 am
08 Sep 2009
Permalink
mobdev Posted 4:34 am
14 Jan 2010
Permalink
Joeblatu Posted 2:20 pm
20 Jan 2010
Any one of these guys has a hell of a lot more credentials than you do “software engineer”/amateur scientist.
Hell - software engineering shouldn’t even be considered engineering - do you guys even have to take any physics?
Dr. Gray predicted in 2006 that the climate will begin to significantly cool in the 2009/2010 time transition.
It's looking better for Dr. Grey than you parrots so far.
BTW-- Mann is a paleogeologist - so why is his degree better than Dr. Jack Schmitt’s?
From Penn State:
Dr. Michael E. Mann received his undergraduate degrees in Physics and Applied Math from the University of California at Berkeley, an M.S. degree in Physics from Yale University, and a Ph.D. in Geology & Geophysics from Yale University.
Do your homework before opening your big, uninformed mouth alarmist-boy
Permalink