Quite obvious, really. The first is propaganda using the insidious method of brainwashing our children while the second is adult scientists discussing reality.
I see under the teach-in FAQ's they will teach how we can stop climate change... how ignorant and reality defying can you get!

It has been a horrible thing to USE then children, who are easily malleable, in hopes of making them disciples of Al Gore's new religion (global warming).

Its time we stop brainwashing these children with this hoax called global warming. I am hoping that school children around the world are shown the OTHER side of this craze.

The REAL lesson for the children, as well as the teachers and the administrators, is, that when you dig deep enough you usually uncover the truth. And, that there are always two sides to a story. The challenge is to discover the truth, not run with the glamor. The truth, usually, isnt as extravagant as the lie.

Brett,

Do you think it is a coincidence that most of the confirmed speakers are also members of the list of corporate sponsors to Heartland?

http://www.heartland.org/events/NewYork09/sponsorships.html

I also find it interesting that the Heartland Institute even has to go so far to say the following: "Funds from corporations represented less than 16 percent of Heartland's annual budget in 2007, and no corporation gave more than 4 percent of Heartland's budget that year. No contributions from any energy corporations are being used to support this conference."

"No corporate dollars or sponsorships earmarked for the event were solicited or accepted."

Maybe these corporate sponsor are not paying for the actual conference, but they do give them a large portion of their $7 million budget support throughout the year. Then, as a special privilege, their corporate sponsor's representatives are then given obvious distinction to be able to speak at their annual convention. How convenient.

Isn't it strange that they only address "that year", the 2007 budget but not the recent 2008 budget? The fact that they are a privately owned corporation, they obviously aren't obliged to publicly divulge where their actual funding comes from and whether or not their percentage figures of corporate donations are accurate. Again, how convenient. But it must be true because they say it is. Right!

Hello Brett,

This will be a David against Golliath event. On one side, you got student associations and mostly personnal funding driving a convention. On the other side you have all the right wing of all ultra conservative funding the event.

Frankly, how can we not see what Hearland Institute really is. Basically, you can say that this institution is against everything that will be good for your health. It is against Tobacco control/restriction, and of course against AGW theory, against CO2 control, alternative source of power.

Like i said in another post, look who's subsidizing them (Exxon, Morris), and it resumed what that ''institution'' really is.

It's a credibility issue, but it will be played like a tv game show. I'm sure we'll see Lou D. from CNN putting up another big ''half truth'' and false informations show just for that event - while again shouting names to AGW advocates.

That's the problem, big mouths are shouting louder , but the only goal is there pocket full of our $$$ - not your/our well being.

The truth lies somewhere in the middle of what these two propaganda events will present. The problem is that they are so extreme that finding agreement in the middle is nearly impossible.

though I do not doubt we just went through a warming trend I do dount the cause.

I collect rare books and just purchased a 1933 book titled MOUNTAIN VIEWS.

The highlight of the book is of course world mountain ranges.

More precise it centers on the loss then of snow, the Alps are almost barren THEN. We know that the Alps of the 1960's - 1980's were well covered.

Seems this loss of snow and ice just happens, then it returns, then it goes. Over and over......

Dave L.

The fact that the list of speakers includes John Coleman, whos entire career consists of being a tv weatherman, and a clown weatherman at that, speaks volumes about the validity of this conference.

Pat

I'm hoping for a replay of the weather pattern and events that occurred between January 20 and February 10 1978.

With the Heartland Institute being one of the conference holders, there will be balance to this stupid argument. Much to the shagrin of our foolish alarmist friends, who will predictably get on here and say "the right wing, fascist heartland nazis and their big-oil loving nonsense." Oh, I should be a bookie in Vegas, they are so predictable.

With regard to the National Teach-In, where our kids will only be getting one side of the story, well, that is just typical, with the libs in the education industry running the show, especially with unionized teacher in the public schools. Nothing like indoctrination. Get used to it, America. It all starts in full exceleration this Tuesday. Again, you people who voted for these jokers are going to bite your elbows, as you will not recognize this country in 4 years!!!!!

Here's hoping the Blizzard of '93 hits DC on Tuesday!!!!!

Love and Kisses,

THE DENIER (AND PROUD OF IT) FROM HADES!!!!!!

Come on guys...there is no proof whatsoever that Global Warming (or Climate Change or whatever you are calling it this week) is taking place. Just ask the people of Chicago about their oppinion of Global Warming. It's all a liberal inviromental hoax. It's an effort to bring in tax dollars and control the masses by having them live in fear.

A Teach-In -- groovy! I'll see if I can find my old love beads.

A follow up: I just sent this e-mail to the top organizer of the "teach-in."

Are you going to be presenting both sides of the Global Warming issue, or is this a one sided indoctrination? Translation: Are you going to present Global Warming as FACT without any room for opposing viewpoints? Please advise as I am very curious.

I will let you know if I receive a response.

DENY DENY DENY THE GLO-BULL WARMING LIE!!!!!!

Brett:You censor a lot of my posts but not many denier postings.You converse usually with deniers and not much with people who believe that global warming is real. The temperatures for this planet have only gone up in 150 years. You are also a denier I presume, and your posts reflect this. Brookline Tom is right you know. The heartland gang are right here. Kipp
Walter F. Buchholtz, an ExxonMobil executive, serves as Heartland's Government Relations Advisor, according to Heartland's 2005 IRS Form 990, pg. 15. http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2005/363/309/2005-363309812-0295fbb2-9.pdf

Reply: How could you possibly know how many posts I censor from the opposite side of yours? You have no idea.

Been getting some flack for posting too much science, Brett? Will this blog again devote multiple posts to a conference that will just be repeating the same tired and bogus material that was covered last year? I hope not.

Anyway, you wrote that the denialist conference claimed they would have "70 elite scientists specializing in climate issues in attendance."

Reply: I never mentioned the word elite Steve.

They actually said there would be "70 elite scientists, economists and others specializing in climate issues." Note that strictly speaking that construction doesn't even claim that the scientists are climate scientists as such. This would make sense, since very few of them are. Even reading it the other way, there's no claim to how many scientists there are as distinct from economists and "others."

Looking at the current list (of just 56 participants), unsurprisingly very few are climate scientists (11 by my count, although judging "elite" by career achievement would reduce that to perhaps 3).

Correction, please.
Reply: Correct what?

(BTW, if this conference is organized the same as last year's, attendance is being "enhanced" by the payment of expenses for participants. Actual science conferences don't do that.)

FYI, Dennis, most large corporations have set up nominally independent foundations that are used to fund such things. A check might be from, e.g., the Exxon Mobil Foundation rather than Exxon Mobil, Inc. In other words the claim is literally true but false in substance.

Steve Bloom: BTW, if this conference is organized the same as last year's, attendance is being "enhanced" by the payment of expenses for participants. Actual science conferences don't do that.

From the Union of Concerned Scientists website:

A government nomination does not imply that the scientist's views are endorsed by that government, or that the scientist is expected to represent his or her government's view. It may mean that a government has provided a scientist with financial support, but many scientists receive no financial support at all and others are merely reimbursed for travel expenses. Experts from developing nations who have received no financial support from their government are supported through the IPCC trust fund.

Now that nearly a year has elapsed since the first contrarian conference, perhaps it's time to ask a few questions about it -- as well as this year's edition.

Most importantly, where is the science?

I note that glaringly, stunningly, and predictably absent from the conference material, as presented on its own website, is any science.

The conference schedule, for example, has no paper sessions. No "proceedings" publication. Were any papers published in connection with last year's first conference? Have they been cited anywhere since?

A quick Google search pulls up the urls for typical science conferences -- here are a few (to avoid the spam filter, I'll post trucated urls, you have to copy and paste them into your browser yourself, adding the "http://" yourself):

American Academy of Neurology: www.aan.com/go/am/science

American Society of Human Genetics: www.ashg.org/2009meeting/

American Society of Neuroscience: www.sfn.org/index.cfm?pagename=am2009preview

What recent papers have the "more than 70 of the world's elite scientists, economists and others specializing in climate issues" published in peer-reviewed publications? How many of those been cited, and where?

If there is "new research that contradicts claims that Earth's warming during the 20th century was man-made and has already reached a crisis", where is that "new research" published?

Brett:I apologize,for the above remark. Please do me and the other people who believe in Global Warming a favor.Post from Serious material that is scientific.It gives a one sided impression if you don't talk about Hadley findings, and the prolifery of other Scientific Institutions all over the world. Al Gore is a weak man's scapegoat, for deniers own lack of any science. Where's the SCIENCE???? Every Academy of Science,IN THE WORLD,BELIEVES THAT GLOBAL WARMING IS A real problem!!!.ARGUE THE SCIENCE.ANYONE?
DENIALISM IS JUST A WEAPON OF THE WEAK. kipp

Steve:
Your posts are always so amusing; always written as though you posses some actual knowledge rather than just your ill advised opinion on the topic.

Most know better however.

As for the conference, their speakers are all respected in their fields and genuinely have something to contribute to the debate.

Al Gore was invited. they even offered to pay his extortionist fee.
Of course he refused since his pathetic rhetoric has been so completely discredited in recent years.

It is sad about the Teach in. Yung people are impressionable and naive. They will of course lap it up and set back Science a full generation.

Reminds me of Hitler youth or Young Liberals.

Oh well.. This too shall pass.

OOps. Forgot to type in my name on the last post.

Sorry about that "elite," Brett, which they used but you did not quote.

Looking at their front page (your first link), I now see what you were quoting. As I correctly pointed out, however, their own list of speakers (your second link) contradicts their claim to 70 scientists of any sort, let alone specializing in climate change.

Most readers won't do that sort of double-checking on their own, so it would be helpful if you would note it in the post.

Reply: Maybe they did not list everyone. Who knows.

Steve Bloom, Dennis Hinka, Kipp, Brookline Tom, Regg, Mark, et al., I have a suggestion, please get together and send a letter to our new president requesting that he pass a law prohibiting any one person, any group, organization, etc. that disagrees or provides a contrarian view of man-made global warming. In this way, we will have a law that we all must agree with the man-made global warming hypothesis, no denying allowed; anyone disagreeing or attempting to provide any evidence to the contrary will be immediately put in jail or heavily fined. We will no longer need blogs, or any other means of information distribution. We can then get rid of all oil companies, all car companies (except for total electric cars), all coal related activities, all conservatives, and eliminate all political parties except for the current one now in charge. I am sure we will all be much happier, and all of you will be so proud and excited with yourselves because you were so right!

After all, Dr. James Hansen has categorically, unequivocally stated that President Obama has only four years to save the world to avert eco-disaster.

http://global-warming.accuweather.com/2009/01/two_opposing_events_coming_soo.html#comments

Please, it is up to you guys now! Remember, we only have 4 years!

Steve Bloom,
Dr James Hansen of NASA is niether a meterologist nor a climate scientist. I don't see you disavow everything Dr Hansen has written or said in public since 1976 concerning climate science. I mean he only has a piddly PHD in a soft science like Astrophysics. Until you disavow Dr Hansen, lay-off Brett.

Steve, you suffer from acute credentialism. Some insitutions are filled with men and women with impeccable credentials, and those people -the ordained experts in thier fields- and they've driven thier organizations into the ground. Here I am thinking of Wall St (Hedge Funds) and the CIA (WMDs), and the former elite Antioch College.

Deniers:Fact is,You lost.The real American people voted for a real man,Barack Hussein Obama.

Reply: Kipp, Is there really a need for that above comment? Seems like you are just trying to rile up some people.

Our money will be spent on alternate forms of energy,education, medical care for everyone, a war against Afghanistan(the real enemy is the Taliban), and hunger in America. Your denialism has not worked, and a new intellegent approach to fight Global Warming will begin.So,it doesn't matter what you say or how badly you say it. What matters is that Bush is Gone.Physically this time,never to return with the Penguin.You never bothered to learn the science. You still don't know what global warming really is. The good thing is that scientists know,and there legislatures will know,and like any good Americans they will choose right. KIPP

Bob Tisdale:You said you have a web site.No you have a blogspot.You say that warming started without any influence by the rise in global temperatures.How would you know this. Global Warming is a scientific fact.Next time you copy your data,tell us about the influence of a warming world. KIPP

Why do we spend so much money on global warming? The climate is changing, because that is what it does. It is constantly changing. I live in Connecticut, and I'm surrounded by glacial rocks, and topography that were carved over and over again by glaciers long before man was here. It just happens that we are living here in this country for just 400 years, that is a nano-second in time, so what we know of climate now, and the changes we are seeing, is not going to be changed! it is good that people care about our planet, I'm all for going green, but this fear, knee jerking bunk about the doom of our planet from CO2 is ridiculous. There is more now than there was 400 years ago when we arrived here, but there was 1000s of times more before we ever set foot on this planet. We worry about Greenland, and the ice melting, and rightfully so, but we can't stop, or slow it. Greenland was named because it was once plush green land. Did it melt because we caused it to? We weren't even here! This is an ongoing process the Earth goes through, to think we are going to stop or slow it, or even cause it is the most ridiclous TAX RAISING REVENUE SCAM ever thrown at the public. Enough already!

Brett, to be even-handed I thought I should do a little due diligence on the other event. On their "About" page (same as the FAQ page?) it says: "We need your help enlisting thousands of colleges, universities, high-schools, middle schools, faith groups, civic organizations and businesses." The page listing all of the participating organizations shows something over 600. Presumably that number will be increasing between now and the event date, but for the moment "thousands" appears to be an exaggeration.

Dennis Hinkla,

Your pretty quick at investigating out who funds the deniers. If you were a true investigator, true to your beliefs and true to yourself, you would dig in and find out who funds AGW propoganda.

You'll be suprised to see where the money trail leads and how really deep into political connections and media spinning it actually goes. Start with Gore and where his money trail fans out. See the tentacled connections between he and Obama, Rupert Murdoch and his son, the U.N., Dupont, Gore's oil friends, the Church of England's 300 million investment, etc, etc, etc.

Start with this and look around.
http://theteleprompter.com/Al_Gore/post:venture-firm-puts-millions-in-green-companies-gore-has-stake-in/

AGW is the largest and most well thought out "sting" since the churches and royalty had the ongoing monopoly on what people were told they had to believe, a few centuries ago.

Now the "sting" is being played out by the worlds richest power brokers and media moguls. There's a lot of cash, kingdoms and power plays being made on this, that won't be going into bailing out the economy. It has nothing to do with wanting real scientific answers, just scientific sounding players to keep it going.

Don't take my word on it. Just check out the setting up of a new world order, who's pushing it, who's funding it and why, who is pushing legislation to control the worlds food and you"ll start seeing how the AGW "sting" began to get structured and where it's leading us.

i researched global warming and found it to be false. i will lay out the proof soon and i can do it without insulting brett.

Brett:You censor a lot of my posts but not many denier postings.You converse usually with deniers and not much with people who believe that global warming is real.

REPLY: Kipp. Please stop whining. It has gone beyond making you look foolish, and has become quite nausiating.

The heartland gang are right here.
Walter F. Buchholtz, an ExxonMobil executive, serves as Heartland's Government Relations Advisor, according to Heartland's 2005 IRS Form 990, pg. 15. http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2005/363/309/2005-363309812-0295fbb2-9.pdf

REPLY: Chalk up another correct prediction. Nostradamus has nothing on yours truly!!!
----------------------------------------------
Now then, for the response I received from the organizer of the "teach-in" indoctrinators:

Re: I have a question about the Teach In:

> We accept IPCC conclusions as the starting point for discussion; content
> of the teach-in is determined at each institution participating.
>
> cheers--

REPLY: Determined at each institution particiapting? Translation, each participating institution CONTROLS whatever is said. How Orwellian. Yes ladies and gents, more reason to be skeptical of these people and their intentions. Let the indoctrination of our children commence!!!!!

I really wish we had some Glo-BULL Warming!!!!! NOW!!!!

By the by: GO STEELERS!!!!!!!

It's intellectually dishonest to attempt to rebut skeptics' assessment of the causes and severity of climate change by implying the that the elite scientists who advance the skeptic's view are bought through corporate donations. The Heartland Institute relies on 2,700 donors for our operations, which along with registration fees will finance the second International Conference on Climate Change in New York March 8-10.

Foundations account for about 70 cents of our funding, individuals about 10 cents, and corporations for the rest. No single corporation gives more than 4 percent of our annual budget, and Exxon hasn't given us a dime since 2006.

Debate the science, please, but forget the ad hominem attacks.

Dan Miller
Publisher
The Heartland Institute

Well, I see the AGW zealots are complaining again.

We've got Mr. Hinkla complaining about corporate sponsorship, whereas George Soros funds virtually every leftwing attempt at wealth redistribution via global warming there is.

Mr. Regg seems to be following Mr. Hinkla's cue of whining about corporate sponsorship and makes no mention of George Soros' and Federal Government sponsorship of AGW.

Mr. Kerber uses that old tactic of attacking the participants.

Mr. Kipp complains about censorship of his posts and adds corporate sponsorship to his rant as an added bonus.

And last but not least we have Mr. Bloom complaining about blog content and also joins Mr. Kerber in attacking the participants.

Talk about predictable. I'm surprised Mr. Brookline hasn't posted on introducing the "Fairness Doctrine" into the blogosphere.

So predictable. So pathetic.

May I have your attention please?

It's been a year since we saw excerpts from the following article. Let's put it to the test:

"January 2008. Oleg Sorokhtin, a fellow of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, shrugged off manmade climate change as 'a drop in the bucket.' Showing that solar activity has entered an inactive phase, Prof. Sorokhtin advised people to 'stock up on fur coats.'

He is not alone. Kenneth Tapping of the National Research Council, who oversees a giant radio telescope focused on the sun, is convinced we are in for a long period of severely cold weather if sunspot activity does not pick up soon."

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=332289

An inactive sun? Record setting cold and snow? Nope... no solar connection there.

"The planet is not anthropologically unstable. The people are."

- Rich Gele'

Welcome to the new millenium folks.

When I was in school, I too bought into the whole global warming agenda. But then, being the incurable doubting Thomas, I thought I should dig into the actual science behind global warming so I would be better equipped to make the arguments for myself.

What a mistake that was! After about two years time of investigation, I had concluded that anthropomorphic global warming was at best inconclusive and at worst a political tool to subjugate free people everywhere. Since then (early 90's), my political awareness has confirmed the latter because the movement uses tactics common to the darkest periods of humanity. Paradoxically, the tactics are themselves contra-indicators of the integrity of the movement. Subverting the parental authority, nurturing a religious zealotry through celebrity sycophancy, and casting any dissent as a political if not human evil (use of the term "global warming denier", for example), are not hallmarks of pure science, but rather human regression.

So what do you do when record cold waves sweep the world? Simple make two slight alterations: (1) use the term "climate change" so you can continue to blame man for anything, and (2) claim that extreme cold is due to global warming forcing weather extremes so you are correct no matter what happens.

Based on current knowledge of solar and earth physics (namely solar irradiance linked to the Sun's magneto-dynamics and second and third order pertubations in the Earth's axial movement), it seems far more likely that we are heading into another lengthy (decades long) cold spell. But should we expect that stories like sea ice being as plentiful as in 1979 to be adequately explored in these teach-ins? Of course not. It is indeed ironic that these elucidations where widely publicized not in any US newspaper, but in Russia's Pravda. But then, that is the sad commentary of American education.

Haven't checked this blog out in a while. What a riot!! The usual suspects continue to drone on about anthropogenic global warming despite growing evidence to the contrary. The global warming debate has devolved to a political argument for social engineering, e.g., lets scare folks into changing consumption habits. Quite telling that the increase in the price of a gallon of gas to over $4 did more to curb consumption than the years of green ranting about melting glaciers and dying polar bears. I'll check back in about 6 months to see a) if this blog still exists, and b) whether the usual suspects are still making the same, tired old cases for social engineering.

Hi Brett,

Considering what just happened with so many record lows last week and the NWS/NOAA claiming that Rochelle,Il temp guage was out of whack looks as if they may have really opened up a can of worms on themselves. I know Joe Bastardi, Joe D'Aleo and many others may have already talked about it but this may be the straw that breaks the camels back. The data just does not even come close to fitting the claims of AGW now and to have a blatant throw out the data in Rochele,Il is really an eye opener. Remember people there will be no record lows anymore as the NWS/NOAA will not allow it.

Once again, Dennis, what's the point?

Do you know how much money GE stands to make if we implement a cap-and-trade system for carbon emissions, or if we mandate increased use of wind power? Why aren't you concerned about that?

You're also unconcerned about who is sponsoring the National Indoctrination on Global Warming. (BTW: Somebody needs to tell them "global warming" is out and "climate change" is in. How can we make people afraid of global warming if they're freezing their butts off in a record cold?) How do those organizations stand to gain if we embrace global warming is factual?

What about your Profit (oops, I mean "Prophet") Al Gore? How much does he profit (there's that word again) if the USA and other major industrial nations buy into his agenda? Here's a hint: Gore is not volunteering his time or donating all the profits to charity. Gore is both a hired gun selling climate change snake oil.

Steve Bloom writes "(BTW, if this conference is organized the same as last year's, attendance is being "enhanced" by the payment of expenses for participants. Actual science conferences don't do that.)"

Steve,

It's apparent you're not a professor in the sciences or have not spent any time in a graduate science program. During my time pursuing 2 MS degrees in Engineering, my professors were routinely paid to present at science conferences. Expense reimbursement is very common for presenters.

Of course the truth doesn't matter to you. Go spread more conspiracy theories and feel good about yourself in the process! There are quite a few other brainwashed souls on here that will surely believe whatever garbage you spew.

Near the top right of the National Teach-In homepage it offers: "Join Hundreds of Institutions Committed to Change the Future."

Perhaps I should inform them that the "future" hasn't actually occurred yet. The statement really makes no sense but speaks to their belief that the earth as they know it is coming apart at the seams. This is something that I really don't see evidence of.

Brett-I cant believe that kipp called you a denier you have never censored a post of mine.
the fact is brett i have always felt that if anything you feel global warming is occurring or has occurred and that currently we may be experiencing aninteruption of the trend and that possibly it will resume in the future. i dont deny temp data showing warming but question the sources of the warming. the sense i have from seeeing your comments is that if i believe agw is 5% of the warming your at a number higher than that but not at 100%. as the moderator of this site you should not comment on my comments here as you need to remain as neutral as possible, unless my opinion is way out of whack

I JUST CANT BELIEVE KIPP CALLED YOU A DENIER

loub

@Steve Bloom is sense your frustration...

Its amazing that accuweather, a professional weather site, still clings to the hope that there is no such thing as AGW and recognize to seriousness of it all and does not do its part in moving forward to supporting solutions to save the planet.

When the Ice Age was coming to an end (16,000 years ago) glaciers covered the Midwestern United States, Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin, Ohio (the Great Lakes area) and Canada.

What caused all this ice to melt?.

Was it Henry Ford's Model T's, or was it coal fired power plants or was it the hundreds of thousands of 18 wheelers treking across the yet to be inhabited continent?

Now, let's all take a stroll down the path of logic.

The fact of the matter is, YES we are in a warming period. But what the liberal environmentalist are not telling you is that it's a natural event. Based on extensive research, including ice cores, tree rings, glacial, and historical analysis, the evidence is clear that the earth goes through cyclic warming and cooling periods lasting several centuries at a time. Furthermore, there is overwhelming evidence that this process of cooling followed by warming has been repeating itself for at least the last 1 million years in 1500 years cycles, long before the industrial revolution.

So, YES the earth is undergoing a warming trend and it may last for another century or longer but NO there is NOTHING we could have done to prevent it. The climate is behaving exactly as it has before, and will again and again long, long after we are gone. But for political reasons�the liberal environmentalists are blaming the United States.

Why are they blaming the United States? That�s easy. That�s where the money is.

There may be a myriad of events that could be causing these cycle periods . . . sun spots?. . . .The tilting of the earth�s axis? . . . Change in the earths orbit around the sun?.. . . . . Who knows?

But to blame it on Man? That is tantamount to someone standing outside with their garden hose running during a rain storm and being blamed for the resulting flood. Sure there are manmade CO2's in the atmosphere, but enough to melt the ice caps? I don't think so. That is a pretty strong assertion�.one that is almost impossible to back up.

It was just 1970, when environmentalists were warning us about another coming "Ice Age" and that temperatures would be 11 degrees cooler by the year 2000. It's going take thousands of years of data until we can get a correct hypotheses on all of this.

In my opinion, and you can take it for what it's worth - the global warming periods and cooling periods are primarily caused by energy out-put changes from the sun.

Signing the Kyoto Treaty would do nothing but bring forth economic disaster. The treaty would not include developing and undeveloped nations so the likely result would not be a reduction in CO2 emissions . . . . But a relocation of the emissions to those developing and underdeveloped countries.

Meaning that industries from the U.S. would simply move to these countries that are excluded from Kyoto, causing massive job loses here in America and causing great harm to the American middle class.

China, the world�s largest polluter, would be exempt from complying with Kyoto's emissions requirements. That makes sense doesn't it?

Global warming is just liberal environmentalist mantra to promote their real agenda --- global control of the masses by exploiting our fear for survival.

They are praying on the uninformed.

In conclusion � We can all reduce our energy usage to save money, car pool, walk when we can, turn out the lights when you leave the room., but to restrict our freedoms by instituting strict government regulations?

That is just not the way to do it

Kipp, What's up with the ranting? Been drinking too much of that global warmth-inspired English wine again?
Next time that you decide to insult us under-educated flat-earth deniers, please do us the courtesy of spelling intelligence correctly.

Unfortunately, this debate, like many others, has been polarized into two relatively extreme positions.

The AGW position generally seems to be a "Chicken Little" position with no well-defined solution that could be accomplished in the time frame that they claim is necessary. The only serious attempt of a solution that I have heard is a one-size-fits-all carbon tax or massive subsidies to unproven industries with poorly-defined cost-benefit analyses. In any case, those solutions generalyl won't be applied by any countries other than Europe and North America.

The "Denier" extreme position is to simply state that global warming isn't happening, and if there is a little bit, man plays almost no role.

These two events appear to be playing thes roles to the hilt.

Many of the AGW goals could be accomplished by identifying the myriad of benefits that would be accomplished through using a multi-pronged approach. Many of the individual sectors in play on AGW have serious environmental and national economy/security impacts completely unrelated to greenhouse gases. It is far more likely that we could get more fuel-efficient transportation policies adopted by the public if they understood the costs of imported oil and gas beyond the price at the pump. Other issues are in play with coal mining etc.

The AGW gang generally refuse to believe that many of the "deniers" are simply skeptics who believe that there are still major gaps in understanding complex processes and that computer model forecasting takes much more effort in validating and testing than has been possible to date. As a result, it is difficult to distinguish man-made and natural impacts. Many of these skeptics do no deny that AGW is in play to some extent, just not to the extreme position that is now accepted by many people as gospel.

I would have much preferred if the "Teach-In" was focused on a more broadly sustainable approach to development and living. However, if you keep the message generally vague on what needs to be done, it is easy to get the public to approve of it. Once they understand the full magnitude of the sacrifices they will be asked to accept, I think that a lot more skeptics will come out of the woodwork!

The other event will probably have about 10% of the presentations providing valuable insight. The rest will be like most conferences, barely worth the trees that were cut down to print the papers. In my field, I generally consider a conference a success if one or two good presentations come out of it.

Ironically, the blundering collapse of the most recent computer modelling of complex systems will probably do more to control greenhouse gas production than any other government actions over the nex couple of years. A couple more financial and economic crises like the one that we are going through now would probably reduce greenhouse gas production over the nex couple of decades.

Brett:If people get angry about Obama, that is not my issue. This is not a site for deniers only, is it? KIPP

Reply: This site is open to anyone, no matter what their opinions are about climate change. There are limits to the content of posts however.

"teach in" circa late 1960s derrivative of 'sit in' Hippie types with tie dye tee shirts discussing the anthropogenic "climate change" while listening to the Greatfull Dead, Wavy Gravy and CSN&Y. They would burn a couple of joints but there afraid of the Evironmental impacst.

Conference. The Adults between the two. Meet to discuss the false premise of Anthropogeic "Climate Change" and how to educate the populace who have been lied to by the Hippie types

JP,

Before you denigrate a "piddly" "soft science" like astrophysics, keep in mind that a significant amount of what we know about atmospheric heat transfer is adapted from our knowledge of astrophysics. Have you ever studied it yourself? I'm not defending Steve Bloom's comments or Dr. Hansen. Only the science.

Brett:I think if I state what I believe and boldly, that others might follow.If you think that it will unnecessarily rile up people then delete it.I am committed to getting more science on this blog and less political opinion. When I first started to blog here I had my butt kicked. Some of these guys aren't so nice you know.Your a good guy,do what you think is best.KIPP

All of you global warming fans (manmade that is), just take a look at the following web sites:

http://www.green-agenda.com/

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=b6a8baa3-802a-23ad-4650-cb6a01303a65

Enjoy!

Shorter Dan Miller: "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain."

Last year the Heartland conference got a certain amount of media coverage due to its novelty value. As this year's will just be a re-hash given the lack of science results (however shoddy) produced by denialists in the last year, I predict a drop-off in media interest. Since the entire purpose of these conferences is to gain publicity, that may be the end of them.

Once again "Mary" and "Paul" prefer to attack what I didn't and haven't written rather than address what I did write.

This claims to be a scientific conference (as opposed to the "teach-in", whatever that is, mentioned in the thread-starter).

Where's the science, guys?

Mary,

I am not against any group of organization that can present scientifically valid contraries viewpoints regarding the AGW theory. What I resent are the groups like Heartland and ICECAP that are nothing more than political organizations with big corporate sponsors that are presenting themselves as legitimate scientific research organizations when in fact they are just political pontificators spreading propaganda.

Why do you think Brett has to correct many of the comments from the majority of the skeptics here on this blog site? It is because they copy the mis-information coming from politically oriented groups like Heartland and ICECAP that have no scientific foundation to them. Even Brett's scientific background can't let those type of comments go by.

Political groups are not credible scientific organizations. Their biased political opinions should remain in the policy decision making process and not in scientific research forum.

Kipp Alpert, you wrote, "Bob Tisdale:You said you have a web site.No you have a blogspot.You say that warming started without any influence by the rise in global temperatures.How would you know this. Global Warming is a scientific fact.Next time you copy your data,tell us about the influence of a warming world. KIPP"

If you run up to the top of this thread and scroll down, you'll discover that I had not commented on it before you. So I have no idea what comment of mine on some other thread you are referring to. Again, STICK TO THE RIGHT THREAD, as Brett requested of you.

BTW, the Wikipedia definition of website is "A web site is a collection of Web pages, images, videos or other digital assets that is hosted on one or more web servers, usually accessible via the Internet." My blogspot falls into that definition, so as usual, you're wrong.

You wrote, "You say that warming started without any influence by the rise in global temperatures."

Your sentence made no sense at all. I never said such a thing. Please identify the thread.

You wrote, "Global Warming is a scientific fact."

Global temperature has risen. I have never debated that.

Now, please identify the comment I made (date of the thread and the data and time of the comment) that prompted the rest of your comment and I'll be happy to respond. Otherwise it simply looks like normal Kipp gibberish with my name attached to it.

Dan Miller,

I too would like to see a scientific debate within your organization but you seem to have created a clear majority opinion that runs counter to that type of forum. Based on the list of confirmed speakers to your upcoming convention, I do not see an equal amount of opposing viewpoints to even start that debate.

If your obviously political organization (based on your own web site's mission statement) would not force your politics into such a on-sided propaganda show, then other scientists would give your group and it's member's opinions some level of credibility.

Politics and scientific research have to remain separate. Otherwise the actual scientific debate you wish to have just won't happen at least within your current organization's framework.

Arguing over who's funding who is beside the point. Why can't the Heartland Institute just proudly proudly proclaim that they're a conservative think tank? They are a self-proclaimed "non-partisan" think tank, but it's no secret which party they lean toward. They are proud of what they believe in, aren't they? Do they think the fact that they are conservatives with a conservative agenda will discredit them scientifically? That being conservative in and of itself takes value away from what they say? Even if I disagree with them, I don't think it does.

Politics and political values have an inevitable place in science and how it is pursued. Why does everyone have to be so coy about it? The more honest people are in presenting themselves, the more seriously they will be taken. At least by me.

Last year's Heartland Institute conference did not produce anything of scientific merit. I infer this year's won't either.

In contrast, the Fall 2008 AGU meeting in San Fransisco was attended by over 15,000 and have many parallel seesin (also poster sessions) on a variety of topics, many about climate or climate related. Here is one I found of particular interest:

Firestone, R. B.; West, A.; Revay, Z.; Hagstrum, J. T.; Smith, A.; Que Hee, S. S., "Elemental Analysis of the Sediment, Magnetic Grains and Microspherules from the Younger Dryas Impact Layer"

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008AGUFMPP13C1472F

John Galt,

Obviously big corporations like GE and Exxon are the looking out for their own business interests. Either way we are and always will be controlled by big corporations and their political power.

The question to you is, are you willing to go along with an industry that will lead us through the 21st century and beyond or one that wants us to stay in the 20th century? The energy costs to us will be the same, but I think I would rather see us look ahead to a brighter future and not the other way around.

The difference between Al Gore and political groups like the Heartland Institute and ICECAP is AL Gore has never labeled himself as a scientist, but referred to material compiled by actual scientists.

Meanwhile groups like Heartland and ICECAP and similar political groups/organizations have self proclaimed themselves as being a scientific research organization by using paid off scientists. That is why I heavily criticize them because of their political positions being presented as supposed scientific facts/theories when they have no credible scientific background or their science is clouded by their politics.

I will repeat this one more time. I have never use Al Gore in any of my scientific opinions/positions here on this blog site and I do not plan on defending any of his positions or statements. So please do not refer to him again when you pose questions to me in the future.

RD:

I appreciate that you are trying to take the middle road on the debate, but let's be clear about one of your assertions that both sides are playing their roles [to the extreme].

The neutral position in this debate is that climate changes over periods of time. This fact should be undeniable and unarguable to all but the most ardent or ignorant of global warming alarmists. Man-made global warming is the hypothesis to prove, and with such an extraordinary claim must come extraordinary evidence that, in a statistical sense, must prove certain above a 95% confidence level. To date, the man-made global warming contingent have failed miserably, yet they persist in calling the debate closed and settled in their favor.

Consider also that the man-made global warming contingent usually carries with it a political agenda that inevitably can be reduced to the dimunition of personal freedom. Those arguing against man-made warming maintain their positions based upon the lack of valid, reliable, repeatable evidence and rarely call for restrictions on personal freedoms. Instead, they take the position that conferences about efficiency and sustainability will come about naturally as economic conditions dictate. Then any changes in personal activities will be the personal choices of individuals, not mandates, laws, or restrictions from an "elite" bureaucracy.

Once again, the only extreme in the debate is the position of man-made global warming and the insidious prohibitions that the purveyors insist we must adopt to save the planet. When hard evidence of global warming reaches the 95% confidence level, then it will be time to talk. Until then, it should be relegate and realized for what it has become, a cynical political movement.

Travis,

My remarks were tongue and cheek. Getting a PHD in astrophysics is very difficult. One must master a ton of higher math (such as a Tensor Calculus), higher level physics, chemistry, biololgy, astronomy, geosciences, etc... but according to some on this blog that alone would disqualify said scientist since that person didn't do advanced post graduate work in climate science.

Hansen recieved his PHD in astrophysics. I would be the last person to say he is unqualified to study our climate. My disagreement with him lies elsewhere.

Kipp: I think I figured out what you're referring to with the above comment. You wrote, "You say that warming started without any influence by the rise in global temperatures," and "Next time you copy your data,tell us about the influence of a warming world."

Was your above comment to me about my January 17, 2009 6:02 AM comment to paulm on the January 15, 2008 thread? In it, I referenced my guest post at WattsUpWithThat and provided the following addresses for my website:
bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/01/can-el-nino-events-explain-all-of_11.html
bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/01/can-el-nino-events-explain-all-of_11.html
bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/01/el-ninos-create-step-changes-in-tlt-of.html
Was that the comment I made that you're referring to? If so, the period I addressed in the first two posts was from 1976 to 2008. I chose that period for a specific reason. It was after the period from the 1940s to 1975 during which global temperatures had declined. So what rise are you referring to?

Your above statements would therefore have no basis in fact, as usual.

Have a nice day.

I have followed the forecasts of Her Holiness Hehpsehboah A. for the past 8 years and they are 100% accurate. She tells that the earth is in a wobble due to the shifting of the earth's magnetic poles and that global warming is a total sham. Stripping the earth of its oil also sets the wobbling in place as well the vibration of bombing. Their is no global warming, the earth is in a polar shift. Her Holiness says it is up to us weather the transition is smooth or extremely harsh.

Just keep making yourself look foolish Steve Bloom, you're setting your cause back, not helping it.

Steve Bloom, Dennis Hinka, Kipp, Paulm,
I am a geologist and also president of an oil and gas company. I'm also a skeptic of a lot of the claims being made about the effects of anthropogenic CO2 on climate. Is it because I'm president of an oil company? Perhaps that plays into my opinion but by far the bigger issue is the facts. I have yet to be convinced of some of the claims made by global warming proponents. Keep sending in information on your side of the debate, maybe you will convince me yet!

Does it really matter who funds the Heartland Institute? Even if Exxon was funding it 100% what's the difference? Some of you work for enviromental groups that rely on global warming staying in the spotlight in order to get the funding you need to secure your jobs. Does that mean your opinions about global warming are corrupted? No. That's because of something called ethics. Most scientists who have opinions on either side of the global warming debate are honest people, they believe in their work and their cause. Please don't belittle skeptics by accusing them of working for the oil companies, it insults both their intelligence and their contributions to science.

Brett,

I've been around here long enough, to know that you sometimes answer direct questions, if time permits. I am intensely interested in the weathr in north-central Canada, namely Nunaut. The winter up there seems to have been quit mild. Right now, in Taloyoak, which istraditionally one of the coldest spots on th North American mainland, it is 5 F, which is more than 30 F warmer than the mdian temp for January. Obviously, this does not bode well for the arctic ice cap this upcoming summer. Last winter saw quite bitter temps in the far north at times, and it just narrowly missed setting another low-ice coverage record in September.
My direct question is this? Has thre been any particular reason for this mildness? Has there been some persistant trend, some anomolous synoptic pattern? Furthermore, I've been hearing a bunch of scuttlebut about an immineent La Nina episode. I have heard bfore that La Nina eents are conducive to negative anomalies in the arctic because the flow keeps the cold bottled up north, as opposed to ltting it drain down south on a regular basis. Is this true, and, if so, does this mean the far north could havea chance for ngative anomalies in February?

Reply: At least for a good chunk of this winter, there has been persistent blocking (upper-level ridging) extending westward from Greenland, leading to the above-normal temps. This same blocking has forced the cold farther down into southern Canada and the U.S.

Thanks

It�s time to get active folks.

The AGW crowd is beginning the launch of a major offensive against scientific reality.
The powerful backers of the multi Billion dollar AGW industry are panicking now that Global Warming is history and people are waking up to the truth.
They have vast resources and a lot to lose if the scam fails. They WILL be relentless.

What can we do?
Encourage everyone we know to educate themselves. Knowledge is power.
Ignorance leads to subjugation.
Studies have shown time and again that the more people know about AGW the less they believe.

We can all begin the resurgence of real science by sharing links to good sources of reality based science with everyone you know. Encourage them to read.
Education is the only cure for this travesty of science that is AGW.

A new DARK AGE is imminent if this scam succeeds. The last one lasted centuries. Let�s not let this one get started.

Latest Feedback analysis from UAH. WARNING ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! : If you are an individual who is prone to Nausea ; the development of cramps ; Hives , Uncontrolable Bowel Movement , Pimples , Headaches , Smelly Feet , or any other type of physiological reaction what-so-ever to the use of imperical measurements [i.e. Data] in the making of scientific presentations ....DO NOT GO HERE !!! http://www.drroyspencer.com/research-articles/satellite-and-climate-model-evidence/

Don't know much about Global Warming, and I guess my indifference would mean I'm not all that concerned. However thank you all for an entertaining morning read. Hilarious!

Steve,
"...their own list of speakers (your second link) contradicts their claim to 70 scientists of any sort, let alone specializing in climate change."

Please remember that in the hallowed halls of AGW the two most revered icons of nonsense are Al Gore and James Hansen. Coincidently neither of these bastions of bunk have degrees in climatology. Given this fact it would seem to make your denigration of the conference completely absurd.
LOL maybe if they refrained from pontificating adjusted data or graphs a lot of folks in real sciences would not have to say, "Basic scientific principles are not being used in this field of study. That makes anybody trained in any science question their data, conclusions, and motives."
The field of AGW knows so little yet spews so much.
Folks read, learn, think, and ask questions before you blindly follow either side of this issue.

Kipp: You wrote, "I think if I state what I believe and boldly, that others might follow." Perhaps, but only if they are curious to see which cliff you run over. I appreciate your faith in your position, but truthfully your posts are all over the place on this blog:

You actually preach brotherly love, and in the same paragraph insult the intelligence of those with whom you disagree.

You refer to yourself as a skeptic from time to time, and then heap scorn on those who are true skeptics. Is your announcement that you're a skeptic a covert attempt to discredit skepticism?

In an occasional flash of honesty, you admit that you know little about science. Yet you cut and paste paragraphs from journals you obviously don't understand and scream at the rest of us that we are lazy and undereducated. If cutting and pasting is the standard, I'm sure true skeptics can quickly meet your mark.

You rail about the occasional political posts here, loftily telling us all that is a blog about science. Yet in virtually the same breath, you gloat about Barack Obama's victory and how "you lost." Speaking for myself, a conservative retired military officer, I wish Obama all the best. I am truly rooting for him to succeed, and I believe that conservatives like myself will offer him more support than Bush ever received from his critics.

Maybe it's time you took a deep breath, opened a bottle of English wine, and reflected on all you've accomplished for your side in this argument. From a January Rasmussen poll, we now see that those who hold your position are in decline and represent a lower percentage of Americans than those who might be described as skeptics or deniers (and yet this comes at a time when the political environment certainly favors the AGW proponents). Question 3 of the poll asks:

Is Global Warming caused primarily by human activity or by long term planetary trends?
41% Human activity
44% Long term planetary trends
7% Some other reason
9% Not sure

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/issues2/articles/44_say_global_warming_due_to_planetary_trends_not_people

Cheers, Mark

Kipp,
It is really difficult to argue the science when there is so little that can be independently verified that which makes up the heart of AGW.
GISS under Dr. Hansen is a sham. Sorry an incompetent sham. How else can you explain poor quality control and constant errors and adjustments that are never disclosed until a third party finds it? If you plot world temperatures vs. land stations you will see that half the land reporting stations were discontinued in the 1989. To make that up Dr. Hansen developed a formula NEVER RELEASED to the public for independent verification, compensating for the huge loss of reporting land stations.
Coincidently following this new math, world temperatures took a huge jump. Dr. Hansen has refused to allow his adjustment program to be reviewed by independent parties to be verified. Yet, you wonder why those of us in other scientific fields are screaming?
You don’t need a degree in Climatology to recognize that refusing to show how you arrived at numbers is unconscionable and just bad science. Some might say fraudulent science but I believe the man’s ego is just to bigger than his belief in science and facts.
Now we learned that the man has adjusted temperatures records back over 100 years lowering the temps before 1978 and adjusting them higher after that time. He did this without informing the public.
Just what kind of "transparent government" is that? What kind of science is that?
The simple answer is, it is not science. Yes Kipp, it is that simple.
I do not expect science facts or poitning out AGW's lack of scientific principles or procedure to change the minds of those who long to feel a purpose in their lives. THey arer already lost to sound bytes and the excitment of belonging to a "special group who knows the one true path." History is full of the mindless following charisma instead of science. One can only to influence those not yet ready to jump on the bandwagon of the absurd because their brains are telling them something is amiss.
You don’t need a doctorate in any science field to understand that constant adjustments and Quality Control issues should give you reason to pause and suspect that these folks just don’t know enough to be followed blindly.
...and yet the insanity continues!
ALl that can be asked is that you think, read, ask questions, learn and then make a decision.

Thomas Waeghe-took the time to read all the comments on green agenda-the following all made comments on reducing the opoulation of the planet to 1/2 to 1/10 of what it is now
david brower
christopher manes
john davis
prince philip
ted turner
dave foreman
the club of rome
united nations
jacque cousteau

which of this illustiate group wants to get the ball rolling, lead by example, and start the ball rolling-nimby

my guess is they will all go the route of jacque cousteau and die of old age

this qualifies as a gw post since the gist of most of the comments relate to overpopulation affecting the planets many systems loub

Mr. Miller: What percentage of the money you receive from "foundations" ultimately came from corporations? Corporate money is corporate money, no matter how many times it's changed hands before arriving at the Heritage Institute.

Also, from SourceWatch.org: "While the Heritage Foundation does not disclose its corporate funders, ExxonMobil voluntary disclosed in its most recent report that it donated $40,000 to the think tank in 2007." Better check your facts, there

Brett: In all fairness you should post a response from a climatologist to the comments here, as well.

Reply: If I get one.

For those who are aggressively pro-AGW and want to discredit the skeptics and deniers at every turn (you know who you are), you should pay attention to this poll:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/issues2/articles/44_say_global_warming_due_to_planetary_trends_not_people

An excerpt...Forty-four percent (44%) of U.S. voters now say long-term planetary trends are the cause of global warming, compared to 41% who blame it on human activity....

I find this remarkable given the intense media, and marketing blitz by those who have taken power, to convince us that the science is settled. Now, does this prove anything? Of course not! But it is pathetic and sad when time and energy is focused on trying to stifle debate by personally attacking the debaters, when clearly the majority want to continue the discussion.

Alan K, I happen to like CSNY and I'm not a hippy. I'll give you the grateful dead though. What's so wrong about a teach-in. Most of the students nowadays don't retain anything they are taught and that's why our education system is failing. Anyhow, they are learning about the issue the same way we all did. With Al Gore coming out and telling us we're destroying the earth. Deniers came out of the woodwork after that. Maybe some of these kids will get a head start on their denying. Shouldn't bash it before you see all your options...I looked into both sides and I still believe in the man made global (not GLO-BULL) warming.

Dennis H you replied to mary

i am not against any froup or organization that can present scientifically valid contraries viewpoints regarding the AGW theory

AGW theory-that is exactly what it is THEORY

scietists have done studies on the sun and its planetary influence, studies of the earths rotation and orbit and other mechanisms of its spin to determine affects on the weather. geologists have studied the effects of volcanos on the weather while geographers have studied the influence of topography on the weather.

i have yet to see where some report has isloated the effects due to natural causes from those attributed to man. since agw is theory the burden of proof is on agwers to prove mans effects are the cause-i hardly consider monthly temperature anomolies to be some proof that man is casing tempertatures to rise-all the anomoles tell me is that some areas are warmer than normal and some are cooler and that overall there are slight increases-but nowhere is there anything that tells me exactly what the cause is of the increase-THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THE AGW THEORISTS loub

I'm curious why my response to Kipp A. was not posted.

Brett, you are the one who allowed him to post a purely political comment (well, at least one line of the comment was political.) My response was far milder than his original statement.

Reply: What was the point of your earlier comment. What did you really want to say?

Todd C, typically participants at scientific conferences get their expenses covered by their institutions or as part of research grants. Heartland does things rather differently.

Last year, they solicited scientists with fee waivers and free rooms (meals included IIRC) at a very nice hotel in Manhattan (including an extra night to facilitate extracurricular activities). I don't recall if air fare was part of the package, but that's minor compared to the sweet hotel deal.

loub | January 20, 2009 5:17 PM --- Attribution studies are constantly being done. A recent compilation is found in PICC AR4 WG1 report.

Gary Walker,

I appreciate your honesty and opinion.

As a citizen in this great country, I don't have a personal problem with oil companies such as yours that wish to cling to their money supply as long as possible. However, who are the oil companies really looking out for? Themselves or us?

I do believe the days of being the major world oil/gas energy suppliers have come and gone. Just like the horse and buggies, and stagecoaches were replaced by automobiles almost overnight, the oil and gas industry has to be replaced over some shortened period of time by some choice of alternative energy sources for the benefit of our country's economic future.

The sooner we do, the less chance for the extremist foreign oil supplying interests in destroying our world economic future. To me it's a win-win situation as long as we don't keep listening to the corporate entities that only want things to work out for their own economic benefit and leaves all of us dependent and vulnerable to those extremist foreign interests.

By clouding the environmental issues such as global climate change with their political arguments, aren't Exxon or other old energy corporate leaders fund groups such as Heartland and ICECAP, just delaying the process of us finding the answers and pursuing the energy changes in a time efficient manner that gives our country the national security we need for economic prosperity sooner instead of later? Do we really need this type of environmental distraction that keeps us from solving these issues faster?

If I was in a hospital, I would rather have a medical diagnosis as the result of proper scientific study and analysis of my disease and not have some political think tanks point of view cloud the doctor's choice of how he or she should treat my illness. Who has the better credentials in making that determination?

I personally don't know why the conservative bloggers here don't recognize this as a chance to maintain our personal freedoms, security, and capitalistic ideals that we all wish to attain in a more timely and cost effective manner.

Again to me it's a win-win situation as long as we get the politics out of the scientific debates of global climate change. That means identifying and finding ways to prevent the oil companies from funding political think tanks and delaying us all from finding the correct solutions we all so desperately need.

Loub,

Back in late December, I put together a number of scientifically backed arguments to Rich in which I discussed the relationship of the recorded CO2 increase and the 0.68C global temperature rise since 1900.

The relationship is based on latest global energy balance observations from satellite data showing the amount of increased heat energy maintained in the atmosphere due to the global GHG increase.

You state the burden is on the side of the AGW theorists. I have provided you with an answer that provides a confirmation to that theory.

You may or may not accept it, but you cannot simply say you don't agree. You need to back up your argument/opinion and reference some scientifically related material to your argument and how it all fits into the observed global changes of glacial retreat, reduction in Arctic sea ice extent, increase in SST, etc. The solar irradiance and sunspot data has been shown to not have any relation to those reported global temperature observations. What other solar data do you have that either confirms you opinion or counters mine? Without natural solar heating influences, how do you explain the recorded global temperature rises since 1900? Remember, you need additional heat energy to increase temperatures.

The burden is now on you. References to politically oriented web sites with opinions only are not acceptable scientific references.

Oops--looks like I got my industry front groups mixed up there. My bad.

Still, it does look suspicious that the Heartland Institute has refused to disclose its donors since 2007. That's not the way to not look like a front group. And those foundation donors? Looks like quite a few of them--the Koch Charitable Foundation, Scaife Foundations, and the Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation, to name just three--were funded with fortunes made in the fossil fuels industry. Nope, no petrodollars there.

Reply: What was the point of your earlier comment. What did you really want to say?

I'm really confused by this. Are you asking me what I wrote? Because that is what I wanted to say.

If you are asking what the meaning of my comment was, it was simply to make fun of a foolish statement made by Kipp A. (redundant, I know).

As much ink as you give that guy you'd think everyone else might be given a similar length of leash.

I fully stand by my statement that if his comment was not worthy of your editing then neither was mine.

Ted:

Well Said.
Very Well Said.

Surely the contrarian community can do better than this!

We even have Dan Miller, an official of the Heartland Institute, monitering the blog.

I made a simple enough request two days ago: where is the science?

Still no answers. Surely ONE of these "elite" speakers has published SOMETHING! Surely SOMETHING was published in connection with last year's gathering. The website, published by Mr. Miller, proudly proclaims:
"[More than 70 of the world's elite scientists specializing in climate issues] will be joined by economists, legal experts, and other climate specialists calling attention to new research that contradicts claims that Earth's moderate warming during the 20th Century primarily was man-made and has reached crisis proportions."

This is on the front page of the conference site, for crying out loud.

Surely there is ONE peer-reviewed paper publishing this "new research", right? Right?

The silence is deafening.

According to their website: "Heartland's mission is to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems."

LMAO...yep, no agenda there! Perhaps they can also do a postmortem analysis on how the free-market running wild has tanked our economy into a severe recession.

I'm also eager to see what papers came out of last year's conference. If anybody knows where I can find them, lemme know. I'm patiently waiting.

...I looked into both sides and I still believe in the man made global (not GLO-BULL) warming.

REPLY: GLO-BULL Warming is a CROCK!!!!...LOL!!!!

Hee hee hee...Ain't I a Stinker???...:-D.....

Interesting article in Financial Times about difficulties in cap-and-trade markets: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/be0478b2-e692-11dd-8e4f-0000779fd2ac.html

Free registration may be required to read the whole article.

Hey, Brett: Great article and responses! I am just sitting back and reading both sides. Interesting!
srr

The "teach in" is basically analogous to the Hitler Youth - a shameless attempt to indoctrinate the youth of the country with the propoganda they are pushing. If I had a child in this nation's school system, I wouldn't permit them to attend it unless and until the full spectrum of scientific viewpoints on the topic were included, which is obviously not what is going on.

Brookline Tom

I didn't attack you, I didn't even refer to anything you said. I merely suggested that you get with your buds and get a law passed to silence the AGW deniers or contrarians. Then you would be happy. You know you want to.

Three days since my original request, still no cites.

Publication in peer-reviewed journals is the bedrock of modern science. If it isn't published, it isn't science.

Whatever it is that's being promoted by the second Heartland Institute gathering, it is NOT science.

For those readers who may have bothered to read Brookline Tom's Rant about WHERE'S THE SCIENCE , WHERE'S THE SCIENCE ? ? My apologies for not having had the forsight to inform you that the SCIENCE Tom [and others like him] is [are] looking for seems to allude him [them] on a rather regular basis . This is probably because these are people who don't like science that is based on reality [unless it's virtual reality we're talking about - i.e. Computer generated models]. So once again , for any of you that were looking for the science that uses actual satellite data [ Which is the most accurate we have] , here it is: http://www.drroyspencer.com/research-articles/satellite-and-climate-model-evidence/

I've seen a couple different sites that say troposphere temperatures show that the earth has been in a cooling period since 1998! These sites say this is a more accurate way to judge "GLOBAL"
temperature.

Reply: The RSS satellite temp site for the lower troposhere (closest to the surface) still shows a +.157K trend per decade. The combined trop/stratosphere is slightly cooling with the lower stratopshere even more so.

Isn't it true that carbon dioxide is a naturally occuring gas and is absolutely necessary for life to exist on earth? Isn't it true that past warming cycles have shown that the cO2 levels rise after the warm cycle rather than preceding it????
I think Algore is inventing a crisis!

In response to Tom's claim that "If it isn't peer reviewed it's not science" , I should point out that Spencer used 3 Climate models used by the IPCC to demonstrate his point. These models were given the stamp of approval by the IPCC as usable evidence. Whether they were peer reviewed or not I don't know but if they were not then they should not ,under Tom's definition , be acceptable as evidence of proof that AGW theory is valid. If the models were peer reviewed then they should be just as valid as evidence to be used by the other side as well. Spencer is simply showing that there is an alternative way of interpreting the data that the IPCC has used in their AR4 with respect to FEEDBACKS . Spencer has also pointed out that his findings Will be published in The Journal of Climate this Month. It should probably also be pointed out that historically [as far as I have seen] the scientific method since the late 16th century has developed from a regimen of 1] Observing your surroundings , then 2] making a theoretical supposition from your observations. The problem with the IPCC's feedback approach is that they have done just the opposite . They started with a theory and tried to make the data fit the theory and this is what Spencer has been trying to get people to understand as to why the IPCC's feedback values are wrong. If you wish to belive that it must be peer reviewed to be legit , so be it. But I would still encourage ANYONE who really wants to at least see what is really going on in the world of climate research with regards to feedbacks , go to the site and see with your own eyes. Use your own mind and figure it out on your own , don't let someone else try and tell you that they can do the thinking for you . Why don't YOU decide for yourself what you think is legit and what isn't . What have you got to lose ? http://www.drroyspencer.com/research-articles/satellite-and-climate-model-evidence/

Mary continues to attack her own bogeyman (perhaps because he is easier to knock down) rather than address the substance of my comments.

SAGWH, the world of peer-reviewed science is filled with papers based on "actual satellite data".

Anybody with five bucks and an internet kiosk account can self-publish whatever rant they want. The fact that a website includes pretty pictures drawn from "actual satellite data" does not make it "science", nor does the fact that its author is an actual scientist with actual credentials.

When Dr. Spencer's piece is submitted for review by a peer-reviewed journal, any resulting changes incorporated into his document, and the result published in a relevant journal, THEN it becomes "science".

Until then, it's just another piece of contrarian claptrap.

Ron | January 22, 2009 6:23 PM Sometimes. Sometimes it is the other way around. Please read W.F. Ruddiman;s popular "Plows, Plagues and Petroleum" and then David Archr's "The Long Thaw".

Tom it would not matter even if Spencer's most recent work does get peer reviewed and given the most stellar of accolades. You would still just have as closed of a mind as to the reality of the Climate Sensitivty [Talk about being in Denial- Sheesh ! ! !]. You don't want to face the truth - If the Climate sensitivity is not highly positive then there is simply no way you can get to a climate catastrophy from here. BTW for those who caught it , but were too polite to say anything : in my entry of two days ago TYPO : correct term should have been ELUDED not ALLUDED [Hate when that Happens].

BT:

Mark Paquette's admission in a thread above jsut about kills the peer-reviewed science debate as far as being truthful.

His comments were exactly the thing I had been concerned about with peer reviewing. You said, Oh no, that NEVER happens. Well, I guess it does. His admission essentially provides the evidence I need.

Mary is right, your new president will work to silence his critics and AGW will benefit from the effort. You should be happy.

Darren, I have NO CLUE what you are talking about.

I have no clue what "admission" you mean, and even less insight into any possible correlation to the role of peer-reviewed publications in science. It looks to me as though Mark Paquette is being batted around like a badminton birdie by Morano and his ilk.

Can you please be more specific about what you think I said "NEVER" happens, and why you think whatever it was DID happen?

What I DO know is that there have been no peer-reviewed publications cited, in spite of my many requests, in support of the "new research" claimed by the organizers of this year's contrarian circus, nor were any cited from last year's event.

BTW, I also offered a response to SAGWH's comment, but it apparently fell into the spam trap. Hopefully Brett can locate and post it.

Reply: Tom, I looked for it all the way back to friday night and could not locate it. When did you specifically create it?

When did you specifically create it?

I can't find it in my browser history either. Perhaps the javascript in the submit page crashed in the browser before the comment actually hit the wire.

It would have been late Saturday night or early (as in just after midnight) Sunday.

Reply: I still don't see it BT.

Sure Heartland must be a right-wing group !!

But my own experience would support their skepticism.

My wife and daughter returned last month from a Caribbean Island 150 miles south of Cuba. The evenings were the coldest in 10 years: a chilly 18 � 19C vs usual 23-26 C.

Just a blip in local weather ?

My wife and I were in the SAME place last November and suffered the same cold temperatures: 18 nighttime to 26 C daytime max. I didn't swim once because the sea was unusually cool as well.
Friends returning from Bahamas.. said it was even worst ! They shivered most days in cool breeezes.

My sister in Paris this winter experienced �winter flowers� dying off due to record unseasonably cold temperatures.

But heck maybe its just the economic slowdown impacting the climate ?

It seems to me that the arguments are not whether GW exists, but it's cause. Most of the articles published in scientific journals (the ones I have found) that are written by persons with relevant experience and/or background, support global warming. (IE Naomi Oreskes study of 928 published papers concerning GW, not one of the scientists studied denied GW.) Not specifically man-made chicken little GW, but the effect itself. The fight seems to be the 'why'. Does it matter? Every significant issue that has ever come up has had it's factions, which many times use the issue for personal gain. However, if 'A' then 'B' then 'C' does happen, and many low-lying countries/geographic areas are submurged, do the people who used to live in those places care about the 'why'? Statistics can always be manipulated to support a viewpoint. The trick is to weed thru the glitter till you find the 'proveable'. Thanks to whoever put this site up. Very interesting. (please excuse spelling errors etc. wanted to finish this before leaving for work)