And here is a review of the 2008 conference:
Normal scientific conferences have the goal of discussing ideas and data in order to advance scientific understanding. Not this one. The organisers are suprisingly open about this in their invitation letter to prospective speakers, which states: “The purpose of the conference is to generate international media attention to the fact that many scientists believe forecasts of rapid warming and catastrophic events are not supported by sound science, and that expensive campaigns to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are not necessary or cost-effective.”
So this conference is not aimed at understanding, it is a PR event aimed at generating media reports. (The “official” conference goals presented to the general public on their website sound rather different, though – evidently these are already part of the PR campaign.)
Snugly ensconced in the group-think of this blog. You are aware, of course, that there are many scientists who dispute the chicken little claims of the global warming crowd (oops, I forgot; it’s now called “climate change.”) Russian scientists have found a link between sun spot activity and temperature variations on this planet. Some of them are predicting a cooling trend since sun spot activity has been dormant for a year. Keep an open mind!
We need intelligent conservative commentary.
to think that I always thought I was just reacting to the kneejerk naysayers who insist that human activity’s effect on global warming is just liberal, chicken little whining. Of course, there’s a Muslim terrorist hiding behind every mailbox waiting to get us, so everyone has their fears. I happen to think that like many things, global warming (climate change to the necessarily politically correct), is a cyclical thing. The earth goes through warming and cooling cycles, the ice ages being extreme examples of cold cycles. Martha’s Vineyard is known as a terminal morain in geological, glacial terminology. That is, it is the result of debris pushed along by the glacier as it traveled south, remaining as the earth warmed and the glacier receded. What I see human activity doing is effecting, not the broad cycle, but accelerating conditions around the edges, and effecting us as a result. We are better off heeding its warnings, than not.
there is more than one side to this story, but simply searching out contrarian positions is not productive. We were dragged into an invasion of Iraq based on ‘evidence’ that was found by similar methods, finding intelligence that supports a predetermined position, rather than analyzing the data gathered and following it to a conclusion.
… like you are the one with the closed mind.
<
p>
<
p>You are aware, of course, that there are many scientist who, while in dispute with other scientists, would never ever characterize anothers arguments as ‘chicken little’… In fact, the use of such a term, in any scientific paper other than that concerning the psychology and pathophysiology of fear, would be cause for rejection.
<
p>
<
p>You are quite obviously not a scientist, so I’m not going to go back and forth with you on the science, Russian or otherwise. I will note, however, that we’ve been here before. When I was child there was a lot of talk about ‘acid rain‘. A lot of the ‘controversy’ was ginned up by market fundamentalists on the right who simply didn’t want to be curbed in their ability to pollute. Well, they lost that fight and they are going to lose this one. It’s only in the past decade or so that we’ve seen significant gains in returning many rivers and streams to health specifically because we were able to curb many of the more directly harmful pollutants. You can track it quite clearly: as the level of pollutants rise, so too did the level of acidic depositions. Many fought to deny this and to prevent curbs on emissions but they lost. And as those emissions have decreased, so too has the problem of acidic deposition. The scientists were right on that issue, and they are right on this issue.
<
p>Scientists have an excellent track record, you see… And people who bet against scientists also have an excellent track record… of being wrong!
<
p>Can’t get my mind more open that that…
It’s been well known for a long time that sun spot activity and temperatures are causally linked. Paradoxically, the sun gets just a hair brighter near sun spot maximum. So of course temperatures go up.
<
p>In the late 1600s and early 1700s, sunspots were almost entirely absent for a seventy-year period; over the course of one thirty year period during that time, only 50 sunspots were observed. Usually, in 30 years, you might expect to see 50 thousand spots. And this time corresponds to the Little Ice Age. This connection between solar activity and global temperatures has been well-known for over a hundred years.
<
p>And it is true that the earth has cooled somewhat in recent years, and that we are now at a solar minimum (or will be in early 2009). When the sun heats back up again in the mid 2010s, expect things here on earth to follow suit.
<
p>But this doesn’t change the fact that climate change* is ongoing and can be seen in longer-term trends (don’t look at a decade, look at a century). Then look at solar activity in the long term.
<
p>And yes, you’ll find that the last five solar maxima are, in fact, greater than earlier ones have been. I’m willing to concede that solar activity is likely to cause some warming. But a lot more warming is going to be caused by record levels of greenhouse gasses.
<
p>Even supposing the majority of the warming were to be solar in nature, I’d still argue we have a responsibility to reduce our carbon footprint and greenhouse gas output in order to mitigate the situation. It is, in fact, possible to fix a situation without having caused it in the first place.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/i…
<
p>Apparently the naysayers are increasing in number!
Well, they might be increasing in number because the Naysayers pay $1,000 honoraria for scientists to naysay at their naysaying conferences and they pay $10,000 for naysayers to write naysaying papers. Usually, talks at scientific conferences and papers in scientific journals are not so handsomely remunerated.
<
p>As for the latest empirical evidence, the news about the Arctic ice’s disappearance should be obvious, palpable, and measurable — even to those who are allegedly intelligent.
Is it so hard for you to admit that maybe there is another side to this scientific question? All we are saying is give open mindedness a chance. There is still a lot of research to be done, especially in regards to cloud formation and the relationship of cloud formation to ground temperatures. As a “liberal” you are supposed to have an open mind and not be so dogmatic.
Look, there are some things about which there can be reasonable doubt or difference of opinion, e.g., what set of policies would best reinvigorate Fall River? I don’t know the answer to that and no one can. There can be many sides to the question. There are open questions in science. Couples have communication problems where each realizes that the same words mean different things to each of them.
<
p>The fact of global warming is different.
<
p>The evidence is incontrovertible. It is not liberal to pretend that there is an open question here. To do so isn’t liberal. It’s moronic.
<
p>Please, please, look at the maps of Arctic ice now and earlier. Look at the disappearance of glaciers. Read about the crevices forming in the ice mass on Greenland. These effects are not subtle ones about which “open mindedness” is required.
<
p>The question of causation is, of course, more indirect and subtle than empirical questions. But look, I was responding to someone who doesn’t even think the empirical question settled.
<
p>Do you still think there are two sides on the tobacco question? There used to be medical doctors recruited by the tobacco industry who insisted smoking was good for you. If those guys were still around, would you be doubting my liberalism?
Climate change is as old as the earth herself. Just see the evidence that the Sahara was once lush tropical land 9-12,000 years ago. There are many probable causes of climate change besides mankind: the fact that the earth wobbles on its axis, sunspots, cloud cover, volcanic dust, etc. This particular change may or may not be good toward mankind, if indeed it is what you say it is. (ice floes are actually increasing in Antartica). Don’t be so quick to swallow up everything that the green movement says. As a matter of fact there are usually many more than two sides to any controversy. As for tobacco, you are correct. Certain doctors and athletes sold out for money on that issue.
Do you have a link?
<
p>And why is that more significant than the massive evidence on the side that there is global warming?
To get your side of the story go go realclimate.org Or go to “Antartica Cooling Controversy,” Wikipedia. Skepticalscience.com does have some interesting material.
Delicious! below as the links you provide support my claims.
… side, but the problem with ‘on-the-other-hand-ism’ is that it can amplify minority views beyond their significance. Of course there is another side to the climate change issue. The fact that among the scientific community it is an extreme minority, though, should count for some ignoring of it. That is, if there were any justice to science reporting, 99% of reporting on climate change wouldn’t even mention the minority view. There are minority views about the holocaust, and thankfully they don’t come up very much.
Leave it to one of you wing-nuts to try to taint those who have serious scientific objections to the
“Climate Change” movement to drag in the word “holocaust.”
Is that the best that you can do to make your argument? Are you so sure that 99% of scientists agree with your position? Do you have proof for that statement?
There have been a number of studies and reports on how the existence of global warming has an overwhelming scientific consensus. The consensus on its being caused by humans is almost as large.
<
p>And yes, they laughed at Columbus, but the argument for the earth being round is substantive and didn’t require a $10,000 payment to appear in a scholarly journal.
Do you seriously care what your insurance agent has to say about global warming? How about a copier salesperson? Or your lawyer? The biggest proponents of global warming as a hoax on this site fall have those jobs in real life. They, like Jacoby, are also GOP appartchiks. Go figure.
<
p>Now, as Mr. Lynne points, actual scientists overwhelmingly believe global warming exists. Why do you think that is?
I actually would like to know what insurance companies think of the prospect of global warming, since it’s their job to assess risk. If they get it wrong, they lose lots of money in claims.
… insurance companies, but we know the Defense Department and intelligence community are serious about it.
Brooks, one of the NYT’s conservative columnists frequently has an insight I appreciate. And he’s willing to be critical of his party.
<
p>Jacoby columns are terrible. A waste of paper in the name of “balance”. The Globe would do well to find a more intelligent conservative.
<
p>The speakers at this conference are the few (very very few, only ones I know of that’s a total of 2 out of 1000’s) scientists who are skeptics in climate change and are not really particularly active in actual climate change research. The MIT Club of Cape Cod invited Lindzen down for a talk and us MIT alums in Woods Hole wrote a lot of frustrated letters. All I can say is there’s an audience (conservative) for these skeptics, so we keep hearing about them. That’s pretty much the beginning and end of the story. No scientific impact at all.
It seems you don’t agree with his thoughts. Fair enough. But alowing a spech doesn’t constitute endorsement or agreement.
<
p>FTR, I am a sceptic as to the cause of climate change, but regard efforts to be greener as economically sound and cleaner, so am all for them.
{Response to Edgarthearmenian so as not to torture the right margin)
<
p>But if I go to http://www.skepticalscience.com and search for Antarctica, I read that this is the skeptic’s argument:
The amount of ice surrounding Antarctica is now at the highest level ever measured for this time of the year, since satellites first began to monitor it almost 30 years ago. All of the IPCC’s models of Antarctica in the twenty-first century forecast a gain in ice, as a warmer surrounding ocean evaporates more water, which subsequently falls in the form of snow when it hits the continent. Other studies, such as Peter Doran’s in Nature in 2003, show actual cooling in recent decades. It’s simply too cold for rain in Antarctica, and it’ll stay that way for a very long time. The bottom line is that there is more ice than ever surrounding Antarctica
and this is the response from the site:
Antarctic cooling is a uniquely regional phenomenon. In fact, the case of Antartica cooling is a great case study on how the media and global warming skeptics seize upon a study and interpret it inappropriately. The original study observed regional cooling in east Antarctica. The hole in the ozone layer above the South Pole causes cooling in the stratosphere. This increased circular winds around the continent preventing warmer air from reaching east Antarctica and the Antarctic plateau. The flip side of this is the Antarctic Peninsula has “experienced some of the fastest warming on Earth, nearly 3°C over the last half-century”.
While East Antarctica is gaining ice due to increased precipitation, Antarctica is overall losing ice. This is mostly due to melting in West Antarctica which recently featured the largest melting observed by satellites in the last 30 years. As well as melting, Antarctic glaciers are accelerating further adding to sea level rise. Antarctic cooling is a uniquely regional phenomenon. In fact, the case of Antarctica cooling is a great case study on how the media and global warming skeptics seize upon a study and interpret it inappropriately. The original study observed regional cooling in east Antarctica. The hole in the ozone layer above the South Pole causes cooling in the stratosphere. This increased circular winds around the continent preventing warmer air from reaching east Antarctica and the Antarctic plateau. The flip side of this is the Antarctic Peninsula has “experienced some of the fastest warming on Earth, nearly 3°C over the last half-century”.
I think that you would agree that the Skeptical Scientist (Cook) is an objective observer on this topic. Actually all three sites to which I referred you would probably support your point of view. Read Cook carefully, however, and you will see that as a scientist he is not quick to draw conclusions on a dearth of evidence. For me the evidence is not so overwhelming as it is for you. I know that your dinner is going to taste really good tonight, so the least you can do is thank me.
I hope you enjoy your dinner too.
… that ‘real’ scientists believe the minority position. So we have scientists on one side and scientists on the other side (a simplification, but necessary for illustration).
<
p>Fortunately for us, scientists themselves are very well equipped to debate such matters. When such a group comes to a consensus, it would be absurd to continue talking about the subject as if a consensus hasn’t been reached.
<
p>Nobody is condoning censorship…. just smarter speech that reflects the reality of the scientific community consensus.
<
p>’On-the-other-handism’ reporting of science too often is a distortion of the relative weight of scientific opinion.
and in light of your exchange with KBusch…
<
p>Do you like apples?
I am sitting here laughing at the group-think reaction to anyone who dares to suggest that the BMG position may not be correct. Yes, indeed, without the Jeff Jacoby’s of the world you would all be ensconced in your group-think cocoon, although any questioning of your positions seems to result in a hardening of attitudes and disdain for those who dare to question your assumptions.
Please, however, no hard feelings. I really like everyone on this blog.
That’s the problem with Jeff Jacoby: he’s so intellectually lazy and dishonest (attributes of a plagiarist) that he isn’t a challenge.
<
p>So we’re not leaving the cocoon until there’s a good reason to.
… my ‘assumption’, as you put it, is that it is probably reasonable to accept the consensus view of the overwhelming majority of scientists who have looked in on this. It is true that I’m relying on the reasoning and research of others, but we rely on and put faith in the work of others on a daily basis.
<
p>All that being said, your concern is that a mindset of ‘group think’, as you put it, is demonstrative that we are somehow immune from evidence. That’s not true at all. I leave it to more qualified people to evaluate any evidence and when their collective evaluation causes them to re-think their consensus view, of course we’ll listen.
<
p>The problem happens when someone with other agendas (selling conservatism in a paper for example) bypasses the normal evaluation process of new (or old) evidence and declares a winner all by himself. I’d be much more afraid of that thought process than any others that have been demonstrated here by the ‘pro-consensus’ advocates.
Lately, when reading anything about global warming skeptics, I’m sadly reminded of the Reggie Lewis case. A “dream team” of cardiologists determined that Lewis should not play basketball ever again. So he checked out of New England Baptist and found a doctor who delivered a diagnosis that would allow him to continue his career. You all know what happened after that.
We could find the name of the doctor who said to continue and name this sort of expert-shopping after him or her.
Dr. Gilbert Mudge.
As a local elected official, I get a free copy of The Heartland Institute’s various publications in my mailbox at City Hall. For a taste, a recent issue of their tabloid newspaper, Environment & Climate News, includes a book review of Gravity’s Arc: The Story of Gravity, from Aristotle to Einstein and Beyond, by David Darling, with the headline “Study of Gravity Exposes Weakness of Global Warming Theories.”
<
p>This conclusion might come as a surprise to David Darling, whose website contains a number of articles and links to studies that provide support for the existence of global warming, and a comment from him that:
<
p>I don’t know if THI is trying to be sardonic or merely (albeit perhaps unintentionally) ironic, but each issue of Environment & Climate News comes wrapped in its own individual plastic wrapper (the kind you can’t recycle). I think it may be intentional because none of the other publications I receive from THI come wrapped in plastic. In any event, it sure seems to me like they are adding insult to injury, whether intentionally or not.
<
p>As for Jeff Jacoby, he is the conservative equivalent of FoxNews’s token liberal, Alan Colmes: his columns are generally pretty lame and he appears to be there only so the Globe can call its op-ed page “fair and balanced.” The Globe ought to be able to find a better foil to represent the other wing’s side of the issues.