Global Warming Skeptics Prepare for International Conference

Hundreds of the world’s leading “skeptics” of the theory of man-made global warming will meet in New York City March 2-4, 2008 to present their case and discuss the latest scientific, economic and political research on climate change.

The conference is being organized by The Heartland Institute and a growing list of cosponsors, including Cascade Policy Institute, the International Climate Science Coalition, and the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine.

“The purpose of the conference is to provide a platform for the hundreds of scientists, economists, and policy experts who dissent from the so-called “˜consensus’ on global warming,” said Heartland President Joseph Bast.

“Hundreds of scientists, many of them with distinguished careers and many appearances in the peer-reviewed literature, believe the Modern Warming is natural and moderate,” Bast noted. “They are being censored by the press and demonized by environmental advocacy groups.

“This is their chance to speak out,” said Bast. “If 400 or 500 “˜skeptics’ from around the world assemble in New York City, it will be difficult for policymakers and journalists to ignore us.”

Plans for the conference include five keynote presentations and 25 panels of scientists discussing a wide variety of global warming-related issues. Approximately 100 experts will give formal presentations at the conference, with several hundred others expected to attend and share information in a more informal manner.

Five tracks of panels will address paleoclimatology, climatology, global warming impacts, the economics of global warming and political factors. Each track will consist of four or five panels composed of experts on some aspect of the general topic. Cascade’s President and CEO John A. Charles, Jr. is tentatively scheduled to speak.

Many of the presenters will provide written papers to supplement their presentations, which will be collected and edited for publication following the event. Other follow-up activities include planning for a follow-up conference in London in 2009, the launch of a scholarly journal and publication of a rebuttal to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s recently released Fourth Assessment Report.

The Heartland Institute is providing travel scholarships to qualified scientists, economists and policy experts willing to speak at the event. A limited number of scholarships also will be available to elected officials and government officials interested in attending.

Registration for the event is $625 before February 15 and $720 after that date. Media and students may attend at the special rate of $312 before February 15 and $360 after that date.

For more information, visit the conference website or contact Heartland Senior Fellow James M. Taylor.


Based in Portland, Cascade Policy Institute is Oregon’s free market think tank.

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to LinkedIn Post to Reddit

Posted by at 06:00 | Posted in Measure 37 | 78 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • Jerry

    As I write this it is 17 degrees in New York City.

    China has just come off the coldest winter there in a century – by their own admission!

    It is miuns 6 degrees in Fargo right now – not counting wind chill. If we throw that in it is minus 27 F.

    Scientists recently concluded that the sun spots are not increasing as they should be, and they expect cooling temperatures on earth as a result.

    An extreme cold weather alert has just been issued for Canada as I enter these comments.

    Cold weather in India has pushed potato futures to all time highs.

    Students in Pennsylvania could not get back to campus from weekend trips home due to the severe cold weather and snowfall.

    I believe this conference will have a lot to discuss – unless it gets cancelled due to the cold weather.

  • Bob Clark

    On a personal level, I wish the Willamette Valley were a bit warmer. I spend almost 10 months out of the year in multiple layers, and spent most of this past December trying to stay warm even inside our house. I used to deliver newspapers back in the 60s near Portland, and I can’t really tell any significant difference between today’s climate in PDX and that in the 60s. Then to have government officials talk about wanting to cool down the place is depressing. They also seem to want to bet a lot on untested alternative energy sources instead of just doing the most direct things like drilling for more oil and natural gas. I’m afraid the Globe might actually go through a natural cooling cycle, and large numbers of people will end up freezing to death because we didn’t take care of the basics like supplementing our oil and natural gas systems. The risks cut more than one way on the issue of man made global warming.

  • Landy Reonard

    This gathering is just a bunch of big oil interests and the same people who hate children and want to destroy our public schools.

    • devietro

      Wow, its rare that your that far off base. Its interesting that the same people who claim to want a marketplace of ideas and unrestricted press, love to censor anybody who might challenge the prevailing wisdom if that means challenging liberals.

      Climate change is exactly the type of thing that conferences are for, its a topic with very few real facts and LOTS of interpretation by both sides. On one side we have the eco freaks who assume that every time it does something different than the farmers almanac says it should have done its because I drive and SUV. On the other side we have people who believe that we could nuke the ocean without any effect.

      Of course the answer is somewhere in between. Let both sides have their conferences and both present finding and then let the American people decide. Its that simple, the marketplace of ideas is a very capitalist approach to information.

      Now as far as schools, lets not forget that private schools and home schooling parents consistently do a far better job with less money per student. Also hate to sound partisan but its not the amount of money that is hurting our schools its the allocation of that money. If you looked at the amount of public money that gets recycled into failed administrators and union lobbyists we would have the solution to out “budget crisis”

  • David

    Jerry: Weather is not the same as climate. The first takes place over day and weeks, and second over decades. Statements about the weather say absolutely nothing about the climate — only statistics can do that.

    • Jerry

      Exactly. Well said. Could not have said it better myself.

      And climate data does not suggest the end of the world by burning up, does it??

      Weather becomes climate according to your most gracious educational piece, so this weather we are having will contribute statistically (and in real life) to cooling climatic conditions.

      • David

        Jerry wrote:
        > And climate data does not suggest the end
        > of the world by burning up, does it??

        They suggest we could be in for a lot of trouble. Temperatures rose about 1 C last century, and are increasing about 0.2 C/decade now. We have emitted enough CO2 already to insure about 2 C more warming, and are showing no signs of slowing down our GHG emissions.

        So yes, the data make the future state of the world look pretty warm (and pretty bleak).

        This is all spelled out in the IPCC FAR, Jerry, issued last year. Which parts of these calculations do you disagree with, specifically?

        • Jerry

          The figures that ignore the sun as the primary cause of temperature change on this planet. Those figures.

  • CRAWDUDE

    I hope eveyone remembers that I suggested the environmental whack jobs led by Algore fabricate a global cooling theory, instead of the warming one, lol. They didn’t listen and look what happened, cooler everywhere! I grow a garden every summer, its amazing how you start noticing sudtle weather differences from one year to another.

    According to a recent National Center for Policy Analysis report, last year’s declaration of impending doom from the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in the form of its Fourth Assessment Report was based on opinion instead of science. As hard data continues to emerge, global warming becomes increasingly difficult to defend. Hundreds of highly qualified scientists and climatologists unrelated to the UN’s IPCC pocket-science squad are contesting the assumption of so-called “experts” that CO2 is the primary force driving climate change. A number of scientists discount the warming theory entirely. In fact, many believe that the globe may be getting cooler-and some of them are putting their money where their mouths are. Believing that the world will be cooler in ten years, a pair of Russian scientists have even waged a $10,000 bet with British climate “expert” and global-warming alarmist James Annan. Meanwhile, China is battling its coldest winter in a century. Scores of people are dead and millions are stranded. Will Leftmedia shills report the events there with newfound skepticism for global warming? Don’t count on it.

    Most of the evidence concerning U.S. temperature trends is collected by NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center, which gathers information from about 1,200 weather observation stations across the nation. These stations are small wooden sheds with thermometers, which are read at intervals, mostly by volunteers. Many are located in sprawling urban and industrial centers, known as “heat islands,” and are subject to higher readings than stations in rural areas where temperatures are subject mostly to “land use effects.”
    Most of the recent global-warming alarmists use 1998 as the benchmark for the hottest year on record, but it turns out that their reporting is flawed, the result of a math blunder.
    In fact, 1934 was the hottest year on record, and four of the ten hottest years in the U.S. were recorded in the 1930s. The second hottest year on record was 1998, but the third hottest was 1921, not 2006. Notably, six of the ten hottest years occurred prior to 90 percent of the economic growth associated with increased greenhouse-gas emissions.
    H. Sterling Burnett, a senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis, reports, “Much of the current global-warming fear has been driven by [NASA scientist James] Hansen’s pronouncements, and he routinely claims to have been censored by the Bush administration for his views on warming. Now that NASA, without fanfare, has cleaned up his mess, Hansen has been silent-I guess we can chalk this up to self-censorship.”
    New climate reports
    In the winter of 2007, NASA satellites indicated that water temperatures in the Gulf of Alaska were dropping, suggesting that cooling Pacific waters may be a precursor to the reversal of a 30-year warming trend. The cooling resulted in the coldest season of Arctic air the lower 48 have seen in more than three decades.
    Additionally, Reuters “News” Service reports, “Australian scientists have discovered a giant underwater current that is one of the last missing links of a system that connects the world’s oceans and helps govern global climate. New research shows that a current sweeping past Australia’s southern island of Tasmania toward the South Atlantic is a previously undetected part of the world climate system’s engine-room.”
    This, of course, raises an all-important question: How can the climate debate be “settled” if we still don’t know what we don’t know?

    • David

      Crawdude wrote:
      > As hard data continues to emerge,
      > global warming becomes increasingly difficult
      > to defend.

      Really? Please show us this data then, instead of merely alluding to it.

      > Many are located in sprawling urban and industrial
      > centers, known as “heat islands,”

      Scientists have routinely corrected their data for UHIs for a couple of decades now.

      > In fact, 1934 was the hottest year on record,

      Not globally it wasn’t. 1934 pertains to US-only. Almost all of the dozen or so warmest years in the historical record have occurred since about 1990.

      In any case, it’s irrelevant what the warmest year is. What matters are the climate *forcings* — what’s driving the climate *today*.

      > How can the climate debate be “settled” if we
      > still don’t know what we don’t know?

      Why do you buy insurance for your house, if you don’t know for sure that it will burn down in your lifetime?

    • David

      Crawdude wrote:
      > In the winter of 2007, NASA satellites
      > indicated that water temperatures in the
      > Gulf of Alaska were dropping, suggesting that
      > cooling Pacific waters may be a precursor to
      > the reversal of a 30-year warming trend.

      Suggesting?

      In fact, the entirety of 2007 was the 2nd warmest year on record, globally — warmer even than 1998.

      data: https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts.txt

      (In any case, one year is *still* not “climate.”)

    • David

      H. Sterling Burnett is an economist, not a climatologist or eve physical scientist. I fail to see how it is qualified to comment on climatology.

      The National Center for Policy Analysis is funded heavily by conservative political organizations, and is hardly an objective source of information.
      https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=National_Center_for_Policy_Analysis

      Oh, and Hansen certainly *did* acknowledge the US-only data correction last year — and showed that it did not matter at all for global considerations.

      You’re very good, Crawdude, at only presenting half of the story.

    • dean

      CD…at the risk of opening up the slings and arrows that are sure to follow, you are simply reciting the bunk that the well organized “skeptics” recycle over and again. Just to make a small point, you are calling into question the temperature measurements that have tracked warming in the US, but these objections are old hat and Dr James Hansen of NASA thoroughly debunked them years ago, yet they resurface. Plus…go back and read the original post here. Even the so-called “skeptics” are now saying they don’t doubt the world is warming, they are now doubting the cause.

      “They believe the Modern Warming is natural and moderate.” What does this mean? There is a “consensus” among the skeptics? How can THAT be?

      The “Heartland institue.” What a quaint name that is. Who funds it CD? And the National Center for Policy Analysis. Look it up. Its a right-wing “think-tank,” not exactly a reliable source. And finally, what expertise does John Charles offer on climatology?

      Its crap is what it is.

      • CRAWDUDE

        I know Dean, by posting this so called bunk as you put it, brings people like David out with their counter bunk. This in turn holds the entire Global Warming theory up as the bunk that it is.

        There is no hard proof either way, only reports and studies that were one with the results already decided.

        His or your studies, articles or opinion peices carry the same weight with me as mine with you. Now if David feels persinal attacks on me somehow lend creedance to his argument have at it, his arrows have suction cups on the end….

  • Dan Pangburn

    Climate obviously has changed and will continue to change. The observation that ice is melting, which can look dramatic on TV, does not show that human activity is the cause. The assertion that humans are or ever can have a significant influence on climate by limiting the use of fossil fuel (a.k.a. limiting human production of carbon dioxide) is not supported by any historical record. The only implication that carbon dioxide level has a significant effect on climate comes from huge but still incomplete computer programs that attempt to predict future climate.

    Avoid the group-think and de facto censorship by Climate Scientists. Directly interrogate official government data from ORNL and NOAA as follows:

    If the carbon dioxide level from Law Dome, Antarctica https://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/co2/lawdome.combined.dat is graphed on the same time scale as fossil fuel usage from https://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/tre_glob.htm it is discovered that the current carbon dioxide level increase started about 1750, a century before any significant fossil fuel use.

    If average earth temperature since 1880 from https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/anomalies/anomalies.html is graphed on the same time scale as fossil fuel use it is discovered that there is no correlation between rising fossil fuel use and average global temperature at least until 1976.

    The asserted hypothesis that, since 1976, increasing carbon dioxide level has caused the temperature to rise is refuted by the carbon dioxide level from https://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/vostok.html and temperature from https://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/temp/vostok/vostok.1999.temp.dat determined from the Vostok, Antarctica ice cores. If these are graphed on a higher resolution time scale it is discovered that the change in atmospheric carbon dioxide level lags earth temperature change by hundreds of years.

    If Law Dome and recent carbon dioxide data and Vostok and recent temperature are plotted on the same graph since 1000 AD (or before) it is observed that temperature oscillates up to plus or minus 1.5 degrees Celsius (half pitch about 100 yr) while carbon dioxide level remains essentially unchanged (between 9000BC and 1750AD). This will also show that the average global temperature 200 years ago was about the same as now, 400 years ago was significantly higher than now and current rate of temperature change is fairly typical. Recent measurements show that average earth temperatures in 2006 and 2007 were actually lower than in 1998.

    For most of the history of earth, as shown at https://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/Geocarb_III-Berner.pdf , carbon dioxide level has been several times higher than it is at the present.

    The conclusion from all this is that carbon dioxide change does not cause significant climate change. Actions based on the human-caused global warming mistake put freedom and prosperity at risk.

    • CRAWDUDE

      Thanks Dan ! Dean and David will be by soon to proclaim that only their experts and their studies are the only correct ones. Though they sound like the bunk that is recited by well organized Global Warming theorists.

      While everyone else “simply recites the bunk from well organized skeptics “……………..”everyone else” apparently work for the oil companies! Or at least they rationalize their views are the right ones that way.

      Hey wasn’t this the year these massive hurricanes were going to devastste the East coast? Wow, keep your fingers crossed guys, maybe you’ll get the human tradegies you hope for next season!

      • David

        > Thanks Dan ! Dean and David will be by soon to
        > proclaim that only their experts and their studies
        > are the only correct ones.

        At least we quote studies and data, which is more than you do. You simply make it up as you go along, and as I’ve shown above (and on previous posts), you’re almost always wrong and rarely know what you’re talking about.

      • David

        > Hey wasn’t this the year these massive hurricanes
        > were going to devastste the East coast?

        No. Climate science cannot make predictions on a year-by-year basis, only over longer periods of time like a decade (plus).

        There *has* been a surge in hurricane frequency since about 1990. Warmer seas were just found to have caused about 40% of this increase, according to a peer-reviewed publication by scientists in the journal Nature:
        https://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080130/sc_afp/scienceweatherhurricanesclimate_080130203004

      • David

        CD, when are you going to present the “hard data” you mentioned above that now disproves global warming?

    • David

      > If the carbon dioxide level from Law Dome, Antarctica
      > is graphed on the same time scale as fossil fuel usage from
      > it is discovered that the current carbon dioxide level increase started
      > about 1750, a century before any significant fossil fuel use.

      Of course. No scientist ever said that only fossil fuel use contributes to the rise in GHG levels in the atmosphere. Deforestation and land-use changes are other big factors — in fact, even today deforestation accounts for roughly 20% of GHG emissions. There was a great deal of deforestation back then — the US, for example, is significantly more forested now than it was 150 yrs ago. Same for Europe even earlier than that.

      Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/17/opinion/17mon1.html?ref=opinion

    • David

      > If average earth temperature since 1880 from
      > is graphed on the same time scale as fossil fuel use it is discovered that > there is no correlation between rising fossil fuel use and average global > temperature at least until 1976.

      You’re right, there isn’t a “correlation.” CO2 is just one of many factors that influence climate. So do other GHGs. So does deforestation and land-use changes. So does solar changes, volcanoes, El Ninos, and a host of other factors.

      Moreover, there are various time lags between the emissions of these gases and their associated temperature influences, which further nullifies your simplistic idea of a “correlation.”

      But when climatologists add up all these factors (natural + anthropogenic) to the best of their ability, they find that manmade GHGs *are* influencing the climate. Without including it in their models, the can’t back-predict the last century of climate. When they do include it, they can.

      Hence the conclusion of anthropogenic global warming.

      This is all spelled out in the IPCC reports, if you care to read them.

    • Anonymous

      > Recent measurements show that average earth
      > temperatures in 2006 and 2007 were actually lower than in 1998.

      Which measurements? Exactly?

      For surface temperatures this is not true. Here are the average global temperature estimates for each year:

      1998: 14.71 C
      2005: 14.77 C
      2006: 14.65 C
      2007: 14.73 C

      Source: https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts.txt
      Non-surface numbers can be found here: https://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/001335updated_ipcc_forecas.html

      In any case, I guess I have to say *again* that individual year numbers are irrelevant. We are talking about climate here — changes in atmospheric quantities that take place over *decades.” Do you understand that?

    • David

      > For most of the history of earth…
      > carbon dioxide level has been several
      > times higher than it is at the present.

      Yes… and during that time, the Earth was significantly warmer:
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record

      So what? We live today, not 550 M yrs ago. Present carbon dioxide levels are likely higher now than at any time during the past 20 M yrs, and certainly higher than in the last 800,000 yrs. Why the sudden rise in the last two centuries?

  • David

    Dan Panburn wrote:
    > The only implication that carbon dioxide level has
    > a significant effect on climate comes

    Actually, it has been known for about 200 years now that CO2 is a “greenhouse gas.”
    https://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

    Without it and other GHGs, the surface of the earth would be about 15-30 F cooler.

    See: Stefan-Boltzmann equation
    https://www.rsc.org/Education/EiC/issues/2006May/endpoint.asp

  • Harry

    A simple question for the blog admin:

    Do David and dean share the same IP address? Please don’t publish the IP addresses, just search and let us know if they are using the same IP address.

    Smells fishy…kinda like sock puppets.

    But, of course, I could be wrong. There are many like them.

  • eagle eye

    I’m glad that they are having this conference, though in looking over the list of speakers, it’s a bit disappointing that some of the best-known and best of the “skeptic” climate scientists are not listed.

    It’s good that they are having this in New York City and I hope they get lots of media publicity. It’s a small thing to counter the overwhelming one-sided publicizing by climate change propronents and the media coverage they get.

    Take an example: at universities throughout the country, there is a big push for “climate change awareness”. A lot of indoctrination in classes, often classes in which climate change has nothing to do with the subject matter. And at schools that are rich or big enough to afford it, high-profile visiting speakers. These presentations are typically all one-sided, with no representation at all from the part of the scientific community that doesn’t hold to the “consensus”. Plus, a huge sprinkling of non-scientist publicists.

    At the University of Oregon, for example, a good deal of this is going on throught the winter and spring terms. Several high-profile speakers, lots of in-house indoctrination. But not a thought given to presenting a balanced view, or even admitting a hint that there might be views of serious people that don’t match the “consensus”.

    So, Heartland Institute, my hat is off to you. Have a great conference and garner lots of publicity.

    • dean

      This is Dean…not David…whom I have never met and do not share any adress, but I do agree with his citations.

      EE…schools and universities are doing what they are supposed to do, which is education, not indoctrination. They are presenting the evidence and findings of the scientific community. There are not really 2 equivlent sides to this debate. There is the preponderance of evidence amassed and analyzed and agreed upon by the world body of climate scientists, and then there are those who disagree with them, including a handful of reputable climate scientists, but mostly economists and other disiplines. The latter group has been unable to get traction within the peer review system, so they are trying an end run with their own conference and published proceedings. This is not science…it is politics.

      CD…no one is calling you names. At least I’m not. Chill out.

      I’ve said this before, but what the heck. I don’t KNOW if the present science conclusions on global warming are true or not. I HOPE they are not true, because I don’t want to have to deal with the consequences. I hope that the “doubters” (I don’t honor them with the term “skeptic,” because ALL scientists are skeptics) are right.

      But I don’t see any reason to sit around and debate and wait. There are a lot of things we can do in the short term at very low cost to reduce greenhouse gas emissions AND to store more carbon. In the longer term, heavy investments in alternaitve energy make sense no matter if global warming is true or not, because fossil fuels are limited, are polluting, and largely come from parts of the world that do not like us.

      So doubt if you must, but try and be open to reasonable efforts to change our energy use.

      • CRAWDUDE

        Dean, no where in my post did I say anything about being angery about or at amyone. Also if what I posted looks like I was accusing you of being David then its being read incorrectly. I merely grouped you two together since your views are similar on this issue.

        As far as chilling out, you may want to practice what you preach. Remember, my original post was made in comment to the article. You and David’s were made in a frenzy to discredit mine with little or no comment about the article ( feel free to scroll back up and see) but the most anyone can get out of your’s is that : “you are simply reciting the bunk that the well organized “skeptics” recycle over and again”.

        Somewhat hypocritical , since your retort had the same opionated information as mine, your critisism could be used for either of us.

      • eagle eye

        Nope, it’s indoctrination. It’s indoctrination when the University of Oregon invites Bill McKibben, who is not even a scientist, to give a very high-profile, probably very expensive major evening lecture. It’s indoctrination when they don’t have any scientists to speak for the other side, to even bring to the attention of students and the public that there is another side, that there are distinguished scientists who doubt the “consensus” or do not believe that the problem is as serious as the “consenus” says. It’s indoctrination when professors who know nothing about climate science use class time, at the urging of the Faculty Senate, to talk about global warming in classes that aren’t even related to this topic. It’s indoctrination when ALL the presentations are one-sided (and in fact, are skewed toward an extreme version of the “consensus”, they don’t even present the real mainstream of the “consensus”.)

        It’s indoctrination, pure and simple. It ill-serves the university. Is it perhaps an example of why the universities are increasingly mistrusted and not supported even by people who otherwise might wish them well?

        You say there are only a “handful” of reputable scientific global warming skeptics. I’m not sure that a poll is the way to decide what is scientifically worth discussing, but please tell me: what is the numerical breakdown of climate-related scientists on the issue? Do you really have any data? Is the split 99-1, or is it 90-10, or is it perhaps 60-40? Just how solid is the “consensus” of the “world body of climare scientists”, as you put it?

    • David

      > I hope they get lots of media publicity

      They probably will not, since they are charging the media to attend.

      No legitimate media takes the Heartland Institute seriously anyway.

  • CRAWDUDE

    I found a pro / con site for Global Warming, since I don’t believe that its man made I’ll post the Con article first, then the pro:

    CON:Major Scientists Say Warming Threat Is A Figment Of Al Gore’s Imagination DALLAS — Vice-President Al Gore believes that the greatest threat facing civilization is human caused global warming, so reducing its threat will be an important plank in his presidential campaign.

    Gore even advocates that the U.S. sign a treaty that would reduce energy use and economic growth in order to avoid global warming. Before other candidates follow Gore’s lead, they should examine the current state of global warming science.

    In 1988, James Hansen, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute, brought “global warming” to the public’s attention for the first time when he testified before the Senate that he was “99 percent” certain ” . . . the [human caused] greenhouse effect has been detected and it is changing our climate now.”

    During the last 150 years, the Earth has warmed between 0.3 and 0.6 degrees Celsius and carbon dioxide (CO2), a primary greenhouse gas, has increased approximately 30 percent.

    Using these facts and climate models, Hansen and others argued that the earth’s current warming is due to increased CO2 caused by the use of fossil fuels.

    Shortly after Hansen testified, in 1990, the best climate models were predicting that, absent reduced greenhouse gas emissions, the earth would warm between 4.5 degrees and 6.0 degrees Celsius by 2050.

    Scientists worried that absent a sharp and immediate reduction in CO2 disaster would occur. Now, however, these same models indicate that Earth will warm between 0.8 degrees to 3.5 degrees Celsius over the next 100 years.

    And a 1995 U.S. government survey of the global climate literature predicts even less warming ¾ between 0.5 degrees and 2.0 degrees Celsius by 2100.

    Clearly, Climate models are crude predictors of global climate change. Furthermore, a study in Science October 2, 1998, refutes the claim that the current warming could only be caused by human activities.

    It showed that 12,500 years ago global temperature rose by more than 20 degrees in approximately 50 years. This natural change was more than 10 times the “catastrophic” warming environmentalists claim only humans could be causing and it occurred in half the time.

    Even if global warming is occurring the United States may be blameless since rather than being a carbon “polluter,” it turns out that the U.S. is an “air filter.”

    According to an October 16, 1998, article in Science, North America removes more carbon (about 2 billion tons) from the atmosphere than it emits (1.5 billion tons) each year.

    One reason is the tremendous regrowth of eastern U.S. forests ¾ trees remove CO2 from the atmosphere.

    And a March 12, 1999, paper in Science may have finally explained why, contrary to what global warming theory predicts, most of the present warming occurred before 1940 ¾ preceding the majority of human-caused CO2 emissions.

    In the paper, researchers concluded that when the earth shifts from glacial to warm periods every 100,000 years or so, temperatures rise before CO2 levels.

    In the middle of the last century, the earth came out of a “Little Ice Age” during which global temperature was about 1 degree cooler than at present.

    Thus, one would expect an increase in CO2 to follow the temperature increase arising from the end of the little ice age.

    By 1998, James Hansen, the father of global warming, had changed his tune, writing “The forcings that drive long-term climate change are not known with accuracy sufficient to define future climate change.”

    Hansen’s about-face should give presidential candidates pause when developing their position on global warming. Al Gore rushed to judgment about global warming, others shouldn’t make the same mistake.

    H. Sterling Burnett is Senior Policy Analyst with the National Center for Policy Analysis in Dallas, Texas. Readers may write him at NCPA, 12770 Coit Rd., Suite 800, Dallas, TX 75243

    PRO:A Record Drought And Killer Hurricanes Prove There’s A Big Change In The Weather WASHINGTON, D.C. — It’s funny how history repeats itself.

    For decades, tobacco companies denied the definitive link between smoking and cancer. They spent millions of dollars scripting a handful of skeptical scientists to assure us that smoking was safe and to create doubt among the public. Sure they bought themselves time with this tactic, but waiting for definitive proof of cigarette smoking’s health impacts cost millions their lives.

    Even though we’re are in the midst of the worst drought since the Great Depression, fossil fuel companies have adopted the same strategy to stall action on global warming.

    Just like the tobacco companies, they are spending millions of dollars on advertising and have hired a few skeptical scientists to convince us that we don’t need to act on global warming because there is no scientific proof or concern. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

    The key to the scientific debate on global warming is agreeing on when there is enough proof to sound the alarm. If the weatherman tells you there is an 80 percent chance of rain, you pack an umbrella.

    When the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the world’s leading scientific body on global warming, tells you that “the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate,” you begin to look for ways to reduce the threat.

    It would be one thing if the IPCC were the only group of scientists expressing concern. However, other statements by scientists confirm the seriousness of the warming and call for leadership on global warming.

    Two years ago, 3,000 U.S. scientists released the Scientists’ Statement on Global Climatic Disruption, an unprecedented statement urging the United States to lead in the efforts to stop global warming.

    Scientists in such fields as climatology, meteorology and atmospheric science signed the statement. In addition, ecologists, foresters, botanists, and biologists signed on because they are witnessing the wide-ranging, day-to-day impacts of global warming in their fieldwork.

    Shortly after that, more than 1,500 scientists released the “World Scientists’ Call for Action,” urging government leaders to act immediately to prevent global warming. This statement included 110 Nobel laureates and 60 U.S. National Medal of Science winners.

    Then, early this year, the 35,000 members of the American Geophysical Union released a position paper on Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases asserting that the increased concentrations of greenhouse gases are cause for legitimate public concern.

    These different statements demonstrate consensus among scientists from a broad range of disciplines and make clear that global warming will affect untold aspects of our lives.

    Scientists are not just speaking out in public. Every day new peer reviewed research is published revealing how global warming will impact everything from coastal communities and farming to the skiing and fisheries industries.

    While there is no definitive proof of global warming, the “balance” of evidence suggests that global warming is real enough to merit action. The same was the case in the long struggle over tobacco.

    The tobacco scientists who held out for 100 percent proof that cigarettes cause cancer are now responsible for the thousands of Americans with coughs that sound like a raccoon in a garbage can.

    If history holds true, the scientific community will continue to provide a relentless onslaught of evidence on global warming and the fossil fuel interests will argue that we should wait for even more definitive proof.

    With record droughts, tornadoes in the middle of Utah and a hurricane season that’s predicted to break records, do we really need full scientific consensus to realize the weather has changed?

    John Passacantando is Executive Director of Ozone Action, a non-partisan, Washington public interest group that promotes stronger Federal and international clean air standards. Readers may write him at Ozone Action, 1636 Connecticut Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20009 or E-mail him at [email protected]

    • dean

      Eagle Eye…McKibben is a respected environmental journalist who more or less “broke the story” on global warming for the wider public with his The End of Nature book. He is not a climate scientist but has researched deeply into the subject, so is an appropriate lecturer at a university as long as he does not pretend to be something other than what he is. Al Gore is also a reputable presenter on the subject, though not a scientist.

      I don’t see any obligation on the part of a university to “present the other side” if they deem that there is no reputable other side. If they teach or invite a lecturer on Darwinian evolution, which is the accepted scientific consensus on biology, are they obligated to also teach or invite a lecture on Creationism or Intelligent Design, just because a whole lot of people, including some scientists, believe that is a better explanation? I hope not. Universities are not subject to the “he said she said” convention of the mass media. Science is about the preponderance of evidence.

      On your question about the extent of the consensus,, Naomi Oreskes answered this by conducting an ISI data base research on all the global warming abstracts published in the peer reviewed journals between 1993 and 2003, summary at: https://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686#. What she found was that out of 928 published abstracts, there were NONE, as in ZERO, that refuted the consensus at that point, which is basically the same consensus as today since all the evidence (rising temperatures, increasing carbon, melting glaciers, early animal migrations, ealry plant blooms, etc…) continues to point in the same direction. The earth is warming, and atmospheric carbon is the primary cause.

      NOT A SINGLE PAPER made a case that the warming we are experiencing is “natural,” i.e. not a consequence of greenhouse gasses. What does this say about the propsed International Conference of skeptics described above? They have bupkis.

      I do agree with you that universities, like everywhere else, can adopt a “herd mentality” where people begin to pontificate on things that are out of their subject area. But, the effects of global warming cut across all disciplines and all endeavors, from public health to finance to landscape architecture (my field). Also, the present generation of college students is intensely focused on this issue, and they bring it up in class and want answers. So to the extent dealing with it becomes part of a wider curriculum, this is understandable.

      CD…okay, I apologize for stating my case badly. What I was trying to point out to you was that you were calling the temperature measurements that help document global warming into question, while the original post at least appears to accept the FACT of warming, while still doubting the CAUSE. I’m just encouraging you to at least move past the fact part and stop recycling the old stuff. No offense meant and i hope none taken.

      In the world of climate science, the issue has been settled. We should be debating the best course of action (i.e. free market versus command control). Even Newt Gingrich has gotten to that point.

      • eagle eye

        Dean, the comparison of global warming skepticism to creationism is simply idiotic. Yes, idiotic. There are very reputable, even distinguished scientists at many universities and research institutes who are “skeptics”. Probably more distinguished than anyone in climate science in Oregon, I might add. To compare them to the creationists or even intelligent design people is either simply ignorant, or dishonest, or both.

        OK, so you think Bill McKibben or Al Gore is more qualified to speak about climate science than these people. You make my case very well. Indoctrination is what it’s all about.

      • CRAWDUDE

        Dean, many of the actual scientists whoms opions I’ve posted in threads on this subject were ridiculed by you. E.G they were either not climate specialists or worked for some dubious big oil financed think tank……though you never provided proof of that.

        Now out of both those articles you pick out and highlight 2 non-scientist: One a reporter who you credit for “cracking” the case….though the scientist that originated the theory now states there is no firm proof to its validity.

        The other is Al Gore who owns the only company you can purchase carbon credits from, this alone makes his objectivity questionable….and thats without bring up his questionable mental status ( The 2nd part is my personal opinion, I think hes got a screw loose ).

        Had I used those types of people to back my claims, you would have lambasted them as being totally unqualified to comment on the subject. Which is what I’m now doing to them.

        As the article stated this phenom. has happened on numerous occaisions in earths history.

        And Dean, your statements and proof are as stale as mine ( in fact, nothing is staler or more boring than Al Gore statements), I will quit recycling what I use as proof for my beliefs when you are willing to do the same 🙂

        • dean

          CD…I don’t think I ever cited Al Gore or McKibben as authorities on the subject. If i did Iw as wrong to do so. I agree to a partial truce. I’ll only cite the IPCC, NASA, EPA, the National Academy of Sciences, The American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science. And you get to cite…? Well any credible science organization (no political think tanks please) not substantialy funded by the fossil fuel energy industry. Fair enough?

          EE…what do you have to say about the Oreskes study? If there are all these credible, distinguished climatoligists out there, why can’t they get their findings published by their own peers?

          I think McKibben and Gore are qualified to speak at our public universities *as published environmental journalists and activists* on this issue. Not as *climate scientists*. What is so hard for you to understand about that distinction?

          No…its not about indoctrination. Its about the proponderance of evidence amassed and vetted by scientists, made understandable and converted into calls for political action by those with better communication skills or media savvy.

          • Chris McMullen

            Here’s a huge list of peer-reviewd studies that discount anthropogenic climate change.

            https://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=84E9E44A-802A-23AD-493A-B35D0842FED8

          • eagle eye

            As I said elsewhere, I don’t put much credence in the Oreskes study. She is a sociologist examining a probably biased set of articles in a journal, Science, that has been scathingly criticized itself for its bias re climate change.

            You ask:

            “If there are all these credible, distinguished climatoligists out there, why can’t they get their findings published by their own peers?”

            First of all, they DO get published in peer-reviewed journals. They just don’t get published in journals like Science and Nature. I can easily understand why. Here’s how it works:

            The editor of science once stated his own rather closed-minded views about climate change science (even though he himself is not a climate scientist). Then, when you send a paper to Science, in whatever field, the chances are about 10% of it getting accepted. Science and Nature are sort of “beauty contest” journals. They are a great place to get publicity, if you work in a field where short papers without too many equations work. If you are doing serious work, say, in theoretical physics, you probably don’t want to bother, though you like to get written up in one of their Perspective articles.

            I know what I’m talking about; I was once written up in one of these short articles, in Nature, even though I’ve never published a paper there. Believe me, it was a pleasure. It is 15 minutes of fame that most scientists never get. Not a Nobel, but it makes your day.

            But, back to our subject. You submit a paper to Science or Nature. The editor has 10 times as many papers to review as can be published. So, you send each paper out to reviewers, probably several reviewers. (I know something about this, being an occasional reviewer myself for those journals.)

            You get a review back that is negative. That settles it, throw that paper out! Your work as Editor has been made a lot easier, now you get on to throwing out the next paper.

            So, you are a global warming skeptic. You send in your paper. The Editor easily finds, deliberately or not, a reviewer who will cast doubt on it. Your paper is dead.

            I imagine that the skeptics have probably given up on those journals. Instead, they seem to publish in completely respectable, often top-of-the-line serious journals in their fields. If you really want to explain what you are doing, as opposed to garnering publicity in the “beauty contests”, those journals are the place to do it.

            So that’s how it works.

  • Anonymous

    Dean’s waiting for the IPCC to tell him the truth. Until then he’s not interested in any science.
    It’s like waiting for TriMet to tell him the truth about light rail or Transit Oriented Development.

    The ease at which one can find, on the web, abundant and growing scintific contradiction to the IPCC makes the loyaists who don’t bother to do so hopeless.

    The magnitude of which the IPCC scientific case has been retarded
    makes their conclusions and warnings increasingly scandelous.

    The time will soon come when the IPCC case dwindle into that which not even dean will any longer believe.

    At that point he’ll attempt to claim he was following the best science when he ignores it all along the way.

    • dean

      Anon…the IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, The American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, NASA, the EPA, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science, to name just a handful. I realize this group is no match for The Heartland Institute, but hey…they are all I’ve got.

      Yes…if the conclusion shifts in your direction, I will go with that and claim to be following the best SCIENTISTS, as I am doing today, and would encourage everyone else to do.

  • Anonymous

    You’re misrepresetning the concensus as usual.
    While ignoring the latest and more clear science so you can cling to the fatally flawed IPCC/Gore fraud.
    You are not following science . You are following left wing politics.

    I notice every time anotther substantail expert or group surfaces with contradicting science you compare that one to your version of the entire IPCC collective.
    Obvioulsy you are deliberately avoiding the cummulative and growing opposition concensus.

    Your encouraging everyone to do as you are doing is blatant political activism wiihout regard for science at all.

  • Anonymous

    dean, you’ve been saying these experts don’t exist, they work for big oil, and they aren’t peer reiewed.

    Is that because you were too lazy to take a look at them or you were just lying.

    “Hundreds of scientists, many of them with distinguished careers and many appearances in the peer-reviewed literature, believe the Modern Warming is natural and moderate,” Bast noted. “They are being censored by the press and demonized by environmental advocacy groups.

    • dean

      “Is that because you were too lazy to take a look at them or you were just lying?”

      Anon…its neither. Its because if they have something worthwhile to contribute to the science, they should do so through the scientific establishment, not through me or you or the internet. I also don’t waste my time looking up reported UFO sightings.

      To clarify, I don’t think I ever said the skeptics don’t exist. That would be stupid. Of course they exist or there would be no meeting in New York. Big oil and big coal fund a lot of the skeptic sideshow, that is well established, and leading “skeptics” have admitted as much. I did not say they were not peer reviewed. But within the pantheon of peer reviewed scientific journals that publish research on climate, the skeptics have been either unable or unwilling to get their work accepted into print, according to the findings of the Oreskes survey, which by the way was published in a peer reviewed journal.

      The press does not “censor.” By definition only governments can censor. Each element of the press decides what is newsworthy and what is not for their particular audience. Maybe these so-called skeptics are just no longer credible or newsworthy. They certainly are not to me.

      Newt Gingrich and John McCain are hardly “left wing” Anon. Even President Bush acknowledges that global warming is a fact, and that it is caused by greenhouse gasses. He just chooses to flounder rather than act.

  • Anonymous

    You’re just dishonest pure and simple.

    You’re claim they have nothing worthwhile to contribute to the science gives away your political folly and bias. Suggesting they should proceed through the so-called “scientific establishment” is meaningless nonsense.
    Your inference there is that there’s a “scientific establishment” accepting of crtitisism and if the skeptics had anything the establishment would let us know.
    Yeah they are as open minded as you dean, right?

    Your lack of familiarity with the contradictory science, or deliberate distorting, has you misrepresenting it’s magnitude and importance.
    But that’s what you do.
    “UFO sightings”? A stunning comparison since that fits the IPCC/Gore hysteria case much better.
    For such a smart guy you sure do lack any objective ability to assess a topic.

    You certainly have said expert skeptics don’t exist. That is worse than stupid.
    The expertice is extensive and global.
    You propagandize with attributing the bulk of the skeptics to Big oil and big coal funding while the opposite is true and very little is anything independent and impartial science. Including George Taylor, CPI and nearly all of the “skeptics” attending the conference.
    You have falsely claimed in the past that the skeptic scienctists did not have any peer reviewed publications.
    Again you misrepresent.
    Then you further skew by suggesting the skeptics have been either unable or unwilling to get their work accepted into print?

    What ever lack of publication the skeptics have faced is a result of the same resistance and obstrcution you demonstrate.
    Our Oregonian does the same with regular doses of all things global warming while refusing (censoring) all opposition.

    They must be deciding for us that’s it’s not newsworthy?
    I’m sure you would be making the same calls.

    Then you really show your baises with “Maybe these so-called skeptics are just no longer credible or newsworthy”.

    What a sentence that is. They’re “so-called ” now?
    “no longer”? They and their science is growing into the new and real consensus. Although consensus has no place in science.
    And did they once have credibility within the “establishement”?

    You just dream up lines about who’s “credible or newsworthy”.

    When is suits you, you’ll even cite Newt Gingrich, John McCain and President Bush whom you no doubt see zero credibily on any thnig else.
    As you reside in the political agenda side the science is abandoning your propaganda.
    As this NYC conference unfolds you’ll have an even tougher time with your intellectual dishonesty.
    Perhaps you’d have an easier time as a 911 conspiracy theorist.
    Your’e a perfect fit.

    • dean

      The scientific establishment is not “so-called.” It is a fact of life, with its own set of rules and procedures that attempt to insure credibility. It is open to being challenged, but one has to bring credentials, a sound thesis, and data to back it up. So far the doubters are zero for nearly 20 years of effort. They raise a lot of what ifs, and could be this, could be that, but can’t make their case. Not for lack of trying or funding apparently.

      I’ve been “assessing” the global warming issue for the past 10 or more years (more intensively the past year) as an interested citizen with some science background, but none in climatology. I started as a doubter, and have gradually moved to accepting the evidence. If the evidence shifts the other way, I’ll shift as well, as I should.

      Sure, some of the doubters have qualifications, and some have been published in peer review litterature. But apparently NONE of them have published ANYTHING in the peer review literature on climate science that refutes or casts serious doubt on global warming theory. That was the finding of the Oreskes search, which you are choosing to ignore.

      Case in point, I have been published in peer review litterature, and I could make a credible claim to being a scientist (landscape ecology). So what? If I submitted a paper on global warming with flimsy evidence I would be shown the door. Go down the list of “scientists” attending the New York conference and you may see a lot of credentials (engineers, economists,) but not with respect to climatology.

      Don’t confuse the peer review litterature with the Oregonian or other mass media. Very different standards apply.

      And yes, the Oregonian, the Weekly Standard, NPR, and so forth all get to decide what is news worthy for their audience. That is what news editors do every day. What, do you think “news” just magically appears? No, it is collected by reporters assigned beats their editors think are of interest, who then submit stories that may or may not make the cut.

      And yes…if I were a news editor I would draw the logical conclusion that the global warming doubter game is a sham and unworthy of covering, except perhaps as an investigative piece that finds out the truth about who is behind it and why, and what the true facts are.

      I use the phrase “so-called skeptics for 2 reasons. First, ALL scientists are skeptics. That is the nature of science, to be skeptical and seek out proof or disproof of theories. Therefore we don’t have “skeptics” on one side and “believers” on the other. We have a perponderance of evidence that some refuse to accept. Second, I’m not convined that many of the “skeptics” are actually skeptical. l suspect a number are simply doing it for the money or for ideological reasons. “Deniers” is a better label for them, since they deny the truth.

      I don’t “cite” Gingrich et al as authorities on global warming. I’m simply pointing out to you, as a futile gesture I know, that this is not a liberal vs. conservative issue any longer. To the extent you insist on framing it as such, you blind yourself to objective reality, and that is disheartening, whoever you are.

      The NYC conference will produce nothing of substance. They are shooting for a media event. Don’t get your hopes up.

      But since I am “dishonest pure and simple” you can disregard everything I just wrote.

      Buh bye now.

      • CRAWDUDE

        Stale……sour…….moldy……got anything new.

        I won’t bore you by re-printing my stale articles this time.

        • dean

          CD…see my response to your post up above. No…nothing new. Reality it is what it is my friend. I often wish it were otherwise.

      • eagle eye

        “But apparently NONE of them have published ANYTHING in the peer review literature on climate science that refutes or casts serious doubt on global warming theory.”

        You go on the basis of a very controversial and contested “analysis” by a sociologist — Oreskes — in a paper in Science magazine. Yes, I know, Science is supposed to be the Bible of the science establishment — they are just another journal, they can publish junk like anyone else from time to time. (Science has been severely criticized by some of the skeptics for its alleged bias in favor of climate alarmism. You can say that’s just sour grapes, but I can say that maybe it’s part of a scientific establishment that has become somewhat corrupted, just as I can see very well with my own eyes that the local academic establishment at UO has become corrupted when it comes to their indoctrination about climate change.)

        If you REALLY believe that none of the skeptic-scientists get their stuff published in any peer-reviewed journals, you simply are misinformed, at best.

  • CRAWDUDE

    Statistic are the easiest form of mathmatics to misuse and/or misinterpret . Anyone, including very intelligent scientiists can look at the same group of statistics and come up with a myriad of contradictory theories or opinions. They should be used to back up concrete facts, not used as the concrete facts.

    As I see it, Global Warming is a theory since there is strong evidence that it has occurred throughout the history of this plant.

    That it is man made is a hypothesis since the statistics cited to justify the finding are disputable and up for interpretation.

    • dean

      EE and CD…not that it will settle the issue, but I encourage you both to tune into OPB to watch Frontline tonight at 9PM to see what they have to say on this topic.

      EE…Oreskes investigation for Science was peer reviewed. It is only “controversial and contested” in the same way that every aspect of global warming is contested, that is by those who want us to believe otherwise. Benny Peiser, a British Social Anthropologist duplicated Oreskes research, looked at 200 additional papers, and claimed to find 34 (3% of the total) that refuted Oreskes findings. Unfortunately for Peiser and his fellow doubters, most of the 34 papers he cited did not actually refute the global warming hypothesis. A few “published” papers did call the core hypothesis into question, but these were published only as editorials or letters, not as peer reviewed research. One paper was published by “the American Association of Petroleum Geologists.” I’ll let you draw your own conclusions on the credibility of that one.

      In other words, in attempting to refute Oreskes Peiser ended up confirming her findings that the consensus among scientists who publish on climate is universal or nearly so. But hey…maybe someone will pay Benny to go to New York.

      EE…if you are willing to dismiss Science Magazine and the scientific establishment on this issue, you should be willing to continue to dismiss me as well. I know a hopeless cause when I see one, and I don’t take your rejection personally. Apparently you will continue to believe whatever suits you, so Mazeltov.

      CD…sure…statistics lie and liars use statistics. But don’t you think the scientific establishment knows how to check for phony or mistaken stats?

      Human caused global warming is a hypothsis that has held up under an incredible amount of investigation over many years. It has not been “proven,” but has the preponderance of evidence to support it. The doubters simply want to delay the economic impacts/adjustment that confronts us. But the longer we delay the harder it will be to adjust, because CO2, once it is in the atmosphere stays up there and does its thing for up 50-100 years.

      Its physics, not politics.

      • eagle eye

        dean, so long to you, too. I actually am a minor part of the “scientific establishment” that you so worship. I actually know the global warming science fairly well, better probably than 99% of scientists who are not in climate science or closely related fields. Especially I know something about the computer modeling on which all of the alarmism is based. I know the science of both sides and understand that both sides actually have a pretty good case, albeit cases that each have their respective weaknesses. It is not “settled science” by any stretch of the imagination. That’s why it’s such a travesty that it’s being presented as if it were at the universities during “climate awareness season” or whatever they call it.

        Most scientists, including those behind the prestigious reports you keep citing, know this as well. A lot of us have seen how the climate science establishment tries to shut down dissenters, including outsiders who are not climate scientists.

        You on the other hand obviously are a true believer. It’s not worth arguing about it with you, and anyway, I can’t help you.

        • dean

          EE…Mazeltov means “good luck” or “congratulations” depending on the context. It does not mean “so long.”

          I don’t agree that “all of the alarmism” is based on computer models. First, I wouldn’t characterize the science as alarmism, which is a perjorative. Second, we have observed physical phenomena to go on as well: temperature measurements, atmospheric carbon measurements, experimental evidence of greenhouse gas effects, melting glaciers, early migrations, rising sea levels, increased storm intensity, and so forth.

          I agree it is not “settled science.” But there is a present consensus in the published, peer reviewed litterature based on a preponderance of evidence. The two sides you describe are simply not equal. There will be new hypotheses raised and tested for many decades to come, which is as it should be. The public policy question is: wait for more evidence and risk irreversible and likely negative physical and economic changes, or begin to act now and risk a manageable amount of our economy?

          I’m a true believer in going with the evidence EE. No…we apparently can’t help each other, but thanks for the civil tone.

          • eagle eye

            I don’t know if you are being ironic about the “civil tone”, but actually, your tone is not civil at all. It is condescending in the extreme. It is basically “your point of view has no place in the educational and public programs of the university because it is beneath discussion, backed by shils for the oil companies, etc. etc.” It is precisely what I object to in what is going on with this issue in the academy. Admittedly, you are not as vicious as some of the true believing scientists can be when they find themselves in public in the presence of people who do not go along with the bandwagon. I know, because I’ve been there and seen what happens.

            I’m a little rusty on Mazeltov, but it usually is used as a sendoff, as I remember. Mazeltov to you too.

          • dean

            No…I was not being ironic. And yes, Mazeltov can be used as a sendoff, but would still mean good luck or congratulations I think.

            I would never say that a point of view (except perhaps someone advocating group hate or violence) has no place in a university. But I will say that a university is not obligated to teach or provide a forum for any or every deviation from what is accepted within a scientific or technical field. We clearly have a disagreement on the extent to which those who still doubt global warming theory have a claim on equal time. My view is they have had, and still have ample opportunities to put forth their theories and research findings. They just have not (apparently) been able to make their case where it matters….within the juried, peer review world, with all its flaws.

            And yes, academics and scientists can get vicious. I’ve also been on the recieving end and I did not like it.

          • eagle eye

            We clearly do not agree. By the way, I am not demanding equal time; I would be happy with even a fraction of equal time, in fact with any time at all. What makes me really unhappy is that the whole business has been turned into one of indoctrination and propaganda. It truly is a disgrace.

            I believe the universities are doing a disservice to the public and on that ground losing some of their claim for support. I also believe that in becoming politicized like other academic fields, science risks losing its claim on public trust and support. There’s a real danger that if the current pause in warming continues or even turns into a cooling period, that science will become discredited among the public. I believe there’s a feeling among scientists not in the climate science business that those people are going too far, and jeopardizing the whole scientific enterprise (which, by the way, is already in serious jeopardy in this country in terms of public financial support).

          • dean

            If it turns out they are crying wolf, then you are right that it affects credibility across a wider spectrum. For that reason alone I hope they are not just crying wolf, but given the magnitude of the challenge we face I hope that they are mistaken.

            But doesn’t the credibility question also run the other way? If they are not crying wolf, doesn’t that call into question the politicization of the issue by conservatives, and their attempts to discredit the scientific establishment because they don’t like the answer? One need only go back to the tobacco companies funding alternative health research for a past example, or timber company funded scientists claiming spotted owls can live successfully in plantations. And this is not meant to imply that the left does not engage in selective science when it suits them. Caveat emptor.

            Science, which is supposed to be the objective search for truth, bumps against public policy when it crosses over into advocacy. Ideally scientists would never advocate, but they are human beings and they and their loved ones have to live with the consequences of what they may see as potentially serious policy decisions.

          • eagle eye

            My concern is not with the advocacy of political groups. Both political sides are doing it. Al Gore has certainly done it with his scare-mongering and cherry-picking of scientific opinion. I don’t blame them, at least, I expect it of them.

            Where I do place blame is with the scientists who have allowed themselves to become political advocates in the name of science, or who are even deliberately invoking the authority of science to further their political views. In the case of global warming, I see far more of it on the scientific left. There is far more questioning of other people’s motives, for example. There is the deliberate suppression of dissenting opinion.

            I would never call the global warming scare a “hoax” or a “fraud”. It is a very complex scientific issue which in my view is not well-understood. I wish the global warming scientists would show the same degree of sobriety. But they will brook no dissent, and when challenged in public, as I say, they can turn very vicious.

            To keep getting back to my original complaint, there is the total suppression of the other side on the campuses. I don’t see much of any concern about this coming from the campuses. By this alone, they have discredited themselves on this issue in my mind. There is enough of academia that simply isn’t taken seriously anymore. It is really sad now that when it comes to science and public policy, science is succumbing to the disease.

      • Chris

        If Oreskes’ paper itself was ‘peer-reviewed’ as you say, that how was such a simple and glaring error of the keywords that she used missed in the initial publication? It was only later, when others tried to duplicate her results that it was clarified: she used “global climate change” as the keywords, not “climate change”, that latter of which turned up roughly 12,000 papers.
        Apart from that, the study itself was not ‘peer-reviewed’ any how – it’s only an article summarizing her conclusions that was published and not too many people make that claim (nor point out the irony). – in fact, she goes into very little detail as to her methodology beyond the erroneous keywords.
        She didn’t find a ‘peer-reviewed’ study only in the ones she looked at. Apparently it never occurred to her to try to test the validity of her keywords, but then she seems to have a post-modernist bent that would reject that sort of thing as ‘Popperian’ anyway.

        Also, I see the good ole’ reference to American Association of Petroleum Geologist, which makes me think you’re post isn’t even an original though, but something found on realclimate or some such site. Why, without qualification, is something suspect just because it was published by them? Was there something wrong with the paper itself?

  • Anonymous

    I’m going to be laughing my ass off at all you global warming cult members ten years from now when Oregon has snow sticking all winter above 2000 feet and most of the winter above 1000 feet.

    Please remember this prediction and, ten years from now, reflect on what asses you are.

    • dean

      I’ll remember. Its too bad you are anonymous or you would be able to say I told you so.

      EE…what experience or evidence do you have that says there is “total supression of the other side on campuses?” Is it just your sense of things?

      • eagle eye

        It is my personal observations, plus reading about various campuses. Perhaps “suppression” is a bit strong. It is the construction of well-funded, officially organized programs that completely leave out the other side. Plus the complete indifference and disdain when this is protested.

        To make an analogy: it’s kind of like segregation in baseball back in the old days. Black players were not exactly “suppressed” — they were allowed to form their own Negro leagues. But they weren’t allowed to play in the “official”, well-organized, well-publicized rich leagues.

  • Anonymous

    Dean,

    You’ve lost all objective search for truth. Your advocacy of public policy has you incapable of deciphering this IPCC scandal. You simply favor the global warming theory as the best weapon to advance a whole slew of policies you support.
    Never mind the UN’s IPCC has little concern for your own country.
    You’d trade away our sovereignty for Kyoto and a totalitarian approach locally. City of Portland style governance for the whole country. Perhaps Berkley with it’s latest anti-American stunt is in you liking?
    In stark contrast there is little or no advocacy with the GW skeptics. They simply demand that science be science without political adjustments. And that the Kyoto accord and other GW “remedies” be shown as they are. Unwaranted and destrcutive policies.

    • dean

      EE…your Negro league analogy is at least as far off as my Creation science one, to be fair.

      Anon…you wrap a lot more around this issue than I do. Requiring additional insulation in buildings, generating electricity from wind, solar, and perhaps nuclear instead of coal, raising mileage standards on personal vehicles…these don’t qualify as “totalitarian” in my world view.

      Berkley’s latest is to sell municipal bonds to finance solar systems for any building owner in the city who wants one, paid back by a monthly utility fee that is expected to be lower than the energy savings. Sure…I would support that here.

Stay Tuned...

Stay up to date with the latest political news and commentary from Oregon Catalyst through daily email updates:

Prefer another subscription option? Subscribe to our RSS Feed, become a fan on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

Twitter Facebook

No Thanks (close this box)