[Vision2020] Global Warming Contrarians Exposed

[Ted Moffett]

Roger et. al.

http://www.ipcc.ch/

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/02/the-ipcc-fourth-assessment-summary-for-policy-makers/

The IPCC, recently awarded the Nobel Prize, represents thousands of climate
scientists from around the world, who have concluded with a 90%+ probability
that anthropogenic warming is occurring, and primarily due to human
impacts.  This is a conservative and carefully considered scientific
analysis, representing a scientific consensus among the world's climate
scientists, which of course does not mean there is not disagreement.  The
consensus was arrived at in consideration of the disagreements in the field
of climate science.  The level of confidence of this consensus is widely
regarded among climate scientists as warranting dramatic action to reduce
CO2 emissions.

The conclusions of the IPCC do not represent an "unqualified pronouncement,"
as Chas phrased it.  Chas's apparent denial (correct me if I am wrong) of
the huge amount of scientific work by thousands of scientists studying
climate change over decades, that the IPCC represents, is an "unqualified
pronouncement."

Chas, what "unqualified pronouncement" are you referring to?  Naomi Oreskes
work in exposing the campaign to use the media to create doubt in the public
mind about climate scientists' conclusions regarding anthropogenic warming,
or the IPCC's conclusions?

Naomi Oreskes exposure of the deliberate campaign to discredit climate
scientists warning of anthropogenic warming, is well documented.  Regardless
of what you chose to believe regarding human impacts on climate, this
campaign aimed to create doubt about human induced climate change in the
public's mind, using the media to misrepresent the level of uncertainly
regarding anthropogenic warming, among the world's climate scientists:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

Regarding the "2008 International Conference on Climate Change" in New York,
that Roger references, you might consider the economic motivations and
blatant slanting of the focus of this conference toward denial of the IPCC
consensus, revealed in the fact the financial sponsors of this event are
involved in the selection of the speakers, a selection not made by an
independent panel of the most published and qualified scientists in the
field of climate science:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/01/what-if-you-held-a-conference-and-no-real-scientists-came/
30 January 2008
 What if you held a conference, and no (real) scientists came? Filed under:

   - Climate Science<http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/category/climate-science/>

— group @ 5:37 PM

Over the past days, many of us have received invitations to a conference
called "The 2008 International Conference on Climate Change" in New York. At
first sight this may look like a scientific conference - especially to those
who are not familiar with the activities of the Heartland
Institute<http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartland_Institute>,
a front group for the fossil fuel industry that is sponsoring the
conference. You may remember them. They were the promoters of the Avery and
Singer "Unstoppable"
tour<http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/11/avery-and-singer-unstoppable-hot-air/>and
purveyors of disinformation about numerous topics such as the
demise of Kilimanjaro's ice
cap<http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/05/tropical-glacier-retreat/>.


A number of things reveal that this is no ordinary scientific meeting:

   - Normal scientific conferences have the goal of discussing ideas and
   data in order to advance scientific understanding. Not this one. The
   organisers are surprisingly open about this in their invitation
letter<http://www.realclimate.org/docs/Heartland.pdf>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.)
   - At the regular scientific conferences we attend in our field, like
   the AGU conferences or many smaller ones, we do not get any honorarium for
   speaking - if we are lucky, we get some travel expenses paid or the
   conference fee waived, but often not even this. We attend such conferences
   not for personal financial gains but because we like to discuss science with
   other scientists. The Heartland Institute must have realized that this is
   not what drives the kind of people they are trying to attract as speakers:
   they are offering $1,000 to those willing to give a talk. This reminds us of
   the American Enterprise Institute last year offering a honorarium of
   $10,000<http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/feb/02/frontpagenews.climatechange>for
articles by scientists disputing anthropogenic climate change. So this
   appear to be the current market prices for calling global warming into
   question: $1000 for a lecture and $10,000 for a written paper.
   - At regular scientific conferences, an independent scientific
   committee selects the talks. Here, the financial sponsors get to select
   their favorite speakers. The Heartland website is seeking sponsors and in
   return for the cash promises "input into the program regarding speakers and
   panel topics". Easier than predicting future climate is therefore to predict
   who some of those speakers will be. We will be surprised if they do not
   include the many of the usual suspects e.g. Fred
Singer<http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/11/bbc-contrarian-top-10/>,
   Pat Michaels<http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/07/disinformation-you-want-it-ireas-got-it/>,
   Richard Lindzen<http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/lindzen-in-newsweek/>,
   Roy Spencer<http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2008/01/spencer_is_totally_off_his_roc.php>,
   and other such luminaries. (For those interested in scientists' links to
   industry sponsors, use the search function on sites like
   sourcewatch.org <http://www.sourcewatch.org/> or
exxonsecrets.org<http://www.exxonsecrets.org/>.)

   - Heartland promises a free weekend at the Marriott Marquis in
   Manhattan, including travel costs, to all elected officials wanting to
   attend.

This is very nice hotel indeed. Our recommendation to those elected
officials tempted by the offer: enjoy a great weekend in Manhattan at
Heartland's expense and don't waste your time on tobacco-science lectures -
you are highly unlikely to hear any real science there.

On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 3:22 PM, lfalen <lfalen at turbonet.com> wrote:

> Ted
> Do you discount John Coleman and all 500 of the Climate Scientists that
> recently met in New York. I think that the question is still open. That is
> not to say we shouldn't be working on decreasing air pollution.
> Roger
>
> -----Original message-----
> From: "Ted Moffett" starbliss at gmail.com
> Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 11:22:09 -0700
> To: "Vision 2020" vision2020 at moscow.com
> Subject: [Vision2020] Global Warming Contrarians Exposed
>
> > MUST SEE VIDEO FOR JOURNALISTS
> > Global Warming Contrarians Exposed
> >
> > http://www.uctv.tv/search-details.asp?showID=13459
> >
> > An extremely informative, in-depth account of four of the major global
> > warming "confusionists" is available free-online.
> >
> > Naomi Oreskes of the University of California, San Diego Science Studies
> > Program is currently giving a lecture about the people at the center of
> the
> > denialist camp. It is exceptionally well researched back to the first
> > scientists to raise a red flag about the rising CO2, and who have been
> > proven to be correct with alarming accuracy in their projections of
> climate
> > change.
> >
> > She very powerfully dismantles the idea that "nobody could have
> predicted
> > what we now know to be true". The answer to that is: "Not only could
> they
> > have, but they did".
> >
> > But people weren't very concerned in the 50's and 60's, seeing the
> problem
> > as one far off in the future.
> >
> > After making an indisputable account of the scientific community's
> knowledge
> > before the eighties, she examines the people who have seemed to ignore
> what
> > was known, and more importantly, why they continue to this day to argue
> that
> > 'the debate is not over'. This is the purpose of the lecture and video
> as
> > the title is "The American Denial of Global Warming".
> >
> > "We think that the scientists are still arguing about it, because this
> is
> > what we have been repeatedly told" (by the press) states Oreskes.
> > Journalists feel a need to give balance to their work and rightfully so.
> But
> > in the case of a handful of deniers against a couple thousand
> scientists,
> > the need to hear from the very few is ridiculous and, as she explains,
> > harmful.
> >
> > The famed republican strategist who gave us such wonderful phrases as
> "The
> > Clear Skies Initiative", "No Child Left Behind", "Healthy Forests
> > Initiative" (which have all been proven to be spin) Frank Luntz wrote
> "…you
> > need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary
> issue".
> > Mr. Luntz has since given up that idea, but other republicans, sadly,
> have
> > not, Oreskes says.
> >
> > She uncovers revealing documents and some humorous facts about the
> deniers
> > and their tactics. "The plan was never to debate fellow scientists in
> the
> > halls of science, but rather in the mass media", says Oreskes, with the
> main
> > goal to confuse the public instead of proving a scientific fact.
> >
> > It was the same tactic for confusing the public about the link between
> > cancer and cigarettes, and ……… not surprisingly …….. it is some of the
> same
> > people doing it now on the CO2 issue.
> >
> > I highly recommend this video. It very clearly explains a situation that
> is
> > causing much harm to the American public's understanding of a very
> dangerous
> > situation.
> >
> > *************
> > The American Denial of Global Warming, 12/12/07, free on-line, 58 min.
> > http://www.uctv.tv/search-details.asp?showID=13459
> >
> > ------------------------------------------
> > Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett
> >
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20080314/699669ba/attachment-0001.html