<div>If only a confrontation like this would come to blows... Then the public might pay more attention. Male machismo is much more convincing and interesting to many than calm factual reasoned arguments. The climate science community could sponsor boxing matches between opposing scientists. "Might makes right" (or rather money buying media influence, an economic form of "might") often in the real world, in terms of who believes what, does it not? I'm not serious, unless, well, the scientists who do the best professional work win the boxing matches... No doubt this would have an effect on public opinion, I am sad to say.</div>
<div>-------------------</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Climate Scientist Benestad's Bio and Publications:</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=50">http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=50</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://home.broadpark.no/~rbene/ras-publ.html">http://home.broadpark.no/~rbene/ras-publ.html</a></div>
<div>--------------------</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://www.realclimate.org/">http://www.realclimate.org</a></div>
<div>
<p><strong>Latest skeptical song from Singer</strong></p>
<p>This week, the annual <a href="http://www.egu.eu/home.html">European Geophysical Union</a> (EGU)'s <a href="http://www.egu.eu/news/news/article/10/general-asse.html">general assembly</a> was held in Vienna. Friday afternoon, I went to one of the conference's last talks to learn about the latest news from the climate skeptics (have to keep an open mind…). It was probably the talk with the smallest audience in the whole conference (see the photo, but note there were a couple of individuals who were not captured by camera), despite an unusually long slot (30 min) allocation. </p>
<p>And not much news, I'm afraid, apart from that SEPP plans to release it's <a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/11/not-the-ipcc-nipcc-report/">NIPCC</a>'09 in May. I understand it will be a thick report (800 pages?). The main messages were (a) that GHGs were unimportant - allegedly supported by <a href="http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/117857349/abstract">Douglass et al. (2007)</a>, and (b) solar activity was the main reason for the recent global warming and the mechanism involved <a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/10/cosmic-rays-don%e2%80%99t-die-so-easily/">galactic cosmic rays (GCR)</a>. </p>
<p>I asked Singer how he could explain the most recent warming when there is <a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/recent-warming-but-no-trend-in-galactic-cosmic-rays/">no trend</a> in the GCR-flux or other indices of solar activity since 1952. He countered by saying he was glad I asked him this question, and announced that he had done his thesis exactly on the topic solar wind and GCRs. </p>
<p>So I had to answer that I had written a book about solar activity and climate, and I repeated my question. He could not answer in the end - other than saying that we have to look at the data. I told him that we already have looked at the data (e.g. <a href="http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2002/2001JA000507.shtml">Richardsson et al 2002</a>; <a href="http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005/2005GL023621.shtml">Benestad, 2005</a>; <a href="http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/proceedings_a/rspa20071880.pdf">Lockwood & Frohlich, 2007</a>), so I recommended him to read up on RC.</p>
<p>------------------------------------------</p>
<p>Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett</p></div>