BPSDB The Copenhagen Climate Challenge was signposted by a hand-written piece of paper and a small picture of a happy-looking person in a sun hat declaring: “Global warming: Hurrah!” Copenhagen climate summit: Behind the scenes at the sceptics’ conference
This is of course the CFACT sponsored, ICSC hosted Climate Science Challenge Conference meeting in Copenhagen, aka the “skeptics” conference. The Telegraph article goes on to say “But do not be fooled by the amateurish approach, these are serious people with a very important message: “Global warming is not man made and in fact may not be happening at all.” Really? So let’s have a look at these “serious people” with their amateurish approach and see who they are and what they are doing.
Let’s start with their “Open Letter to UN Secretary-General“:
Climate change science is in a period of ‘negative discovery’ – the more we learn about this exceptionally complex and rapidly evolving field the more we realize how little we know. [1] Truly, the science is NOT settled. [2]
[1] Argument from ignorance fallacy; ie the claim that we don’t know everything is not the same as not knowing anything or not knowing enough. Given the scope and scale of the science and the nature of the threat we have every reason to believe that we know more than enough. Certainly this vacuous statement does not refute that.
[2] As discussed in “Have you stopped debating your climate science?“, used in this manner the “science is not settled” argument is a using the Loaded Question fallacy to distort the facts.
Therefore, there is no sound reason to impose expensive and restrictive public policy decisions on the peoples of the Earth without first providing convincing evidence that human activities are causing dangerous climate change beyond that resulting from natural causes. [1] Before any precipitate action is taken, we must have solid observational data demonstrating that recent changes in climate differ substantially from changes observed in the past [2] and are well in excess of normal variations caused by solar cycles [3], ocean currents, changes in the Earth’s orbital parameters and other natural phenomena. [4]
[1] Since paragraph one is entirely fallacious (false), the conclusions drawn from it are equally false.
[2] We have it; have these clowns never heard of the scientific literature? Perhaps some child would be kind enough to teach them to use Google Scholar.
[3] Done
[4] Done
We the undersigned, being qualified in climate-related scientific disciplines [1], challenge the UNFCCC and supporters of the United Nations Climate Change Conference to produce convincing OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE [2] for their claims of dangerous human-caused global warming and other changes in climate. [3] Projections of possible future scenarios from unproven computer models of climate [4] are not acceptable substitutes for real world data obtained through unbiased and rigorous scientific investigation.
[1] Specious statement and ‘Argument from Authority‘ (argumentum ad verecundium) fallacy; the scope and scale of the science means just about any scientist is arguably in a “climate-related scientific discipline”, and being so is certainly not synonymous with actually knowing or understanding climate science. They may or may not (evidence so far is that this group most certainly do not), but being in a related field is irrelevant.
[2] Using ALL CAPS? isn’t that one of the signs of an internet Troll?
[3] Back to point [2], 2nd paragraph ie the evidence is there in the scientific literature. Trouble is, you have to actually read it.
[4] Double fallacy. i) The problem of induction means that nothing in science is proven, so this is an impossible criteria that is utterly meaningless in a scientific context, ii) we are well aware of what the models can and cannot do because they have been and continue to be tested
- This Year’s Model
- Ice Core Studies Confirm Accuracy of Climate Models
- Misleading argument 5: ’Global warming computer models which predict the future climate are unreliable’
- Myth: “Climate models don’t work. They don’t even ‘predict’ the past.”
- Climate Models: An Assessment of Strengths and Limitations
- Myth: Models are unreliable
- The 16 Climate Models
- Climate Models
- The Climate Models Have it Right
iii) The way a real scientist would dispute the models is by citing science that shows them to be false or inadequate. Simply labeling them as “unproven” rather than actually demonstrating it is an ad hominem abusive fallacy
Specifically, we challenge supporters of the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused climate change to demonstrate that: [1]
[1] Straw Man fallacy; they are implying that the reality of anthropogenic climate change is dependent on the conditions that follow, when in fact it is not
1) Variations in global climate in the last hundred years are significantly outside the natural range experienced in previous centuries;
Straw Man fallacy. i) As per [1], the science does not say that this has happened, the point is that they will happen, ii) No one is claiming that the temperatures that we have have already experienced are catastrophic, iii) the fact that the temperatures that we have experienced have occurred in the past does not mean they have the same cause are the current ones (hence also a Questionable Cause fallacy).
2) Humanity’s emissions of carbon dioxide and other ‘greenhouse gases’ (GHG) are having a dangerous impact on global climate;
Straw Man fallacy. “Are having” is not the same as “will have.” As with smoking, impossible to prove this storm or that drought is due to climate change just as it was and is impossible to prove that this or that cancer was due to smoking. Taken together though, the facts are indisputable.
3) Computer-based models can meaningfully replicate the impact of all of the natural factors that may significantly influence climate;
Red Herring fallacy. To be useful, accurate and meaningful it is not necessary for models to meet the impossible conditions of “can meaningfully {vague term} replicate the impact of all {unknown as well?} of the natural factors that may {conditional and abstract} significantly {in whose opinion?} influence {indeterminent, do the butterfly’s wing flaps “influence”?} climate.” All of the known factors have been ruled out, so this point is utterly irrelevant.
4) Sea levels are rising dangerously at a rate that has accelerated with increasing human GHG emissions, thereby threatening small islands and coastal communities;
5) The incidence of malaria is increasing due to recent climate changes;
Straw Man fallacy. i) The consensus is not that it is rising significantly as of yet, but rather that it will rise, ii) the reality of disease spread is not dependent on malaria.
6) Human society and natural ecosystems cannot adapt to foreseeable climate change as they have done in the past;
Misleading in the extreme. i) In the past the first response to rapid climate change was massive die off (to the point of extinction in many cases) followed by adaptation. ii) “foreseeable” means what? we can adapt to the next 3 or 4 decades (with a few hundred million dead), the next 50 years afer that will be much harder, and after that it will get difficult.
7) Worldwide glacier retreat, and sea ice melting in Polar Regions , is unusual and related to increases in human GHG emissions;
Straw Man fallacy. As before, the fact that it has happened in prehistory has nothing to do with a) what is causing it now, and b) the fact that it is going to catastrophic regardless of the cause. As for related to human GHG emissions, as above, they should try looking at the science (and refuting it if they can, which they clearly cannnot).
9) Polar bears and other Arctic and Antarctic wildlife are unable to adapt to anticipated local climate change effects, independent of the causes of those changes;
i) Red Herring fallacy since of course far more systems are at risk than just the polar regions. ii) Just ignorant since the historical record is that most species do not adapt to sudden change, they die out and other species evolve to fill the niches created by the new conditions. iii) Impossible criteria since a) you would have to know the biology and genetics of each species in far more detail than we can even imagine at this point, and b) it would require a precision of knowledge (different from accuracy) about the expected changes that we equally cannot even imagine at this point.
10) Hurricanes, other tropical cyclones and associated extreme weather events are increasing in severity and frequency;
Straw Man fallacy, “are” and “will” are two different concepts. Red Herring fallacy; the extreme weather we anticipate goes well beyond that associated with hurricanes and other tropical cyclones.
11) Data recorded by ground-based stations are a reliable indicator of surface temperature trends.
i) Done, ii) Red Herring fallacy, temperature records come from far more sources than ground-based stations
It is not the responsibility of ‘climate realist’ scientists to prove that dangerous human-caused climate change is not happening. [1] Rather, it is those who propose that it is, and promote the allocation of massive investments to solve the supposed ‘problem’, who have the obligation to convincingly demonstrate that recent climate change is not of mostly natural origin and, if we do nothing, catastrophic change will ensue. To date, this they have utterly failed to do. [2]
[1] Since the scientific evidence shows that it is (but again, you’d have to know a little science to realize that), so yes, the ball is in their court.
[2] Again, it’s called “the scientific literature“, these clowns should look at it sometime.
Signed blah blah
Notwithstanding the addressee, this is not meant for Ban Ki Moon. Further, this is not a scientific document. It is not even a political document.
It is a propaganda pamphlet produced by ideological hacks and professional con artists to hoodwink the gullible and the naive.
It has no purpose other than to create doubt about the real science, exactly as laid out by the tobacco lobby playbook which the climate change Deniers follow because some of them helped write it (see here, here, and here). The Telegraph is right, “do not be fooled by the amateurish approach.” These are professional lobbyists engaged in political lobbying.
It is not science, it is anti-science. Anyone with the slightest shred of integrity and/or professional competence would be ashamed to have their name associated with this fraud. Certainly anyone with scientific credential who signed this has declared, in effect, “I am guilty of gross incompetence, scientific malpractice, and/or intellectual fraud.”
So who are these people?
To be continued ….
![]()
“Over the 20th century, ocean temperatures in the North Atlantic main development region warmed during peak hurricane season, with the most pronounced warming occurring over the last four decades.” Earth GaugeWe give our consent every moment that we do not resist.
IMAGE CREDITS:
Castanhas de caju / Cashew nuts by Márcio Cabral de Moura
Nuts by Martin LaBar
Jeweled Peanut Bars (uncut) by mmwm
Comment Policy
Comments that are not relevant to the post that they appear under or the evolving discussion will simply be deleted, as will links to Denier spam known to be scientific gibberish
- The “Mostly” Open Thread” is for general climate discussion that is not relevant to a particular post. Spam and abuse rules still apply;
- The “Challenging the Core Science” Comment Thread is for comments that purport to challenge the core science of anthropogenic climate change.
Did you check out who’s behind the letter?
It’s a potty English vicar who thinks the IPCC is a harbinger of a global government foretold in the Bible.
—-
When he’s not campaigning against AGW, it the EU:
‘An anti-EU vicar has held a special Sunday service, in which he thanked God for the European election results.
The Reverend Philip Foster said the UK Independence Party’s success showed the tide was turning and Europhiles could be beaten.
Mr Foster wrote to the congregation of St Matthew’s Church, Cambridge, inviting them to the thanksgiving as a “sign of God’s mercy on our country”. ‘
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3822889.stm
He has a video on the web called “Global Warming Con is a Tool of Control”. At 70 minutes plus, I couldn’t be bothered to watch it, but I suspect it might actually be quite a laugh.
I like the images used in your post.
It reminded me of this ‘Two Ronnies’ sketch:
—-
heh,heh, Monkton was what I thought as well.
Didn’t realise the Two Ronnies video would appear in my post! Is that OK? I thought it would just be a link.
I think Donald refers to the Rev Philip Foster.
Just found this crazy video about him (should remain as a link):
http://uk.video.yahoo.com/watch/2950662/8433337
The woman that introduces it, is somewhat twisting reality.
The watermill in the introduction is an INDUSTRIAL building. It may look nice and rural but it was built for a purpose, not to look nice. The UK at one point has some 10,000 wind mills, which were also industrial buildings. In London there is a place called Millwall, it was named after a ‘windmill farm’ at the location, used to ground flour.
These stupid country folk never think about the history in the correct context, they have this dumb view that their pleasant wealthy rural life style is a result of some creative artist plonking buildings in locations to make it look nice.
I haven’t watched the video any further, because just the first few minutes were full of bull!
—-
Actually I have watched the Foster video further and immediately my jaw dropped with the first graph he presented. erm… The US temperatures (assuming they are correct) are good enough to represent the average for whole earth!??!
Whaaaaaat????
This guy is supposed to tell the truth as a minister!??!
—-
But he says that “it is a perfectly reasonable things to do”!
And of course, a graph with the global temperature would be very difficult to find.
—-
Has anyone noticed that the only reference to his early stint at Cambridge says he ‘studied natural science’.
No mention of a final qualification. He also apparently ‘converted’ to Christianity at that time and then went off to do some good, then came back and did a ‘second degree’ in Theology.
I’m wondering whether he actually finished the first degree. eg. he found god, decided Darwin had it all wrong and left in a huff??
Just a small point:
I’m sure that you didn’t mean to tar all rural residents with the same brush – but that is how your comment came across.
I live in a rural area, and I (and most of my neighbours) can see changes happening that city folks would miss. Certainly there are stupid people here, as there are in the cities – but you shouldn’t imply that rural people are less intelligent or informed than city people. 🙂
Monckton on activists crashing an Americans for Prosperity event in Copenhagen.
No reading for the faint hearted.
Americans for prosperity?
So its either the earths ecosystems and millions of humans, or american prosperity? Thats just wrong – you can be prosperous and help stave off global warming, you just need to be intelligent about it. These guys are just fighting back against change and anything which might make thier lifetimes investments worthless.
By comparing climate activists to the Nazis – I call Godwin’s Law and by default Monkton has lost the argument.
(I mean he lost it ages ago because he does not understand the basic principles of logic… but you see my point.)
Want a clue as to how much of a massive ***k this guy is? Check the open letter he produced to McCain during the US elections. It’s got a lovely italicised font and a smart looking heraldry shield. It looks like an overpuffed scroll of buffonery… http://anarchist606.blogspot.com/2009/12/some-comments-on-global-warming-denial.html
Lord Munchkin has long been a source of entertainment. Whatever you might imagine as something too wacko for him to say, you can bet that he’s topped it already. The preposterous posturing potty peer is a comedic gift to us all.
See Monty Python’s ‘Upper-class Twit of the Year’.
All the dunderheaded disinformation, deceit, delay, denial and disasterous decisionmaking of the past 8 long dark years are in the past. With a little luck people with feet of play will overcome the arrogance, wanton greed and stupidity perpetrated by the Masters of the Universe among us, the most avaricious and self-righteous ones who widely proclaim their greed-mongering is God’s work.
What mental disorder describes those among us who proclaim themselves Masters of the Universe doing the work of God?
Years of hard work by people with feet of clay all come down to this week in Copenhagen. The “now or never” week is at hand for the children, global biodiversity, life as we know it, the integrity of Earth and its environs. This week is the moment that the Masters of the Universe cannot avoid any longer; all of the human family are bound in this long-awaited momentous week. The time for action has come, finally. The opportunity held in this blessed moment must not be missed.
If anyone thinks of something that I can do to assist any of you to reasonably, sensibly, responsibly and humanely realize the goals of the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference, please send word to me.
Steve Salmony
Chapel Hill, North Carolina
A cold wind blowing at Yale, read the comments in responce to Fred Pearce’s piece.
http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2221#comments
—-
Looks like the Dept of Energy is taking this seriously, issuing a hold notice on all documents related to global warming and the CRU.
DOE-SR has received a “Litigation Hold Notice” from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) General Council and the DOE Office of Inspector General regarding the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in England.
That damned nest of freepers!
Hmm, this supposed DOE notice seems to exist only on right-wing web sites.
Tell you what, how about you stop spamming every piece of junk you read at FreeRepublic, and actually address what this blog post is talking about?
— bi
Actually Frank it does not matter who is (or not) talking about this “hold”, what matters is that it exists.
Madeline Screven, who is listed as a paralegal in the DOE phonebook confirmed they issued the directive.
http://phonebook.doe.gov/
When asked if they (the DOE) have a litigation hold notice related to the CRU she answered. “yes we do”
If this is spam it tastes damn delicious.
Where does litigation fit in with understanding the science?
The answer is that it doesn’t.
If you think it is delicious, then you don’t care about understanding the science.
The Ville, seems you have missed a few headlines or are so incredibly blind you cannot see what those emails set in motion.
This is a great day for science.
You aren’t discussing science though. So how do you know it is a great day?
You haven’t answered my question.
How does litigation actually result in an understanding of the climate?
Litigation will determine if the IPCC’s findings have been science or politics.
Have a problem with that?
—-
You still aren’t answering my question(s).
Litigation doesn’t give the answers to scientific issues. Science does that. Which means the end result will be the same, peer reviewed science will determine what direction is taken.
Which means that the core science will be still there.
I’ll answer for you.
The fact is you don’t have any interest in the science. If you did you would be discussing it here and not hoping that some courtroom will decide the outcome.
“Actually Frank it does not matter who is (or not) talking about this “hold””
Actually, Ray, it does matter.
“Looks like the Dept of Energy is taking this seriously”
“what matters is that it exists”
Not really, and not really.
It means that DoE is responding to someone who has petitioned or threatened litigation. It tells you zero about the merits of the petition.
It matters that the richly libertarian Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) has recently filed a petition against the EPA in an effort to delay legislation in response to the EPA finding that greenhouse gas emissions endanger human health; and that CEI has desperately released ‘news’ that the CRU matter is relevant to their petition (since nothing else is) and that DoE has historically engaged CRU in sponsored research related to their climate change research objectives.
And all of this activity, so close to Copenhagen – what a coincidence.
You lack insight into the conversation.
Martha, the DOE obviously finds merit in the request or they would have denied the hold.
Ray, the DoE would impose a legal hold on itself. If you understood this, you would not have made the rest of your statement.
A hold is a routine organizational or departmental practice when there is any kind of investigation or a potential dispute before the courts (including an active complaint under the FOIA). As I already tried to explain to you, it is done no matter the merits of the complaint or petition or potential suit. Why? Because of the risk of penalties if you don’t do it.
A legal hold is an over-ride on the usual retention and documents destruction schedule. It says documents must be preserved until further notice.
If it is not done and something proceeds to litigation, the courts might impose a really big fine or make damaging evidentiary assumptions. Similarly in any investigation or review, it looks bad if you fail to suspend documents destruction or ensure transparency.
Staff are typically notified by email. As you can imagine, if communication about a hold was itself a confidential legal matter rather than a fairly routine legal policy obligation, it would not be sent out by email.
It is even possible that CEI is not the culprit and CRU’s own external investigation has led to a hold on documents engaging CRU in sponsored research.
I am content to end the conversation because your opinion is so obviously misinformed by your ignorance about the basics of legal holds.
I had posted on “Mike’s Nature Trick,” and the moderator suggested that if I had any more questions on the core science of the climate change controversy, I should post on a more appropriate thread. Being a layman to the scientific field involved here, I have never been a “denier,” just a skeptic based primarily on intuitive grounds form being over fifty now and, thus, having “been around” and having observed human nature for so long, including, of course, my own.
My main source of skepticism has been that, in my eyes, science, at least that in any field less “hard” than chemistry, has been seriously called into question because it has become so influenced by both money and ideology. Just as it is true that the consensus often derides any research study which was conducted by anyone funded by, or who has ties to, energy interests, skeptics counter with the same sort of claims that one should look to whom funds consensus studies.
By way of analogy, it is undeniable that smoking is the major cause (or at least catalyst) for dreaded lung diseases. However, I remain most skeptical when it seems to be purported by epistemological studies that it causes just about every other malady under the sun, from wrinkles to the heartbreak of psoriasis. Just as studies funded by tobacco interests are (and should be) held suspect, so should studies commissioned by the anti-tobacco lobby and anti-smoking zealots. One would think that if cigarettes had never been invented, we would all live to 120 in contemporary times. (Does anyone ever audit these studies, one wonders, for things such as leading questions and selective data gathering?).
In addition to the question of the vested interest, there is also the well-known phenomenon of the researcher’s bias. So often, he or she starts out to “test” (i.e., prove) a pet theory and, voila, almost invariably the study’s result vindicates the theory! A geologist who supports the GW theory wrote an excellent article regarding “Climategate” in *Popular Mechanics* (available for free on the web) in which he acknowledges that it is rare for any scientist to admit that his or her theory is wrong.
(A refreshing exception was the case of John Stewart Bell, the late Northern Irish physicist, who made a landmark contribution (“Bell’s Theorem”) to quantum mechanics when, via a rigorous mathematical proof, he proved the exact opposite of what he had set out to!)
In this light, I confess my presentiments were that the climate change consensus was likely the result of science once again being corrupted by money and ideology. I thought the consensus was dominated by researches of a left-wing, anti-capitalist ideology being funded by environmental advocacy groups and an United Nations General Assembly dominated by Third World nations hoping to cash in by way of “climate reparations.”
Since I last posted on the other thread, I have discovered a marvelous YouTube presented lecture by Naomi Oreskes, Ph.D., of UCAL, San Diego. She is apparently a scientific historian. What so impressed me is how she goes to great pains to demonstrate that the science behind the theory of global warming long antedates such political considerations, going back to at least the 1930s, with much more work having been done in the 1950s in the United States, hardly a period here with Marxist inclinations. She cites papers published then by highly respected scientists of irrefutably apolitical persuasions, some of whom served in both Democratic and Republican administrations as scientific advisors.
Because of the sheer immensity of the variables involved within the climate system and the corresponding problematic nature of trying to accurately forecast climate change causes and effects, I shall probably always have some lingering doubts. However, from what I have learned here, and on a website referred to me here by S2, and because of Dr. Oreskes’s lecture, the issue has reached a tipping point in my mind. The risk/reward ratio of being right/wrong on this issue now lies with the consensus.
Therefore, I have no more questions and thank S2 and all for your guidance here. I would urge all to view and listen to Dr. Oreskes’s lecture when time permits. Here is the link:
Thanks much.
I wish to apologize for a rather embarrassing error of a typographical nature. “Epistemological studies,” should have been, of course, “Epidemiological studies.” The error was a result of a combination of fatigue and an over reliance on MS Outlook Spell Check. Nevertheless, the point remains unaltered.
Actually, Donald, I rather liked the accidental ‘epistemological’ take on ‘epidemiology’ – in keeping with Foucault, and also Naomi’s background in history, science and philosophy. 😉
cheers