Briefing Note Update on Climate Skeptic Conference Presenters


Pretty much the same old crowd, eh? Is there any chance of finding out who has registered to attend the “conference”?

Fern Mackenzie

There is nothing wrong with these scientists. The notion that their opinions are dictated by big oil is terribly passe. Has it occurred to you that even if you get some funding from industry sources that you can still carry out honest research or that your opinion is not necessarily tainted by association?

But I do believe that many scientists are indeed somewhat biased in the way they collect their data or interpret their observations.

Fortunately we have the internet to gather information on any conceivable subject. We can search for opinions that are counter to the mainstream views or whether these dissenting views are given any voice in the media.

This is especially true in relation to climate change, where the mainstream alarmist view (climate change is man-made and bad) has been challenged by a minority view alleging that it is mainly natural and of no great concern. Since the general public (i.e the average desmogblogger) does not have the expertise to judge the scientific arguments on their merits, it remains a contentious subject.

To overcome this shortcoming, I suggest you do the following statistical test on the internet. It is an effective way to help the layperson to decide whether the media and the science of climate change are giving us a fair representation of the alleged dangers.

Take 50 things that we humans like, such as: butterflies, koala bears, polar bears, penguins, squirrels, wine, frogs, skiing, peace, health, cave paintings, archaeological sites etc. and then 50 things we don’t like, such as: cockroaches, sharks, feral cats, cane toads, jelly fish, droughts, hurricanes, snow storms, floods, malaria, crime, allergy etc. Then Google each of them with the term “global warming” or “climate change” and see what happens.

Invariably one will notice the following. Anything we like is going to suffer and anything we don’t like is going to thrive. You will never find butterflies and colorful tropical fishes thriving and cockroaches and rats suffering.

Since the forces of nature are insensitive to the preferences of humans there should be a balanced outcome of thriving or declining likes and dislikes. Since this is not the case, the statistic significance of this exercise allows us to draw the conclusion that the sciences dealing with climate change are genarally alarmist and subject to severe bias. One doesn’t have to be a scientist to be able to make that claim, even a desmogblogger can!

Chris Schoneveld scripsit,

“I suggest you do the following statistical test on the internet. Take 50 things that we humans like”

Now _that’s_ cutting-edge denialist “science” at work! We can know about the actual state of the climate, not by actually studying temperature records, but by using Google to what people think! And this totally “scientific” method is based on Chris Schoneveld’s totally subjective impression of what humans “like” and “don’t like”! (For example, I’m not sure humans _like_ polar bears – they’re endangered, but you sure don’t want to get really up close to one.) And whether such and such a thing is going to “thrive”, is of course according to the same kind of 100% scientific interpretation of some Google search results! It’s absolutely science-tific!

_I’ll_ tell you what a layperson (me) already knows about global warming. First, global warming doesn’t exist… and it’s mainly caused by the sun… and it’s also mainly caused by methane… and it’s mainly China and India’s fault. And – of course – it’s the terrorists’! Climate models can easily be rigged to fit any data, but Hansen et al.’s models can’t fit the data at all! It’s a miracle! Global warming came to an end in 1998… and it came to an end again in 2008… and it never existed anyway! And so on.

- - -

By the way, um, _Dr._ Chris Schoneveld, I decided to use Google for something else. I couldn’t find any mention of any published scientific papers written by you, try as I might… and I find this strange. Perhaps you can give me a citation or two of some of your peer-reviewed research work? It sure will help clear up a lot of things.

Frank Bi,

I am sorry I can’t follow your incoherent ramblings. Your insinuations about my academic credentials are also rather peculiar, to put it mildly. But to satisfy your curiosity as to who is behind these heretic posts on desmogblog try Google for:
“Schoneveld” and “porphyroblasts” .
I wonder whether you will be gracious enough to offer me an apology.

Chris Schoneveld:

“I wonder whether you will be gracious enough to offer me an apology.”

I thought a bit about this, and I say: no, no apology. Especially since I was just asking, not accusing. And especially since you have time and time again outright accused the climatology community of bias, with nothing concrete to show for it.

(And no, your proposed `survey’ is a shoddy `method’ which is totally subjective and proves nothing.)

“Has it occurred to you that even if you get some funding from industry sources that you can still carry out honest research or that your opinion is not necessarily tainted by association?”

So where’s this “honest research”? You repeatedly suggest that there’s “honest research” on climate change out there by “skeptics”. You claim that this “honest research” exists; so show it.

Frank Bi,

So what research have these scientists done in the past five years that has been published in peer reviewed journals?

Good grief, Inhofe really had to scrape the bottom of the
barrel to put you on his infamous list of “eminent” (or was that imminent) scientists.

I think you will find that the “average desmogblogger” has far more knowledge about climate science than you have. Your post is a disservice to DeSmogBlog since it lowers the scientific credibility substantially. Your post is more in keeping with the junk science posted on climateaudit. I suggest that you keep your junk science to blogs that support that sort of rubbish and not lower the standards of DeSmogBlog

Ian Forrester

Kevin, you forgot to mention: Robert C. Balling Jr., Ph.D.
He will speak on Monday 3 March, title of his talk: The Increase in Global Temperature: What It Does and Does Not Tell Us

His Bio:

Professor in the climatology program in the School of Geographical Sciences at Arizona State University.
Prior to accepting a position in Arizona, he was a faculty
member in the climatology program at the University of Nebraska. Over the past 20 years, Balling has been involved in a variety of interrelated climatological issues. He has published more than 125 articles in the professional
scientific literature, received more than $3,000,000 in research grants, presented lectures throughout the United States and in more than a dozen foreign countries, and appeared in a number of scientific documentaries
and news features. He has served as a climate consultant to the United Nations Environment Program, the World Climate Program, the World Meteorological Organization, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Balling has written three books on climate change: The Heated Debate: Greenhouse Predictions Versus Climate Reality, Interactions
of Desertification and Climate, and The Satanic Gases: Clearing the Air about Global Warming.

From Sourcewatch:

“Balling has acknowledged that he had received $408,000 in research funding from the fossil fuel industry over the last decade (of which his University takes 50% for overhead). Contributors include ExxonMobil, the British Coal Corporation, Cyprus Minerals and OPEC.”

Frank Bi,

Kevin, you also overlooked: David H. Douglass, Ph.D.

He speaks on Monday 3 March at 08.45

David H. Douglass is professor of physics in experimental condensed
matter physics at the University of Rochester, whose faculty he joined in 1968. He was a recipient of the Alfred P. Sloan Award (junior) for four years, the Alfred P. Sloan Award (senior), and the University of Rochester’s Bridging Fellowship to the Eastman School of Music. He is a fellow of the American Physical Society. His work has involved experiments in the areas of liquid helium and superconductivity (both low temperature and high temperature). He also has made significant contributions in the field of gravitational wave detectors. He has also worked on chaos and frequency drifts of spectral lines of extended sources. His interests for the past several years are on climate change, in particular with the fundamental science issues underlying “global warming.”

In a recent paper(*), Douglass et al. take the output of models, treat them as if they’re raw observations, and then make the assumption that the models are “independent” (Section 2.3).

lolwut? Observations can be independent, but talking about independent models is clearly bunk.

So much for “sound science” and “honest research”.

- - -

(*) D. H. Douglass, J. R. Christy, B. D. Pearson, and S. F. Singer. 2007. A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions. International Journal of Climatology.

Frank Bi,

Kevin, another one: Stanley B. Goldenberg

Stanley B. Goldenberg is a meteorologist with the Hurricane Research Division/AOML/NOAA located in Miami, Florida. His hurricane-related research has included developing and implementing significant improvements to one of the earlier numerical hurricane-track prediction models used by the National Hurricane Center. More recently, he has examined the various climatic factors that influence the variability of hurricane activity in the Atlantic from intra-seasonal to multi-decadal time scales. In particular, he has done extensive research into the physical mechanisms responsible for the connection between El Niño and Atlantic hurricane activity. Goldenberg has participated in numerous research flights into nearly 20 hurricanes aboard NOAA’s P-3 aircraft and on many of the NOAA G-IV jet’s flights. His interest and experience in hurricane disaster preparedness was greatly increased when his home was destroyed as his family experienced the full force of Hurricane Andrew (1992). His family’s Andrew experience has been featured in TV specials done by National Geographic, PBS, and the Discovery Channel. He has authored several scientific papers and has been a regular speaker at numerous
hurricane preparedness, insurance and scientific conferences.

Kevin, one more skeptic: Fred Goldberg

Fred Goldberg is associate professor at the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm and an authority on polar history and exploration. He has been an invited lecturer at more than a dozen universities around the world and has participated in numerous conferences worldwide with papers about thermal cutting, mechanized welding, laser processing, and seam tracking systems. He has published in more than 12 languages on those topics as well as on polar history and exploration. In 1966, he participated in the Stockholm University Svalbard Expedition with Prof. Valter Schytt and Prof. Gunnar Hoppe. In 2004 he formed an informal international network to study and distribute information
about climate change and global warming. In 2006 he was appointed Secretary General for an International Climate Seminar at the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm. He has been a frequent lecturer on climate change at civic organizations, on television programs, and to such wide-ranging groups as the Travellers Club, the Swedish Parliament, California Institute of Technology, Linköpings University, University of Copenhagen, Liberalni Institute, University of Leiden, the 9th International Conference on Arctic Mining (Norway), the 260 Club (Tucson, Arizona), and Alandia People’s Education Center.

“The July issue of the journal Polar Biology reported four dead polar bears floating in the open waters of the Beaufort Sea in 2004 and attributed the deaths to drowning. But, not everyone is convinced by the data coming in.

“`I’m going to write a letter to the World Wildlife Fund to ask who did an autopsy that found polar bears drowned,’ said Fred Goldberg, an authority on polar history and exploration at the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm, Sweden.

“Aerial surveys of the area between 1987 and 2003 found no evidence of polar bears drowning. Goldberg also stated that since the bears were protected from hunting in 1973, “there have never been so many polar bears.”

Therefore all the climatologists were wrong and global warming is a myth. Um… yeah.

Frank Bi,

Obviously those bears all committed suicide. Like the Woody Allen joke about the man who committed suicide by shooting himself from a passing car.

Kevin, Please update your list: David Henderson

David Henderson was formerly (1984-92) head of the Economics and Statistics Department of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in Paris. Before that, he had worked as an academic economist at Oxford and University College London; as an economic adviser in Her Majesty’s Treasury and as chief economist in the UK Ministry of Aviation; with the World Bank, where he was at one point director of the Economics Department; and as a consultant in Greece, Malaysia, and for the World Bank. In 1985 he gave the BBC Reith Lectures, which were published in book form under the title Innocence and Design: The Influence of Economic Ideas on Policy (Blackwell,1986). Since leaving the OECD Henderson has been an independent author and consultant and has acted as visiting fellow or professor at the OECD Development Centre (Paris), the Centre for European Policy Studies (Brussels), Monash University (Melbourne), the Fondation Nationale des Sciences Politiques (Paris), the University of Melbourne, the Royal Institute of International Affairs (London), the New Zealand Business Roundtable, the Melbourne Business School, and the Institute of Economic Affairs (London). He is currently a visiting professor at the Westminster Business School, London, and also at the London School of Economics. He is an honorary fellow of Lincoln College, Oxford and in 1992 was made Commander
of the Order of St Michael and St George.

Castle and Henderson’s “IPCC SRES Revisited” critique was published in Energy and Environment. Enough said.

Why couldn’t they get published even in a proper economics journal? I guess Henderson’s economic theory isn’t as sound as it seems to be after all! (At least when it comes to AGW matters.)

Of course, not content with being debunked, Castle and friends decided to trot out the same “PPP vs. MER” talking points in the latest issue of…

…drum rolls please…

…Energy and Environment.

$ound $cience sure rocks!

Frank Bi,

Kevin, and what about: Yuri A. Izrael

Yuri A. Izrael is a vice-chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and the “most influential scientific advisor” for Vladimir Putin, the president of Russia, according to CNN. He is a former chairman of the Committee for Hydrometeorology.
He also served as director of the Institute of Global Climate and Ecology, which is apart of the Russian Academy of Sciences. He was a former first vice-president of the World Meteorological Organization and helped develop World Weather Watch. In 1992, Izrael won the UNEP Sasakawa Environment Prize for, among other accomplishments, contributing to the “success of Working Group II” of the IPCC.

From Wikipedia:

“Izrael was chairman of the State Committee on Hydrometeorology (Goskomgidromet) at the time of the Chernobyl nuclear accident. Following the accident he was widely criticized for slow and inaccurate monitoring. He was also criticized for allowing air pollution throughout the USSR to reach unprecedented levels.”

Maybe that’s why he’s now a “former” chairman.

Rock on, $ound $cience!

Frank Bi,

Um, Dr. Schoneveld, you can engage in as much name-dropping as you like, but all that still fails to answer the question… what precisely are the peer-reviewed research papers they have written which dispute the AGW theory in an intellectual honest way?

You claimed there’s “honest research” out there disputing AGW. If so, then show us the research papers. Tell us exactly what’s right about these particular research papers.

Cutting-and-pasting a lot of bios doesn’t do it.

Frank Bi,

Ok Frank, I was waiting for you, because I was otherwise going to continue my cut and paste exercise until infinity, just to show you that Kevin only put those scientists (the names he dropped)on his list of which he could dig up some alleged dubious connection with a right wing think tank or big oil. He conveniently left out those scientists who are apparently “unblemished”. There are dozens more I could mention but I think the readers must have got the message by now. You didn’t seem to get the intention of my cutting and pasting.

And could you please tell me the research papers that have given the unequivocal proof that AGW is responsible for the climate variations that we have experienced since humans have used fossil fuels? In previous blogs I have quoted a number of papers that give good evidence that climate change can have many causes among which CO2 may well be a minor contributor.

Please before you continue disqualifying me because of my supposed lack of climate research credentials, could you give me an indication what your background is that makes you so qualified to attack anyone who is an AGW skeptic?

“In previous blogs I have quoted a number of papers that give good evidence that climate change can have many causes among which CO2 may well be a minor contributor.”

Then quote them again. Surely your cut-and-paste skills allow you to do that.

Or do you cut-and-paste only when the content doesn’t actually prove anything?

Frank Bi,

Frank, you first identify yourself and tell us what your scientific background is that makes you the (self-righteous) authority on this blog.

You repeatedly claimed that “honest research” disputing AGW exists.

The onus is on you to prove your claim.

Frank Bi,

Kevin, please add also: J. O’Brien, Ph.D.

James J. O’Brien is Robert O. Lawton Distinguished Professor
and professor emeritus of meteorology and oceanography
at The Florida State University and retired director of its Center for Ocean-Atmospheric Prediction Studies. He has been a physical scientist in oceanography and meteorology for 40 years, modeling time-dependent ocean motions, understanding of El Niño, and applying El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) forecasts to the United States. O’Brien is a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Geophysical Union (AGU), American Meteorological Society (AMS), Royal Meteorological Society, and Oceanographical Society of Japan. He has received numerous awards for his work, including in 2006 a medal from the Florida Academy of Sciences and the UDA Prize from the Japan Oceanographic Society. O’Brien was appointed State of Florida Climatologist in 1999 and served on the Florida Commission on Hurricane Loss Projection Methodology from 1999 to 2005. He has served on scores of committees with the AGU, AMS, Goddard Space Flight Center, National Academy of Sciences, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, National Climatic Data Center, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and Scientific Committee on Oceanic Research and has published hundreds of articles in peer-reviewed journals.

Stop spamming.

Frank Bi,

O’Brien is a member of Tech Central Station, the George C. Marshall Institute, and the Fraser Institute. Need I say more?

Frank Bi,

To repeat my questions:

Um, Dr. Schoneveld, you can engage in as much name-dropping as you like, but all that still fails to answer the question… what precisely are the peer-reviewed research papers they have written which dispute the AGW theory in an intellectual honest way?

You claimed there’s “honest research” out there disputing AGW. If so, then show us the research papers. Tell us exactly what’s right about these particular research papers.

Cutting-and-pasting a lot of bios doesn’t do it.

Frank Bi,

Dear F.Bi,

Here are just 3 papers (cut and past of course). After you have read them (look for them on the internet) and reviewed them, I will give you another 3 etc etc.
I am sure your comments won’t be of “peer-review” quality because you have not identified yourself as a qualified academic in all your post thus far.


Tornetrask tree-ring width and density AD 500–2004: a test of climatic sensitivity and a new 1500-year reconstruction of north Fennoscandian summers

By: Hakan Grudd, Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology,
Stockholm University, Sweden


The late-twentieth century is not exceptionally warm in the new Tornetra¨sk record: On decadal-to-century timescales, periods around AD 750, 1000, 1400, and 1750 were all equally warm, or warmer. The warmest summers in this new reconstruction occur in a 200-year period centred on AD 1000. A ‘‘Medieval Warm Period’’ is supported by other
paleoclimate evidence from northern Fennoscandia, although the new tree-ring evidence from Tornetra¨sk suggests that this period was much warmer than previously recognised.

Surface warming by the solar cycle as revealed by the composite mean difference projection

By: Charles D. Camp and Ka Kit Tung

published 18 July 2007. One of their conclusions:

At the global scales, an objectively determined spatial filter can be constructed using the composite difference between the solar-max years and the solar-min years.
This filter effectively removes the shorter interannual variations, such as from ENSO. We obtained a globally averaged warming of almost 0.2 K during solar max as compared to solar min, somewhat larger than previously reported.

A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model

David H. Douglass et al.

The last 25 years constitute a period of more complete
and accurate observations and more realistic modelling
efforts. Yet the models are seen to disagree with the
observations. We suggest, therefore, that projections of
future climate based on these models be viewed with
much caution.

So how many of those papers actually constitute a serious challenge to the case for anomalous global change (vs. regionally-concentrated and non-synchronous events like during the MWP), and of those how many survived peer review? There seem to be plenty of papers on the persistent forcing effect of CO2, as well studies of natural influences, but wouldn’t most serious researchers say there’s no such thing as “unequivocal proof” in science? Only strong theory subject to further refinement and testing?

Grudd’s paper is about Fennoscandia.

I already talked about Douglass et al.’s bogus paper above.

That leaves Camp and Tung, which I understand is perfectly good work but doesn’t even dispute the AGW theory:

- - -

So, Schoneveld is still maintaining an impressive track record of being Completely Wrong. Hey, maybe someone should write an epic novel with Dr. Schoneveld as the Brave Hero of the Wrong. It’ll be a hoot!

Frank Bi,

And Michael Mann’s shocking paper was about bristle cone pines of America South west. Not very global, huh?
Explain me in your own words why Douglass paper is bogus, yet it is a peer reviewed paper. Weren’t you asking for peer reviewed papers? So are you now saying that peer review is not necessarily a guarantee for quality?

“And Michael Mann’s shocking paper was about bristle cone pines of America South west. Not very global, huh?”

Nobody except denialists has claimed they’re global.

“So are you now saying that peer review is not necessarily a guarantee for quality?”

Yeah, that’s what I think. It’s you who are treating “peer-review” as infallible except when it comes to the mainstream climatologists’ work.

Your “scientific” standards are pretty high, eh, aren’t they?

Frank Bi,

Are you serious? The IPCC used his hockey stick to show that GLOBAL warming was unprecedented in human history.

“The IPCC used his hockey stick to show that GLOBAL warming was unprecedented in human history.”

…as one piece of evidence among others. Again and again you denialists like to talk as if the IPCC’s and Al Gore’s entire thesis is totally, absolutely based on nothing but Mann et al.’s work. Again, that is not true.

Now, if you’d like to tell us why Douglass et al. are somehow justified in talking about “independent models”, you’re welcome.

If your only excuse for defending Douglass et al.’s paper is “it’s peer-reviewed! It’s peer-reviewed!”, then you’re obviously an idiot.

Frank Bi,

Oops. I actually managed to whittle down Dr. Schoneveld’s list of SEVEN (7) “skeptic” scientists who are “unblemished”, “honest”, and “peer-reviewed”… to ZERO (0).

Clearly an impressive feat on Schoneveld’s part – an unblemished track record of perfect wrongage.

Frank Bi,

You are demanding, demanding, demanding, (like a self proclaimed inquisitor) but fail time and time again to give your own academic credentials (I doubt you have any). You also failed to offer me any scientific “peer reviewed” (the magic word on eco-blogs for those who have no clue about the many other ways that research is being disseminated in academic circles) papers that convincingly show that global warming of the last 30 years is in any way different from the natural global temperature fluctuations before that.

Wow, here is one other “PEER REVIEWED” paper. If you are qualified to criticize the paper please go ahead, but don’t start quoting sources like Realclimate to hide behind your own ignorance.

The second paper (A working paper, not peer reviewed in the strictest sense) can be considered as a partial rebuttal of the Nobel committee’s justification to give the IPCC and Al Gore the Nobel Peace Prize.

I herewith throw the towel in the ring because I doubt I will receive any reasonable response. Being retired allowed me the luxury to waste my time with you. I must confess I deliberately continued the “debate” to see how doctrinaire, pedantic, but above all, incoherent and “ad hoministic”(my neologism) eco-bloggers can be.


Unresolved issues with the assessment of multidecadal global land surface temperature trends

Roger A. Pielke Sr., et al.

Published 29 December 2007.

A major conclusion is that, as a climate metric to diagnose climate system heat changes (i.e., ‘‘global warming’’), the surface temperature trend, especially if it includes
the trend in nighttime temperature, is not the most suitable climate metric. As reported by Pielke [2003], the assessment of climate heat system changes should be performed using
the more robust metric of ocean heat content changes rather than surface temperature trends. If temperature trends are to be retained in order to estimate large-scale
climate system heat changes (including a global average), the maximum temperature is a more appropriate metric than using the mean daily average temperature. This paper
presents reasons why the surface temperature is inadequate to determine changes in the heat content of the Earth’s climate system.


Richard S.J. Tol and Sebastian Wagnere
a Economic and Social Research Institute, Dublin, Ireland
b Institute for Environmental Studies, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
c Department of Spatial Economics, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
d Department of Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh,
e Institute for Coastal Research, GKSS Research Centre, Geesthacht, Germany
January 15, 2008
Working Paper FNU-154
We investigate the relationship between a thousand-year history of violent conflict in Europe and various reconstructions of temperature and precipitation. We find that conflict was more intense during colder periods. This relationship is weakening over time, and is not robust to the details of the climate reconstruction or to the sample period.
We thus confirm Zhang et al. (2006, Climatic Change, 76, 459-477) that, at least in temperate climates, global warming would, if anything, lead to reduced violent conflict.

Pielke Sr.’s proposed metric doesn’t seem to be changing any conclusions. Whether you use surface temperatures or ocean heat content, there’s still a warming trend. So what was your point again? (

As for your bringing up of the second paper: yeah, global warming doesn’t exist, and global warming is good? A genius argument!

- - -

“You are demanding, demanding, demanding, (like a self proclaimed inquisitor)”

Ah, the spectre of Galileo! Works every time.

“I must confess I deliberately continued the `debate’ to see how doctrinaire, pedantic, but above all, incoherent and `ad hoministic’(my neologism) eco-bloggers can be.”

Oh really. If I say I’m wrong, then you’re right. If I don’t say I’m wrong, then it’s my fault for being a “doctrinaire”, “pedantic”, et cetera et cetera etcetera “eco-blogger”. Great double-edged logic.

Thing is, you don’t actually have any “smoking gun” argument to dispute the AGW theory – if you actually had one, you’d have simply presented it long ago. That’s why you have to engage in “argumentum verbosum” (, and what your so-called “arguments” lack in quality, you simply make up for with quantity.

Well, it was nice watching your antics… and debunking a few more denialist arguments while at it. Good day.

Frank Bi,

Frank, no need to write another fictional epic for Schonevelde. He is showing everyone that he is the “Black Knight” of the Denier band of pseudo-scientists.

He is doing us all a favour by putting all the denier rubbish in one easy to find file. No need to Google them all separately. If he continues we will have all the junk science in one easy to find place.

Ian Forrester

” …at least in temperate climates, global warming would, if anything, lead to reduced violent conflict.”

I’ve just heard Brian Fagan on CBC radio’s Quirks and Quarks talking about how during Europe’s Medieval Warm Period, years of warmer weather allowed people to expand farming, then colder weather caused crop failures and mass starvation. The point being that people adapted to certain conditions, and could not adapt when the conditions changed.

He believes the main problem with global warming will be lack of water. Global warming leads to longlasting droughts; and I would expect much more global conflict over water even though the temperature is warmer. I’ll bet that Tol and Wagnere are being too simplistic.

Edited to add link about Fagan’s book:

VJ, it seems your surmise was right. Here’s Tol and Wagner’s working paper: … I wonder why they cut off the running correlation graph (Figure 4) at 1850?

Oh wait, global warming doesn’t exist, so whether AGW’s good or not is all moot anyway. :B

Frank Bi,

I notice that I was left me off the list of people who spoke at the Heartland Climate Conference.

I have been actively engaged in statistical climatology and meteorology for a long time. For example, I am a member of the American Meteorological Society’s Probability and Statistics Committee, am an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review, and, e.g., have a paper about to come out in J. Climate showing tropical storms and hurricanes have not increased. I have a version of that paper at the Heartland Conference.

I have never gotten any money, not even salary, for any of the work I have ever done in meteorology and climatology (since my graduate student tuition at Cornell). I have never received anything from any tobacco or oil or energy company. I did not get the honorarium from Heartland to speak at their conference.

My summary of the conference and of state of knowledge is this: too many people are too confident about too many things. I have a longer summary at my web site, which is

All the best,

William Briggs

I understand world renown “greeny” Botanist and Scientist David Bellamy was there. There were also a couple of Kiwi climate change deniers. This is a brilliant forum as it fights against the myth of GW and its clear political overtones.

It seems I shot my mouth off without delving further into this website.

The premise of this site is intellectually retarded and it seems clear that the supporters of it need some sort of prescription drug to restore their sanity.

Frank, you’ve got a good line in sharp tactics but your GW theory has run out of steam - been real cold this winter hasn’t it? In fact the IPCC never made anything stick, from the Mann ‘Hockey Stick’ Study onward the IPCC swallowed any case it could find to make itself more important and just pigged-out on flawed computer models and selective sceince in desperation to please its political manipulators. I notice how you concentrate on the anti-GW evidence but don’t come out with any of your own? Have you any study that isn’t based on a stupid model? Much of the IPCC’s own observational science has being challanged, from it’s inaccurate tempreture readings to its claims about polar ice caps melting. Currently neither is happening, in fact quite the reverse. Secondly much of the scare stories about extreme weather have again been found completely false. Global warming leads to greater plant growth (as do higher CO2 levels) greater bio-diversity and greater species (not threats to food chains and extinction). Nearly every claim about the threats are overstated and/or completly inaccurate. Why don’t you find another topic, something that has a little merit, like The Earth is ‘Possibly Flat’ Society! Even the IPCC’s Vice President had now admitted Govts have been too hasty jumping on the GW bandwagon and there are many other possibilities to GW than CO2. This GW theory has lost its hot air. IPCC RIP.