Consensus? What consensus?

I’m writing this in the Marriott Hotel in Chicago, where I’m attending the Heartland Institute Climate Conference (and I’ve just done an interview with BBC Environment Correspondent Roger Harrabin).

Ahead of the interview, I thought I’d just check out the Conference Speaker’s list.  There are 80 scheduled speakers, including distinguished scientists (like Richard Lindzen of MIT), policy wonks (like my good friend Chris Horner of CEI), enthusiasts and campaigners (like Anthony Watts of the web-site), and journalists (including our own inimitable James Delingpole).

Of the 80 speakers, I noticed that fully forty-five were qualified scientists from relevant disciplines, and from respected universities around the world — from the USA, Canada, Mexico, Russia, Sweden, Norway, UK, Australia and New Zealand.

All of them have reservations about climate alarmism, ranging from concerns that we are making vastly expensive public policy decisions based on science that is, to say the least, open to question, through to outright rejection of the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) model.

Several of these scientists are members or former members of the IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

But how do 45 sceptical scientists stack up, you may well ask, against the 2500 on the official IPCC panels?  But of course there aren’t 2500 relevant scientists on the IPCC panel.  Many of them are not strictly scientists at all.  Some are merely civil servants or environmental zealots.  Some are economists — important to the debate but not experts on the science.  Others are scientists in unrelated disciplines.  The Chairman of the IPCC Dr. Ravendra Pachuari, is a Railway Engineer.

And of the remaining minority who are indeed scientists in relevant subjects, some (like my good friend Prof Fred Singer) have explicitly rejected the IPCC’s AGW theory.  Whittle it down, and you end up with fifty or so true believers, most of whom are part of the ‘Hockey Team’ behind the infamous Hockey Stick graph, perhaps the most discredited artefact  in the history of science.  This is a small and incestuous group of scientists (including those at the CRU at the University of East Anglia).  They work closely together, jealously protecting their source data, and they peer-review each other’s work.  This is the ‘consensus’ on which climate hysteria is based.

And there are scarcely more of them than are sceptical scientists at this Heartland Conference in Chicago, where I am blogging today.  Never mind the dozens of other scientists here in Chicago, or the thousands who have signed petitions and written to governments opposing climate hysteria.  Science is not decided by numbers, but if it were, there is the case to be made that the consensus is now on the sceptical side.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to Consensus? What consensus?

  1. phil says:

    I think it is worth mentioning this article as an initial response.
    I am half way through the AW Montford book and I have noted a few glaring errors in it. I will write up my own blog post when I have finished.
    I also saw Peter Taylor talk in Stourbridge a few months ago. Did you know he is a shamanic monk who believes in the mystical power of the stars?

  2. Derek Tipp says:

    It sounds like a great conference. I wish I could have been there. I don’t expect to hear anything about it on the mainstream news, which is shocking in my opinion. Well done for doing your best to alert us all to another viewpoint.

  3. Thanks Derek. I’m in the BA lounge in Chicago waiting to fly home. Heartland have promised to get the presentations up on their website in short order. As I said, Roger Harrabin was there for the BBC, but I don’t know how much made it onto broadcast media.

    • phil says:

      From what I heard at 8:45am yesterday you didn’t make the cut for Harrabin’s report on the Today program.
      His piece was well balanced and mentioned how the conference was funded.

  4. Axel Cooper says:

    Yes I especially liked the expose video-message by Art Robinson, near the start of the Richard Lindzen video, now available at Heartland Website. Lindzen explains how the science is so easily corrupted, and why the IPCC estimates are so wrong. Further he explains the “political connection”

    Please see the video marked as …..
    “Richard Lindzen, Ph.D.
    May 17, 2010
    Global Warming: How to Approach the Science”

  5. says:

    One 2007 U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) grant to study how “farm odors” contribute to global warming exceeded all of the money that skeptics reportedly received from an oil giant in the past two decades. To repeat: One USDA grant to study the role of “farm odors” in global warming exceeded ALL the money skeptics have been accused of receiving from an oil giant over the past two decades. (Excerpt from article: “The United States Department of Agriculture has released reports stating that when you smell cow manure, you’re also smelling greenhouse gas emissions.” (LINK or LINK )

    The ‘follow the money’ arguement, if persued logically, should serve to make one question the integrity of any scientist being paid to do research, such as a scientist being paid by a socialist academic institution. In addition, surely one would have to question the integrity of a reporter whose pension fund was heavily invested in carbon trading, such as any BBC reporter.

    Therefore, the ‘follow the money’ arguement, if one were to accept it, would favour the opinions of the sceptics, as they have received far less money than the “climate-scientists” suckling at Nanny’s nipple.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s