The Global Warming Challenge

Track 1: Paleoclimatology (10:30-12:00pm)

Willie Soon, Ph.D
Chief Science Advisor
Science and Public Policy Institute
An Overview of Global Warming Science

Soon sought to cut through the complex science by titling his presentation “Global Warming 101.” He began speaking of the popular carbon dioxide claims by the IPCC, the same carbon dioxide (hockey-stick) theory by Al Gore that can be shown to be false. He, like many others during the conference, emphasized that carbon dioxide is instead a lag variable in the transitional period from a period of cooler temperatures to warmer temperatures. In place of carbon dioxide, Soon’s research shows that the sun is most likely the dominant driver of recorded Arctic air temperature changes – with an effect factor of at least 10 times that of carbon dioxide. In closing, Soon explained in a humorous metaphor: himself as CO2, William “Refrigerator” Perry as the sun, and Tom Brady as the climate, that CO2 (Dr. Soon) would have little effect on the climate.

Following the conference, Willie Soon was featured along with Bob Carter on the Glenn Beck show. It is available to watch below from YouTube.

Howard Hayden
Professor of Physics Emeritus
University of Connecticut, U.S.
The Overstated Role of Carbon Dioxide on Climate Change

Howard Hayden’s talk began with an analysis of global warming models, saying that the simulations are based on curve-fitting and not on basic physics, or “garbage-in, gospel-out.” Take a closer look at the famous CO2 slide presented by Al Gore and listen to his words, “you can see how well they fit together,” and “there is one relationship that is more powerful than all the others, and it is this: when there is more carbon dioxide, the temperature gets warmer.” Hayden points to the old adage and fundamental scientific principle: “correlation is not causation.” Further, humans are only responsible for 3.5% of CO2 emissions, and the biggest source is actually warm water. Astronomical effects can then be examined for warming or cooling the oceans and its relationship with CO2 emissions.

Craig Loehle, Ph.D.
National Council for Air and Stream Improvement
Detection of a 1,500-year Periodicity in a Multiproxy Climate Reconstruction

Loehle began his talk by critiquing the method of temperature reconstruction through tree rings. Given the wide variety of issues not limited to: individual trees not responding to temperature, precipitation and species growth limits, Loehle set out on his global proxy study. Using 18 data sets each 2000 years long (sea sediments, cave stalagmites, pollen, ice, etc.), a corrected global temperature was constructed. This reconstruction under 95% confidence intervals fits with a 1500 year cycle proposed by Singer & Avery that implies the recent warming is merely part of a natural trend.

Track 3: Climate Change Impacts (8:45-10:15am)

Avery and Singer’s book titled Unstoppable Global Warming 

Dennis T. Avery
Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute
The Unintended Consequences of Biofuels as a Global Warming ‘Solution’

Avery started off the morning with a talk of the ecologically dangerous side of biofuels. The price of energy independence in recent years has caused the price of corn, wheat, and related goods to drastically increase at the cost of good land. In Avery’s words, biofuel “takes too much land and gives too little fuel,” and should lead us to wonder if the land saved by Norman Borlaug was really meant to be used for biofuel.

The talk concluded with dispelling some common misconceptions: no species have been lost to global warming yet, and the temperature correlation is with sun spots, not carbon dioxide.

S. Fred Singer, Ph.D
President
Science and Environmental Policy Project
The Catastrophic Impact of Global Warming Fears on Energy Policy

Singer began the talk with several questions. If global warming is natural, then why do models predict major global warming? How effective is mitigation? Some opponents say there’s “something wrong with the data” when greenhouse models estimate the man-made effect as much smaller. He then turned the focus to several energy sources and policies that are simply not efficient: wind/solar/ocean energy sources that very expensive, cap & trade, carbon capture. If the United States was truly on a road to energy independence, why not focus on obtaining energy available right on our own soil and off our shores?

J. Scott Armstrong, Ph.D
Professor, Wharton School
University of Pennsylvania, U.S.
Strengths and Weaknesses of Climate Models

Armstrong’s talk covered his recent public policy forecasting audit of polar bear populations. The US government’s decision to list polar bears as endangered species comes down to forecasts of polar bear populations, yet none of the authors of the Amstrup and Hunter papers called upon the well-established principles of the forecasting field. The forecast of a 2/3 decline in the polar bear population from Amstrup et al. was instead based on the “unaided expert judgments by a single expert” - the lead author.

These forecasts were made despite the fact polar bear populations have been growing rapidly in recent years, and the forecast of increasing ice-free days was projected from only the last several years. The reports involved a complex set of assumptions that make it very difficult to forecast effectively let alone accurately into the future.

Hundreds of respected scientists from fields as diverse as economics to the physical sciences attended the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change, sponsored by The Heartland Institute. Held at the Marriott Marquis in Times Square March 2nd though March 4th, 2008, climate change skeptics presented their research through different tracks available to talk attendees, including: paleoclimatology, climatology, climate change impacts, climate change economics, and climate change politics. These global warming skeptics offered up their scientific responses to the climate change evidence and predictions from the likes of Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth. Notable speakers included Lord Christopher Monckton, former adviser to PM Margaret Thatcher, and ABC’s 20/20 correspondent John Stossel.

As a website created to promote dialogue and thought about both the science behind global warming and the implication of policies, theclimatebet.com reports on several of the talks and panels for our readers.

(more…)

Recently one of our visitors, Will, wrote the following comment:

“Is there somewhere on here that points out step by step the premises and conclusions of the Inconvenient truth and states why the incorrect ones are wrong? I just see one side claiming one thing and the other side claiming the other while no real comparison can be made on the subject by laypeople. What I would like to see is the above step by step disproving of the “I.T.” using scientific explanation as to why the claim is false. i.e. the statement that such and such amount of ice has melted off the poalr ice caps is simply wrong we measured it and there is such and such amount of ice still there which disproves there claim. Because when two sides of an argument state factually that a claim is one way or another than one of them is either lying or wrong. Please help me out here.”

We invite Will and all of our readers to explore Christopher Monckton’s DVD lecture, as well as several of his pieces where he does just that:

• The sun is warmer now than for the past 11,400 years (Sunday Telegraph, 05/11/2006)
• 35 Inconvenient Truths (Science and Public Policy Institute, 10/06/2007)
• A Science-based response to Al Gore’s Global Warming Commentary in London’s Sunday Telegraph (11/19/2006)
• IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (02/2007)

It is important to ensure the data and judgments that are the inputs to a forecasting process are adequate, valid, and unbiased. Christopher Monckton, in his speech at the Cambridge Union in 2007, provided a point-by-point audit of the inputs to the predictions made by Al Gore in An Inconvenient Truth. The speech, with question and answer session, is available on DVD from the Science and Public Policy Institute site.

Warming skeptic gets taker on wager

By Dale Rodebaugh | Herald Staff Writer

The Durango resident who stirred public debate with a $5,000 wager that the Earth’s average temperature in 2017 would be lower than in 2007 has an official taker - albeit to slightly different conditions.

Dr. Richard Grossman, a Durango gynecologist and obstetrician and occasional columnist for The Durango Herald, waited until the dust settled to work out conditions of the bet with Roger W. Cohen, who issued the challenge.

“I think part of Roger’s goal was to keep the issue of global warming in the public mind,” Grossman said Thursday. “It was certainly part of mine in accepting. I believe there is strong evidence of global warming and that much of it is caused by humans.”

Full article text available

On June 19, 2007, Professor Armstrong proposed the Global Warming Challenge to Mr. Gore in an effort to stimulate a scientific approach to forecasting climate change. The Challenge asked that Armstrong and Gore each put $10,000 into a Charitable Trust Fund on December 1, 2007. Armstrong bet that over the next ten years he could forecast temperature change more accurately than any climate model that Mr. Gore might nominate. (Armstrong’s forecast would be that global mean temperature would not change over the ten years.)

On July 6, Mr. Gore sent a cordial reply stating that he was too busy. In response, on November 28, 2007, Dr. Armstrong extended the deadline to March 26, 2008, and made the task easier: Mr. Gore was asked merely to provide a checkmark beside a leading climate model and to sign his name.

Mr. Gore’s spokesperson replied on Armstrong’s answering phone on around February 5. The caller apologized for being so late for responding to the November 28 letter. She said, “Senator Gore declines.” No reason was given. She said to call if there were any questions. Attempts to reach her by phone failed despite leaving callback messages. Armstrong then contacted her by email with questions for Mr. Gore:

“You have made dramatic forecasts of a dire future and have asked people to make big sacrifices on the basis of those forecasts. I would be grateful if you would explain:

1. Why are you unwilling to back your forecasts in a challenge intended to promote scientific forecasting of climate change?

2. Under what conditions would you be willing to back your forecasts in a challenge against my forecasts from a simple scientific method that is appropriate in situations of high uncertainty: the naïve “no change” method?”

The spokesperson said that with respect to question #1, “Mr. Gore simply does not wish to participate in a financial wager.” Armstrong responded that it was fine by him and that we could “merely do it for its scientific value.” The spokesperson said that she would ask Mr. Gore. Armstrong asked if Mr. Gore would also respond to question #2.

The second question is of particular importance given that we have not been able to find any scientific forecasts to support global warming –or any that would support negative effects from global warming –or any to support the notion that efforts to reduce man-made CO2 would have a favorable impact on the climate. See Green & Armstrong’s paper “Global Warming: Forecasts By Scientists Versus Scientific Forecasts,” Energy & Environment 18 (2007), 995-1019.

Armstrong said that this is a scientific issue, not a political issue. Opinion polls do not provide a scientific approach in this situation, even when some of the respondents are climate experts. However, procedures do exist that would allow us to make scientific forecasts.

Meanwhile, Professor Armstrong awaits Mr. Gore’s response to the revised challenge.

Below are excerpts from the Q&A session between Armstrong and Senator Boxer. Full Text of Examining Threats and Protections For the Polar Bear.

Senator Boxer. Now, Dr. Scott, you are a Ph.D. in what? Dr. Armstrong.

Mr. Armstrong. I went to MIT, so I basically had three areas, one was economics, the other was social psychology and the other was marketing.

Senator Boxer. Economics, social psychology and marketing. Are you a biologist?

Mr. Armstrong. No.

(more…)

Yes, Virginia, there is a polar bear
Margaret Wente
Friday, February 01

Every eight-year-old knows the polar bears are drowning. “I feel sad for them,” said one friend’s kid the other day as he bundled up for school. Maybe he’d seen those TV ads featuring adorable baby bears with voiceovers by appealing children. “The ice is melting because of global warming,” lisps a little girl over pictures of polar bears apparently swimming for their lives. “Baby bears have died. Please help them.”

No one wants the polar bears to die. Obviously the grownups should do something – and so they are. A host of scientists, environmentalists, legislators and worried citizens is pressuring the U.S. government to add polar bears to the list of endangered species. A decision is expected soon, and they’ve got an impressive array of studies to back them up. One study forecasts that the melting of the Arctic sea ice could kill off two-thirds of the polar bear population by 2050 by destroying their habitat.

(more…)