Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« Commenting problems | Main | The big cutoff »


More scratching of heads among the chattering classes as they try to work out why nobody believes their global warming propaganda - next week they are all jetting off to Norway for a chat about what to do:

We cordially invite you to the seminar Carbonundrums: From Science to Headlines as well as to the ensuing debate New Realities, New Narratives in Climate Reporting, on Tuesday 8th of February 2011 at Litteraturhuset. We will address important questions such as: How is the press reporting on climate change? What can we learn from Climategate? How should we communicate scientific uncertainty? What determines how people perceive climate change?

Panellists include Fiona Fox, Bob Ward, Roger Harrabin, Fred Pearce, Naomi Oreskes and Rasmus Benestad. That's one very large carbon footprint!

The whole thing will be webcast here.

(H/T Billy)


PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (58)

Well if Fred Pearce is going, we can be sure of factual reporting

Feb 5, 2011 at 3:31 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charley

Non illegitimi carbonundrum..?
(don't let the b's get your carbon credits)

Feb 5, 2011 at 3:36 PM | Unregistered CommenterJames P

We may be observing the birth of a new topical storm in the warmosphere. The Scandinavian environment can be very conducive to left-spinning features, which can develop and propagate very quickly indeed. See my recent comment under 'The big cutoff' for more background on this fascinating and important topic.

Feb 5, 2011 at 3:40 PM | Unregistered CommenterJohn Shade

Aha, their own anti-Lisbon.

Sponsor's list is interesting. Sund Energy? Big oil/gas interests there, and two sponsors from the Norwegian goverment via Klif and Klimal. Webcast could be fun, and good luck Fred, pack body armour!

Feb 5, 2011 at 3:44 PM | Unregistered CommenterAtomic Hairdryer

I assume they all automatically get Nobel Prizes whilst they're there !

Feb 5, 2011 at 3:54 PM | Unregistered Commentertoad

Fred Pearce is an honest man. I read his book a week before the 'Hockey Stick Illusion'. He makes most of the same points but just comes to the wrong conclusions. No wonder Anthony Watts quotes him.

Feb 5, 2011 at 3:58 PM | Unregistered Commentertoad

Maybe they could discuss whether it is settled, or unsettled, that the science is settled, and then tell us all, that the debate is over, just like they normally do.

Feb 5, 2011 at 3:59 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charley

Golf: I just find the whole thing so unsettling, don't you?

Feb 5, 2011 at 4:05 PM | Unregistered CommenterCumbrian Lad

I can almost here the echoes in their self-inflicted echo chamber.

Feb 5, 2011 at 4:06 PM | Unregistered CommenterFred from Canuckistan

Cumbrian Lad

When they arrive it will take a while for them to settle down, and settle up the monthly temperatures for the rest 2011

Feb 5, 2011 at 4:19 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charley

The Scream by Edvard Munch comes to mind when you look at the panellists.

Feb 5, 2011 at 4:35 PM | Unregistered CommenterMac

Why can't they hold a video conference instead of traveling around the globe?

Feb 5, 2011 at 4:39 PM | Unregistered Commenterpax

golf charley

They're off to a good start in the temperature stakes, January 2011 in Norway was 1.5 deg C higher than average (you can bet they won't mention December 2010 though, that was the coldest since 1900).


Feb 5, 2011 at 4:43 PM | Unregistered Commenterbillyquiz

Some more like Sir Paul Nurse and the Royal Society methinks. The y think the problem is with how the message is being presented not with the message itself. As Sir Paul advised at the end of his Horizon programme, all we need is a whiff more proaganda an all will be well.

Feb 5, 2011 at 4:59 PM | Unregistered CommenterDave W

I would love the Daily Star to ask Bob Ward what his exact relationship is with the man who pays his wages, $100 billion hedge fund manager Jeremy Grantham. A man who wrote

Global warming will be the most important investment issue for the foreseeable future.

Lapdog, watch dog, dogmatist or just a man's best friend

Feb 5, 2011 at 5:02 PM | Unregistered CommenterE Smith

Why are they holding it in Norway - Land of trolls and fjords?

Feb 5, 2011 at 5:20 PM | Unregistered CommenterGreen Sand

@ Green Sand

Maybe they didn't know about the fjords.

Feb 5, 2011 at 5:54 PM | Unregistered CommenterJohnWho

This line from the top....

"How is the press reporting on climate change? What can we learn from Climategate?"

I don't suppose that as they already have control of the Scientific Publications that they are going to tell the press that if they (the Press) publish sceptical articles then they will collectively agree to refuse to allow their papers to be published by "the Press"..?

Peter Walsh

Feb 5, 2011 at 5:59 PM | Unregistered CommenterRETEPHSLAW

the chattering classes

The Climaterati? :-)

Feb 5, 2011 at 6:00 PM | Unregistered CommenterDR

Most of the contents of this post were just posted at WUWT. If you do not want a "duplicate" post, that is fine with me.

1. First of all, can some sceptic attend this conference as an observer? We need someone who can soak up a lot of information, process it intelligently, and report here. Willis Eschenbach would be excellent. There are others.

2. Second of all, here is a response to the quotation, taken one assertion at a time:
"We will address important questions such as: How is the press reporting on climate change?" They continue to be slavishly and hysterically pro-AGW though they are forced to report that all so-called "predictions" from Warmista are false and some dangerously so.

3. "What can we learn from Climategate?" That no one will believe Warmista until the main perpetrators of deception, especially Mann and Jones, are punished for creating a conspiracy to shape their so-called scientific results to serve political ends. That all the raw data collected by Jones, Hansen, whomever, now and in the future, must be publicly shared and that all "smoothing" of the data must be justified in a manner that satisfies sceptics and professional statisticians.

4. "How should we communicate scientific uncertainty? This is the most important point. Warmista must admit that they have not one reasonably well-confirmed physical hypothesis which can be used to explain and predict something, whether we call it "climate," "weather," or "whatever." That is the proper communication of uncertainty that Warmista are duty bound as scientists to make now. In short, Warmista must admit that their so-called "science" has nothing to say about the future impact of CO2 on Earth's temperature. Specifically, Warmista can neither explain nor predict the forcings that they believe will increase the impact of manmade CO2 in Earth's atmosphere. As the Warmista admit, only these forcings can cause dangerous temperature increases. Roy Spencer's book "The Great Global Warming Blunder" should be the starting point for discussions of these matters. Warmista have statistical hypotheses aplenty and just as many novel statistical techniques, but not one reasonably confirmed physical hypothesis and not one statistical technique that meets the approval of professional statisticians.

5. What determines how people perceive climate change? The primary determinant is the media drumbeat that AGW will cause global doom this century. The media love this drumbeat just as they loved reports on violent death in Vietnam, especially of innocents, massacres and skeletal prisoners in camps in Bosnia, 9/11, Israeli combat in Gaza or the West Bank, and anything that will increase pulse rates among their audience. Genuine scientists would abhor this media practice and do everything in their power to separate themselves from the drumbeat of doom. Aside from this fact, there are the numerous occasions, especially ClimateGate, in which pro-AGW scientists have engaged in conspiracy to deceive the public, produced false predictions, produced outrageous theories and yet claimed the moral high ground of science in their defense. The public in the USA is aware of this behavior and will in all cases seek proof that it is not present in any new communication from the pro-AGW camp. Finally, there is the word 'denier'. The pro-AGW camp's use of this word has won for it a place right up there with 'Holocaust Denier'.

Feb 5, 2011 at 6:02 PM | Unregistered CommenterTheo Goodwin

Maybe Fred will be uninvited after his new scientist article? :)


Feb 5, 2011 at 6:06 PM | Unregistered CommenterMailman


I would have gone myself but only found out about it today and, unfortunately, it is already fully booked.

I guess we'll just have to make do with the webcast :(

Feb 5, 2011 at 6:19 PM | Unregistered Commenterbillyquiz

I wonder if they will discuss the obvious -- that they are wrong?

Probably not.

Feb 5, 2011 at 6:44 PM | Unregistered CommenterDon Pablo de la Sierra

I would like to be there, I live 3 minutes away by foot, but the event does not appear on the program of Litteraturhuset.

Seems like an invite-only.

Not surprising.

Feb 5, 2011 at 6:51 PM | Unregistered CommenterOslo

"Roy Spencer's book "The Great Global Warming Blunder" should be the starting point for discussions of these matters."

Because, y'know, an Exxon-funded scientist whose graphs are cooked to hell and back, makes a great starting point.

Feb 5, 2011 at 7:16 PM | Unregistered CommenterZedsDeadBed

With speakers like Bob Ward and Naomi Oreskes, and topics such as "What Drives Public Opinion" and "Challenges and the way forward", it appears to be a seminar on improving public relations for AGW, rather than on reporting per se.

"What can we learn from Climategate?"
Well, this appears to be for media people only, so I'll skip what climate scientists learned from Climategate -- don't put anything in writing, and don't use FOIA-subject email accounts.
As far as I can tell, the media did fine with Climategate -- ignored it, then minimized it, and emphasized how much put upon the scientists were, and how soundly they were exonerated by Oxburgh et al.


Feb 5, 2011 at 7:21 PM | Unregistered CommenterHaroldW

Zed says:

Because, y'know, an Exxon-funded scientist whose graphs are cooked to hell and back, makes a great starting point.

1. Spencer is employed by the University of Alabama at Huntsville.

2. His UAH temperature series is not 'cooked to hell' and if it was, it (and he) would have been discredited.

3. UAH currently shows more warming than the RSS interpretation of the same data.

You have been below par recently. Have you had the flu or something? I got it over Christmas and was a mess for weeks afterwards.

Feb 5, 2011 at 7:26 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

Closer inspection of the program reveals that all Norwegian contributors are staunch warmists of the third degree.

We all know benestad of climategate fame. Member of The Team, regular contributor to Realclimate.

Karine Nyborg is an environmentalist economist, contributing to papers such as: Attracting Responsible Employees: Green Production as Labor Market Screening.

Atle Midttun, professor of economics, author of such gems as:

"we must end carbon consumption as a sign of social status",

"Two months before the negotiations in Copenhagen, we are afraid that the most probable scenario is that we are entering into the age of idiots. There are signs that the negotiations will not be successful".


"the current environmental crisis is too good to be wrecked as an opportunity for a new renaissance"

Apart form these three norwegian hyper-warmists, there is the Minister of Environment from the socialist party, who on numerous occasions has demonstrated his dogmatic belief in CAGW.

He is fortunately held back by more sober colleagues in the coalition government towards his daydreams of "green jobs" and a "green economy".

So there it is.

A collection of activists.

And of course no tickets for dissenting voices, AKA Deniers.

Feb 5, 2011 at 7:30 PM | Unregistered CommenterOslo


Oddly enough, I have, and it's a stinker. Good excuse for a warming whisky though.

Not much good at linking and the other dark arts, but this very thoroughly talks you through Spencer's faulty graphs:

I'm sure you all hate Real Climate, but there's nowt wrong with the methodology worked through there.

As for Exxon money, again, apologies for both poor dark arts, and a site you no doubt all hate, but I'm pretty confident it's right.

Feb 5, 2011 at 7:37 PM | Unregistered CommenterZedsDeadBed


I'm sure you all hate Real Climate, but there's nowt wrong with the methodology worked through there.

No. many of us I think love it given the negative publicity it generates. They would make a great case study about how not to communicate uncertainty though. Otherwise, the Norwegian event looks like it'll be another PR exercise in how to talk at us, not to us.

Feb 5, 2011 at 7:45 PM | Unregistered CommenterAtomic Hairdryer

This thread has got diverted into discussion of Roy Spencer. Can we get back to the topic of the seminar in the headpost.

Feb 5, 2011 at 7:47 PM | Registered CommenterBishop Hill




See Unthreaded.

Feb 5, 2011 at 7:53 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

Having looked at the invitation, the agenda and the listed speakers, this is obviously a meeting of the warmist propaganda ministers, headed by Norways very own socialist/über warmist/globalist Minister of Enviromental issues Mr. Solheim. On the sponsor lists are the Norwegian organisation Cicero, the government funded warmist propaganda "research" centre. Echo chamber it is.

Climate change reporting in Norway is Guardian style, sometimes even much worse. The leading newspaper "Aftenposten" (Editor in Chief former communist/marxist) is leading the pack with a number of "Climate Change Journalist" (yes, that is their title) working full time to conjure up warmist propaganda pieces on CAGW and hiding the the decline or any inconvenient truths.

Feb 5, 2011 at 8:02 PM | Unregistered CommenterGeorgeGR

Very true GeorgeGR but, even though warmist propaganda abounds throughout the MSM in Norway with hardly a mention of any skeptic views, the population is becoming increasingly doubtful of AGW.

Between 2002 and 2010 the percentage of Norwegians that believed that human emissions were causing climate change dropped from 59% to 50%.

It seems like even when you have total control of the message you still can't keep people convinced indefinitely. Maybe they should include that on Tuesday as part of their communication discussion?

Feb 5, 2011 at 8:22 PM | Unregistered Commenterbillyquiz

What determines how people perceive climate change?

Well, in the UK, we were told that summers would be warmer and drier, and winters would be warmer with no snow.

As this does not seem to be happening, we are now being told that the weather we are geting is what was predicted by the AGW theory

And they ask about my perception of climate change?

Feb 5, 2011 at 9:05 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charley

I have never met Atle Midttun, but I read his work when I was working on electricity planning, and he is a solid scholar, whatever his views. He also serves with me on the Editorial Board of Energy and Environment, which would ordinarily earn him opprobrium from the Unsceptical.

Feb 5, 2011 at 9:53 PM | Unregistered CommenterAynsley Kellow

So who is sponsoring?

KLIMALØFTET (climate uplift) is the "Norwegian government's action on climate information to the public"
FRITT ORD (free word) Norway's biggest fund for "free speech and debate by stimulating unafraid use of free speech"
SUND ENERGY, who, according to themselves:

"We represent several different educational and cultural backgrounds and thrive on diversity that enhances communication and sparks innovation. We are motivated by excelling in difficult tasks and have on several occasions assisted our clients to achieve the “impossible”. Our greatest compliment is when clients not only achieve good results, but also grow by working with us.

Much of what we do is “bridging” environments by assisting clients in designing optimal strategies and in understanding their counterparts and stakeholders. Mindsets are diverse and the right answer is often not the same for all parties. We also have a large contact network in many countries and different sectors of business life and politics. Clients find this useful not only in understanding market developments, but also in identifying potential partners and business opportunities."

Which means essentially nothing.

Except that they want to do business.

The fourth sponsor is the Norwegian Climate And Pollution Agency, which of course is just another government outlet for government policy, promoting the idea of catastrophic AGW.

So no surprises, no skeptics, and of course no inconvenient questions.

Feb 5, 2011 at 9:58 PM | Unregistered CommenterOslo

What Fun!!! More entertainment to look forward to!

Its a pretty rum bunch of people they've put together. I'm starting to feel a little sorry for the BBC chap, with the exception of Pearce, the rest voluntarily lost touch with reality years ago.

A former leading member of the Revolutionary Communist Party (No left wing agenda here then), Bob Ward (nuff said), a Realclimate guy, and a conspiracy theorist. A real meeting of unbalanced minds then.

What will they come up with? I don't know. Can't WAIT!

Feb 5, 2011 at 10:03 PM | Unregistered CommenterGSW

In the absence of opposing views, they are more likely to come out with daft statements

Feb 5, 2011 at 10:10 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charley

Will the result supersede the Warm Words?

(Download the PDF. It's a barrel of laughs.)

Feb 5, 2011 at 10:18 PM | Unregistered CommenterBernd Felsche


The registration form can be found here:

I reckon if you put the 'correct' organisation and e-mail address you might still get an invite


Also, from the Ceres website:

"The overall aim of the seminar is threefold: to improve understanding of how to communicate climate change efficiently; to learn and discuss the quality of coverage and the type of stories that predominate in climate change reporting; and to contribute to knowledge transfer between on the one hand scientists and academics, and on the other hand the science communicators and media professionals."

Seems like the "scientific uncertainty" discussion might not be high on the agenda?

Feb 5, 2011 at 10:58 PM | Unregistered Commenterbillyquiz

Thanx Billy.

Feb 6, 2011 at 12:11 AM | Unregistered CommenterOslo

Zed, I am fairly sure you will have seen the clip from the link posted in the previous post but may I respectfully ask (in case you didn't) that you listen from the 39 second point?. I will repost the link for convenience.

I feel that as minds go Jacob Bronowski had as good as you get. Please do get 'Ascent of Man'.

We are not saying that your pro-AGW stance is wrong, just that it may well be....and after all the evidence is now beginning to stack up against the view.

For your own dignity keep a slight reserve of doubt eh.....I for one will not be of the crowd 'there, I told you so'......I accept that one can very easily have a false belief without apportioning any 'blame'....

Cheers. Warming tots of Jamesons do work wonders....add a dollop of honey.

Feb 6, 2011 at 12:12 AM | Unregistered Commenteragent smith

billyquiz, 8.22pm, it would seem the lapse rate of the Norwegian warmosphere is something like 2% per annum. That's not so good. It suggests it might take more than 300 years to get below 1,000ppm warmos in the sociosphere. Humanity can't afford to wait that long. Please do something!

Feb 6, 2011 at 12:15 AM | Unregistered CommenterJohn Shade

Of some note regarding the ancient ones who came before.
Living out in the warm/cold/wet/dry/hot/freezing makes you very aware of climate.
50,000 years tends to be a long information gathering time.
When the ancient ones left Chaco Canyon there was some chance the information was gathered to indicate that it was going to be cold, dry and not so nice. So without any knowing of CO2 we went south to mountains in southern New Mexico. How much of our gold do you new wise ones of the CO2 faith have in your failed system?

Feb 6, 2011 at 2:41 AM | Unregistered CommenterAPACHEWHOKNOWS

I'm assuming they chose Norway because they're pining for the fjords.

Feb 6, 2011 at 8:45 AM | Unregistered Commenterjanets

Toad - Only the Nobel Peace Price is awarded in Norway, and by a committee of five politicians. It is generally regarded as a joke ...

The to-be-taken-serious prices are awarded by the Swedish Royal Academy, which incidentally recently revised its stance on climate science (margianlly, but in the right direction)

Feb 6, 2011 at 10:36 AM | Unregistered CommenterJonas N

over at deltoid some people don't think the Guardain Pro -AGW !!!!!

in the comments:

Feb 6, 2011 at 1:18 PM | Unregistered CommenterBarry Woods

Robin Horbury has found more background on some of the delegates.

Feb 6, 2011 at 2:53 PM | Unregistered CommenterJack Hughes

The list reads as a whos who of PR hacks. I believe this event is to figure out how to get the MSM back to showing the doom and gloom because as we know the MSM has been giving them the cold shoulder and they want to warm up the shoulder again! ( pun intended)

Feb 6, 2011 at 5:18 PM | Unregistered Commentergrayman

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>