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









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,

"Schoneveld" and "porphyroblasts" .

Chris Schoneveld:

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


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


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,

What do porphyroblasts have to do with climatology?


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.


Ian Forrester


His Bio:

Prior to accepting a position in Arizona, he was a faculty

From Sourcewatch:


Frank Bi,


He speaks on Monday 3 March at 08.45

David H. Douglass is professor of physics in experimental condensed

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).


So much for "sound science" and "honest research".

- - -


Frank Bi,

Kevin, another one: Stanley B. Goldenberg

hurricane preparedness, insurance and scientific conferences.

Frank Bi,

Kevin, one more skeptic: Fred Goldberg



"`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.


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

Frank Bi,


Kevin, Please update your list: David Henderson

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


From Wikipedia:


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.





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

Frank Bi,


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

Stop spamming.

Frank Bi,


Frank Bi,

To repeat my questions:




Frank Bi,

Frank, you must have missed my response earlier on. Yours sincerely.

Dear F.Bi,

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.



Stockholm University, Sweden




By: Charles D. Camp and Ka Kit Tung

published 18 July 2007. One of their conclusions:


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:

- - -


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?


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,


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

Nice work, Frank Bi.


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.



Richard S.J. Tol and Sebastian Wagnere
a Economic and Social Research Institute, Dublin, Ireland
January 15, 2008
Working Paper FNU-154

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.


Ian Forrester

" 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,





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.



Clearly we can rely on your well researched and carefully thought out opinions... Not.

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.




read more