Presser tomorrow at the National Press Club for the NIPCC

Tomorrow, 9:00am Press Conference with the
Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change
The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) is holding a press conference tomorrow morning, Wednesday, April 9, at the National Press Club in Washington, DC on the subject of the recent publication of Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts.

Credentialed media are invited to attend to learn more about the report and question some of the scientists who produced it:

Details


What: Breakfast press conference with authors and reviewers of Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts
When: Wednesday, April 9, 8:00 – 11:00 a.m.
Where: National Press Club, Bloomberg Room, 529 14th Street NW, Washington, DC
Who: Joseph Bast, president, The Heartland Institute; Dr. S. Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia; Dr. Craig D. Idso, founder and chairman, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change; and other speakers to be announced.

Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts is a 1,062-page report containing thousands of citations to peer-reviewed scientific literature. It concludes rising temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels are causing “no net harm to the global environment or to human health and often finds the opposite: net benefits to plants, including important food crops, and to animals and human health.”

Click here to read the full report in digital form (PDF). An 18-page Summary for Policymakers is available here. Print versions of the full report and the summary will be released by NIPCC in Washington, DC the week of April 7. Individual chapters of the full report can be downloaded at the Climate Change Reconsidered Web site. (Look at middle of page and scroll down.)

For more information about the report, NIPCC, and The Heartland Institute, contact Director of Communications Jim Lakely at jlakely@heartland.org or 312/731-9364 (cell).
——————————————————————————–

The Heartland Institute is a 30-year-old national nonprofit organization headquartered in Chicago, Illinois. Its mission is to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems. For more information, visit our Web site or call 312/377-4000.
The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) is an international panel of scientists and scholars who first came together in 2003 to provide an independent review of the climate science cited by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). NIPCC has produced five major scientific reports so far and plans to release one more in the coming weeks. These reports have been endorsed by leading scientists from around the world, been cited in peer-reviewed journals, and are credited with changing the global debate over climate change. No corporate or government funding was solicited or received to support production of these reports.

About these ads

31 thoughts on “Presser tomorrow at the National Press Club for the NIPCC

  1. They are very likely going to be attacked as scum, schills, charlatans, etc. and their message will be twisted or ignored.

  2. @heysuess: Hm, I wonder if the Washington Post will bother sending a reporter…?

    If they were smart they would. As CAGW alarmism wanes in the face of relentless real-world temp data and non-existent impacts on food crops, the savvy news organizations would get out ahead of the inevitable back-peddling to at least say they covered the “contrarian” views in the recent past.

    But that’s a big IF probably for too many news desk editors.

  3. They better watch out for guy with the false moustache wearing dark glasses sneaking in to add some ‘material’ to the event . As I understand Mr Ethics is in town .

  4. Oh wow, Fox just gave this a HUGE boost – a very favorable report and interview with Joe Bast (and some freak who looks like a gerbil with colored hair saying NIPCC are nothing but a bunch of out-of-touch old retired scientists, and they did that right at the end just to keep it fair and balanced probably lol) I’m doing a happy dance over this.

  5. National Pink Commies NPC.
    If the press were real.
    Real would be alive.
    Truth is dead to them.
    Life is truth to U.S..
    Lies are the death march.
    March with them is to die.
    AP lies to the tune.
    The tune is a lie.
    They live by the lie.
    It will come for them.
    Red Angry Eyes of Truth.
    Near, “there” in the tree line close,
    On a hugh black horse sits the demon of the true History.
    He knows these liars, same as the old liars.
    He will come to judge them, with hot iron hooves of revenge.
    Clop, Clop, Clop, comes the judgement.

  6. As I understand it, National Press Club rents space out to other organizations. It is actually the Capitol Hill Club and Cato Institute which are hosting the program.

  7. The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change report on biological impacts and the IPCC’s extinction hypothesis highlights the wok of CD Thomas who has predicted ~ 30% of the species are committed to extinction due to rising CO2. For those who have read my essays on Parmesan, it should come as no surprise that CD Thomas’s research has been intimately linked with Parmesan’s, not only using each other’s work to support their catastrophic claims (Fabricating Climate Doom – Part 3: Extreme Weather Extinctions Enron Style http://landscapesandcycles.net/fabricating-climate-doom—part-3–extreme-weather.html) but they worked in the field together (Fabricating Climate Doom: Parmesan’s Butterfly Effect http://landscapesandcycles.net/climate-doom–parmesan-s-butterfly-effect.html) and (Fabricating Climate Doom: Hijacking Conservation Success in the UK to Build Consensus! http://landscapesandcycles.net/hijacking-conservation-success-in-the-uk.html) . It appears this handful of fear mongerers have dominated the IPCC’s extinction consensus.

  8. @ heysuess says: April 8, 2014 at 3:30 pm “… a gerbil with colored hair saying NIPCC are nothing but a bunch of out-of-touch old retired scientists …”

    That “gerbil” was no less than Dr Donald Wuebbles of the the University of Illinois (age approximately mid 60s) regurgitating a predictable talking point about the NIPCC not being peer reviewed. What else could we possible expect from a person who was thanked for contributing to the Union of Concerned Scientists’ 2007 report “Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air: How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco’s Tactics to Manufacture Uncertainty on Climate Science”? (pg 4 here http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf )

    Keep in mind that neither the UCS nor anything we’ve heard from Greenpeace, Gore, Oreskes, or all the others accusing skeptics of industry corruption have ever offered an iota of proof for the existence of a quid pro quo arrangement between industry officials and skeptic climate scientists / skeptic organizations. NOT. ONE. If Wuebbles is the best the opposition can dredge up on short notice, that is a gift to us.

  9. I witnessed exposure to this in the mainstream media today.

    Bravo!

    Truth in fact can be very enlightening to those who have been mislead. Just sayin……

    Psychologically, when one finds what they thought as a given, is not, the Spock effect occurs!

    That is trouble for the salesman.

  10. Re: Russell Cook “If Wuebbles is the best the opposition can dredge up on short notice, that is a gift to us.” Thought the same, and thanks for the background.

  11. “KNR says: April 8, 2014 at 3:21 pm

    They better watch out for guy with the false moustache wearing dark glasses sneaking in to add some ‘material’ to the event . As I understand Mr Ethics is in town .”

    ????
    My apologies KNR fro being confused; but which one would that be?
    Hansen?
    Gleick?
    Lewdandowsky?
    Johnson?
    Holder?
    Holdren?
    POTUS?

    The mind is quickly overwhelmed considering those devoid of ethics in Washington DC, even if constrained to those spouting Climate falsehoods.

  12. Russell Cook (@questionAGW) says:
    April 8, 2014 at 5:10 pm

    That wouldn’t be the multi-listed 2007 prize would it?;)

  13. things aren’t going well in Berlin:

    8 April: Reuters: Alister Doyle: Many nations wary of extracting carbon from air to fix climate
    Many nations want a draft U.N. report to tone down prospects for sucking greenhouse gases from the air to help fix global warming, reckoning the technologies are risky, documents seen by Reuters show…
    China, the European Union, Japan and Russia were among nations saying the draft, to be published on Sunday, should do more to stress uncertainties about technologies that the report says could be used to extract carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and bury it below ground to limit warming.
    Carbon dioxide removal (CDR) “technologies are currently not available and would be associated with high risks and adverse side-effects,” the German government said in a comment on the draft by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
    “There are no CDR technologies by now,” Russia said…
    Several nations were especially sceptical about the draft’s mention of stripping greenhouse gases from electricity-generating facilities burning biomass – wood or other plants – to bury them underground as a way to extract carbon from nature…
    Many nations said that the draft should do more to mention drawbacks of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), such as the amount of land needed to grow plants and risks that it would compete with food production.
    Internal IPCC documents show that China said BECCS “bears great uncertainties”. Japan said that “considerations of trade-offs with water, land and biodiversity are crucial to avoid adverse effects” with CDR technologies…
    Other methods for extracting greenhouse gases from the atmosphere include simply planting trees or fertilising the oceans to promote the growth of algae, hoping that the tiny carbon-rich plants would fall to the seabed when they die.
    Among other debates in Berlin on Tuesday, delegates said that Saudi Arabia, the world’s top oil exporter, objected to a line in the report pointing out that fossil fuels were the overwhelming cause of rising emissions in the past decade.

    http://in.reuters.com/article/2014/04/08/climate-un-idINDEEA370BU20140408

  14. reality gets reported by bloomberg!

    8 April: Bloomberg: Isaac Arnsdorf: Age of Gas Seen as Sideshow to U.S. Producers Prizing Oil
    The “golden age of gas” that the International Energy Agency foresees as a result of the U.S. energy boom is hardly the future being embraced by industry executives.
    At least based on comments from company officials presenting at the Independent Petroleum Association of America’s conference in New York yesterday. For them, oil is still the prize. Gas is almost an afterthought…
    PDC Energy (PDCE) Inc. said it’s sitting on huge leases in gas fields that aren’t worth drilling. Whiting Petroleum Corp. (WLL) Chairman and CEO James Volker explained why: oil sells for three times as much as the equivalent amount of natural gas…
    That’s no knock against the producers for chasing oil – the commodity that makes the best return for their shareholders. Still, at a time when President Barack Obama is saying natural gas will be a bridge for the U.S. economy from fossil fuels to clean energy, the industry’s views put some realism into the discussion about what energy resources get unlocked by fracking shale rocks…
    The U.S. is still very much addicted to oil. Consumption will inch up to 19 million barrels a day this year, more than Europe and China combined, the IEA estimates…
    While politicians and industry may pay lip service to natural gas as the clean fuel of the future, the companies out exploiting America’s oil fields leave no doubt that they’re interested in the same fuel as 100 years ago.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-04-08/age-of-gas-seen-as-sideshow-to-u-s-producers-prizing-oil.html

  15. for those close by who might like to attend. check the unflattering comments:

    8 April: Madison: Bill Novak: ‘Hockey stick’ climate change scientist to speak at UW
    The creator of the “hockey stick” graph showing a sharp increase in Earth’s temperature will be speaking at UW-Madison April 17.
    Penn State meteorologist professor Michael Mann will speak at 7 p.m. in the Ebling Science Symposium Center, Room 1220 of the Microbial Sciences Building, 1550 Linden Drive.
    The lecture is free and open to the public…
    Mann’s presentation, “The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines,” will dig into the controversy and surrounding issues, such as skepticism in science, the uneasy relationship between science and politics, and the influence particular economic interests can have on the way we debate policy-relevant areas of science.

    http://host.madison.com/news/local/hockey-stick-climate-change-scientist-to-speak-at-uw/article_4c5db9b2-add5-579c-b2d9-0117fc8adfc0.html

  16. a FAUSTian bargain, but the devil is in the detail:

    9 April: Guardian: Suzanne Goldenberg: Carbon divestment activists claim victory as Harvard adopts green code
    Managers of university’s $33bn endowment adopt UN-backed responsible investment rules
    Six months after explicitly rejecting calls to divest from fossil fuels, managers of Harvard’s $33bn endowment will now be guided by a set of investment principles taking into account environmental and social factors such as water and human rights, the university announced on Monday.
    The new guidelines, set by the Principles of Responsible Investment organisation, do not commit Harvard to selling existing holdings in fossil fuels.
    But campaigners still claimed the step as a victory for a divestment movement that has now spread to more than 500 university campuses and other institutions across America and Europe…
    “A year ago Harvard was no way no how. But science is pushing everyone in the direction of action; students should be proud they’ve breached the dam of resistance,” said Bill McKibben, a Harvard graduate and founder of 350.org, which has led the campus divestment movement.
    Campaigning organisation Divest Harvard in its statement noted that the university still had millions invested in fossil fuels…
    ***Under the new initiatives announced by Harvard president, Drew Gilpin Faust, the university will ask alumni and donors to help raise $20 million for climate research…
    The university will also join the Carbon Disclosure Project, requiring Harvard to report on its carbon footprint.
    “Harvard has a vital leadership role to play in this work,” Faust wrote in a letter. “As a university, it has a special obligation and accountability to the future, to the long view needed to anticipate and alter the trajectory and impact of climate change.”…

    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/apr/08/harvard-university-investment-rules-carbon-divestment-campaign

  17. worth reading all, including the comments:

    8 April: NJ Star-Ledger: Paul Mulshine: Climate ‘consensus': Is carbon dioxide the new cholesterol?
    Last month, the prior consensus was turned on its head by a study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine. A meta-analysis of 76 studies and clinical trials showed no link between fat, even saturated fat, and increased heart-disease risk.
    I discussed this yesterday with Meir Stampfer, who is a professor of epidemiology and nutrition at the Harvard School of Public Health. Stampfer said the move to low-fat diets might have actually increased obesity and heart-disease risk. That’s because people tended to substitute refined carbohydrates for fat in their diets, Stampfer said…
    So is there a new consensus that “Butter is back” as one op-ed piece in the Times recently stated?
    Nope, said Stampfer. He and his Harvard colleagues disagree with those who are promoting saturated fats from dairy and red meat. The Harvard crowd argues that people would be better off consuming more olive oil and seafood.
    But that’s a healthy disagreement. As for that prior consensus, the consensus is that it did not hold up.
    “This is complicated and the policymakers tried to make it simple,” Stampfer concluded.
    “But it’s better to be complicated and right than simplified and wrong.”
    It is indeed, and I would encourage my fellow journalists to keep that in mind in light of the highly touted “consensus” on the role of carbon dioxide in promoting global warming.
    Climate science is infinitely more complicated than human physiology…
    Perhaps you disagree. Fine, but you’re disagreeing with a guy who calculated the number of atoms in the sun when he was 5 years old and who’s been at the institute since Einstein was walking the grounds.
    Science requires taking the long view, said Dyson when I called him the other day.
    “Science of course is always correcting mistakes,” he said. “That’s what it’s all about.”
    It is indeed. What it’s not about is consensus.
    That’s for editorial writers.
    COMMENTS: If you’re going to comment here, please make particular points about actual scientific studies, as I have above. Do not merely parrot the consensus…

    http://www.nj.com/opinion/index.ssf/2014/04/climate_consensus_is_carbon_dioxide_the_new_cholesterol_mulshine.html

  18. Big non-coal Corps with the CAGW program! LOL.

    8 April: Guardian: BT, Shell and corporates call for trillion tonnes of carbon to stay in the ground
    Trillion tonne communiqué signed by 70 companies calls for rapid response to rising emissions, reports BusinessGreen
    Unilever, Shell, BT, and EDF Energy are among 70 leading companies today calling on governments across the globe to step up efforts to tackle climate change.
    The companies, which have a combined turnover of $90bn, say the world needs a “rapid and focused response” to the threat of rising global carbon emissions and the “disruptive climate impacts” associated with their growth.
    In a communiqué coordinated by The Prince of Wales’s Corporate Leaders Group, the signatories demand governments put in place policies to prevent the cumulative emission of more than a trillion tonnes of carbon, arguing that passing that threshold would lead to unacceptable levels of climate-related risk.
    The statement urges political leaders to set a timeline for achieving net zero emissions before the end of the century, design a credible strategy to transform the energy system, and create a plan to tackle the global economy’s reliance on fossil fuels, especially unabated coal power…

    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/apr/08/bt-shell-corporates-trillion-tonnes-carbon

  19. @ lee April 8, 2014 at 6:46 pm “That wouldn’t be the multi-listed 2007 prize would it?;)”

    Yes, indeed, our NIPCC critic Dr Wuebbles (having his own tag designation at WUWT http://wattsupwiththat.com/tag/donald-wuebbles/ ) blesses us with his own interpretation of that Peace Prize accolade at his LinkedIn resumé page http://www.linkedin.com/pub/don-wuebbles/10/645/910 “He shares in the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for his work with the international Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.”

    Remember, the IPCC said such descriptions were not correct: “The prize was awarded to the IPCC as an organization, and not to any individual associated with the IPCC. Thus it is incorrect to refer to any IPCC official, or scientist who worked on IPCC reports, as a Nobel laureate or Nobel Prize winner.” http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/nobel/Nobel_statement_final.pdf

  20. What a bunch of crap this is. You guys are looking more and more desperate. You’ll have Fox News, the Weekly Standard and anyone else who attends will be doing so to expose you for the fossil-fuel-funded-frauds that you are.

    REPLY: Be careful Pat Ravasio, you’d make a prime candidate for a defamation lawsuit saying things like that, and I don’t think it would be good for your real estate business – Anthony

Comments are closed.