Skeptic Conference Ends with Discussions of Latest Science Challenging UN Reports, Recognition of Professional Courage and Honesty
LAS VEGAS (July 9, 2014)— Today, the last day of the Ninth International Conference on Climate Change(ICCC9), will include the presentation of the “Lifetime Achievement in Climate Science Award” to Dr. S. Fred Singer, as well as 29 more presentations from leading “skeptic” scientists and policy experts of a human-caused climate crisis.
The live stream with full coverage of ICCC9 will begin at 8 a.m. PDT today (Wednesday, July 9.) The last of 70 total presentations at the conference will conclude 4 p.m. PDT.
Singer was among the first and is still the most prominent scientist in the world speaking out against global warming alarmism. He is the author, coauthor, and editor of many books, including Climate Change Reconsidered (several volumes), a comprehensive critique of the assessment reports of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental International Panel on Climate Change.
Click here for much more information about Singer’s long and distinguished scientific career. See bios of all presenters at ICCC9 at the speakers page for the conference website, and click here for a full list of award recipients at the three-day conference from Mandalay Bay in Las Vegas.
“Fred Singer is the most amazing and wonderful person participating in the global warming debate today,” said Joseph Bast, president of The Heartland Institute, sponsor of the award. “Fred was one of the original ‘rocket scientists’ who helped put satellites and eventually men into space in the 1960s. He is a brilliant scientist and a pioneer in many fields, and one of the most recognized scientists of his generation.
“Fred could have accepted the awards and honorary degrees and settled into a peaceful retirement. Instead, he began writing books and articles exposing errors and corruption in climate science,” Bast continued. “As a result, this kind and patient man, a true American science hero, is slandered and vilified by environmental activists and journalists who couldn’t make it through a high school chemistry class.
“We are very proud to recognize Fred Singer’s lifetime achievements in climate science with this award,” said Bast.
A run-down of the day’s events, which will stream online here:
8:00 AM PDT Plenary Session
Keynotes: Dr. Roy Spencer and Dr. Jay Lehr
Awards: Art Robinson receives the “Voice of Reason Award” from The Heartland Institute; Roy Spencer receives the “Outstanding Evangelical Climate Scientist Award” from the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation
10:00 AM PDT Panels
Climate Change, Water, and Human Well Being: Dr. Jennifer Marohasy, Dr. Nils-Axel Morner, and Dr. S. Fred Singer (Moderator: Dr. John Dunn)
Weather and Climate Change: Dr. Madhav Khandekar, Joe Bastardi, and Stanley Goldenberg (Moderator: Paul Driessen)
How Reliable Are Temperature Records? Is Global Warming Rapid and Dangerous?: Anthony Watts and Richard Keen (Moderator: Norman Rogers)
11:30 AM PDT Panels
NIPCC versus IPCC: Biological Impacts: Dr. Craig Loehle and Dr. Craig Idso (Moderator: Craig Rucker)
Peer Review, Herding, and the Reliability of Climate Science: Dr. Patrick Michaels, Dr. Tim Ball, and Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen (Moderator: Tom Harris)
New Estimates of Climate Sensitivity: Robert Armstrong, Dr. Anthony Lupo, and Dr. Olavi Karner (Moderator: Norman Rogers)
1:00 PM PDT Plenary Session
Keynote Address: Lord Christopher Monckton
Awards: Fred Singer receives the “Lifetime Achievement in Climate Science Award” from The Heartland Institute; “Surprise” Award to mystery recipient
3:00 PM PDT Panels
Looking Ahead: Future Climates: Dr. Don Easterbrook, Willis Eschenbach, and Dr. Terrence Flower (Moderator: Marlo Lewis)
The Global Warming Debate in Australia: Hon. George Christensen, Dr. Jennifer Marohasy, and Dr. William Kininmonth (Moderator: Dr. Robert Carter)
Global Warming as a Social Movement: Dr. E. Calvin Beisner, Paul Driessen, and Peter Ferrara (Moderator: Rep. Pat Garofalo)
Global Warming Debate
The debate over the causes and consequences of global warming (or “climate change”) is one of the great controversies of the modern era. While environmental activists and some politicians claim “the debate is over” and call for immediate action to reduce man-made greenhouse gas emissions, others say the science points to only a very small human impact – too small to warrant concern – and the costs of trying to prevent global warming far exceed the benefits.
‘Roy Spencer receives the “Outstanding Evangelical Climate Scientist Award” from the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation”
Nice for Dr. Spencer. But not helpful; I just don’t see the point.
pokerguy: I just don’t see the point.
I think the point would be that we are building a coalition–an alliance of groups representing distinct, even contradictory, points of view in other areas of discourse, but which work together in one area of agreement.
Art Robinson receives the “Voice of Reason Award”…
Congrats to Art Robinson.
I can’t help but wonder, on the Alarmist/Warmist side,
who won this year’s “Voice of Unreason” Award?
./grin
“I think the point would be that we are building a coalition–an alliance of groups representing distinct, even contradictory, points of view in other areas of discourse, but which work together in one area of agreement.”
John,
Sounds good, but I have my doubts. Haven’t looked at what groups might be represented, but I’ll wager they generally share a conservative outlook. In this politically charged environment, other differences tend to be seen as cosmetic. As a recovering progressive, I’ve a good sense of how things will play to that side of the fence, and the presentation of an award from a religious group, because a scientist’s opinions comports with their views concerning God….and likely Intelligent Design….feeds into all the worst negative stereotypes.
Look, I celebrate the right of any group to give out any darned awards they see fit. I’m just saying it’s not helpful, if the goal is to persuade,
I have to agree with Pokerguy here. We should stick to science and not mix science and religion. Dr. Spencer’s opinions get pummeled by people pointing out his views on creationism. Of course, the high road is to point out this obvious ad-hom and claim that the power of Dr. Spencer’s science stands on its own (being neither boosted nor impinged by his religious beliefs). This high road is contradicted imo by an “evangelical climate scientist award.”
James
pokerguy says:
July 9, 2014 at 5:29 am
———————————————————-
Dr. Spencer is also listed as a member of their own Cornwall Alliance Advisory Board…
http://www.cornwallalliance.org/about/cornwall-alliance-advisory-board/
This award would be better presented at their own Cornwall Alliance Conference.
It seems like a private internal award given within the organization membership itself.
It would also be inappropriate for WUWT to present an award to their “Employee of the Year” at this conference.
It’s not the right venue… maybe a church?
It leaves me feeling uncomfortable.
However this is not any opinion about Dr. Spencer nor this organization’s beliefs or purpose.
Life itself is truly a miracle…
It is only when God comes into the discussion that commenters on this web site sound EXACTLY like climate extremists who bar the very possibility of disagreement with what they “know” to be true. Please consider that.
“This high road is contradicted imo by an “evangelical climate scientist award.”
Exactly right, James.
“It is only when God comes into the discussion that commenters on this web site sound EXACTLY like climate extremists who bar the very possibility of disagreement with what they “know” to be true. Please consider that.”
I don’t think you read my comment very carefully. I could care less what people believe or don’t believe.
“It is only when God comes into the discussion that commenters on this web site sound EXACTLY like climate extremists”
While that is true, even as an agnostic I was willing to listen.
In the award discussion, it was pointed out that ONLY in the European Christian religion was science supported and codified over the long term.(some big screw ups of course). that mad me go hmmm…(not hymm)
It was said this was a result of the gospel of St Luke, a physician. Apparently he advocated being skeptical of so called evidence, until it could be ascertained to be true, then it was important to hold onto those facts. I am not a bible reader, so I can’t give an exact quote. In any case, I was pleased to hear him say that it was unconscionable what the warmists were doing to poor people. He also said that nuclear power was the way to go.
Like I said, I am agnostic, but I admit that brought tears my eyes.
A most distinguished panel indeed; and to think that according to The Prince Charles, they are all flat earthers and headless chickens..
I understand the hesitancy to engage in the social discourse. I feel that way as well. At the same time, the AGW / political machine I coopting “mom and apple pie” organizations to advance the “settled science”. Our Delaware “League of Women Voters” chapter is parroting the AGW aggressive position on sea level rise. The position is being presented to the national organization for adoption this summer. Tactically, a League member introduces Sierra Club [etc.] speakers for presentation to other civic groups. This widens acceptance for the AGW arguments by people, who otherwise don’t have the time to dig into the issues in their daily lives.
The same reach out program has targeted Evangelical and Catholic ministries to win mind-share and solicit support at the congregational level.
As good news, the clear data presented at WUWT and the rest on the scientific ecosystem will carry the day. It will carry the day, if those interested in the humility of true science do not sink to the hostility, name calling, hair on fire attitudes expressed by the core AGW advocates. So, keep the class shown by the scientific Blog owners in responding to the AGW crowd [which has been mostly the case across the scientific web sites – Thank You”].
I’ll close with a quote posted on our family’s original blog, the refrigerator:
God sometimes does try to the uttermost those whom he wishes to bless.
Mohandas Gandhi
The infiltration of “climate science issues into the blogs run by pro-science evolution related persons/groups, caused me to abandon them several years ago – until which point I had been an active participant. I hope we do not see any further dilution of our core cause in this venue by mixing the apples and oranges of our own respective personal beliefs and activities with our more professional activities.
The infiltration of “climate science issues into the blogs run by pro-science evolution related persons/groups, caused me to abandon them several years ago – until which point I had been an active participant. I hope we do not see any further dilution of our core cause in this venue by mixing the apples and oranges of our own respective personal beliefs and activities with our more professional activities.
“The infiltration of “climate science issues into the blogs run by pro-science evolution related persons/groups, caused me to abandon them several years ago”
??? You have to explain yourself to me, as I cannot make sense of that.
@JohnWho:
“I can’t help but wonder, on the Alarmist/Warmist side,
who won this year’s “Voice of Unreason” Award?”
Way too many candidates for that one…
Among the really great talks this morning was Jay Lehr’s proposed five year plan to replace the EPA with state EPAs. The states would also have delegates which would meet in Topeka, KS.
A little back story – he said he was part of the committee in 1968 who helped to found the EPA. He has “been doing penance ever since.” His observation was that the original Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act were useful, but that the EPA had done nothing productive since 1980.
I think the issue has progressed far beyond state and federal control.So called “State-led” programs which increase federal standards and powers are now routinely orchestrated by the federal government. Two examples are the Common Core nationalization of education, and the creation of the Climate Fund for states. Money is offered to states, but they agree to adopt federal guidelines later on in exchange for the funding. This harmonization of the states through a powerful central control is also being accomplished in Europe; as Angela Merkel said, “We’re all allowed to move at different speeds, towards ever closer union, but we must continue in the same direction.”
In short, the “state led initiatives” now routinely increase federal control. It is basically a system in which the federal government provides the funding, and then tells the states they can choose between the red pill, the pink pill, the magenta pill or the rust pill.Therefore, at this point, the elimination of layers of bureaucracy is the only possible solution, if the goal is to preserve one country on this earth where private property, and the ability to engage in commercial activity, are still preserved and reserved to all the citizens. Otherwise, those will revert to being simply class privileges, controlled by an impossible and impenetrable maze of tax law, environmental controls, and wage standards set by people, who then grant themselves and their friends “waivers.”
” pokerguy says:
July 9, 2014 at 8:28 am
“It is only when God comes into the discussion that commenters on this web site sound EXACTLY like climate extremists who bar the very possibility of disagreement with what they “know” to be true. Please consider that.”
I don’t think you read my comment very carefully. I could care less what people believe or don’t believe. ”
Yes, the quote is not what pokerguy said, but the point he made after says a lot about his position. Right, pokerguy, I don’t think you do care what people believe or disbelieve, and it doesn’t have to be religion that is involved. However, since climate science, as presented by the warmists, IS a religion to start with, I have no problem if a religious group wishes to recognize a scientist’s accomplishments. This is the real world out here, and religion happens to be part of it. Accept it and drive on. Science has tried for centuries to present itself as a religious alternative, so as a religious alternative, science IS a religion, just as atheism IS a religion. However, that is my definition and, to borrow your phrase, “I could care less what people believe or don’t believe” when it comes to how you define it. So torpedo away.
We’ve had more rain here in the Las Vegas metro in the last few days than we had all year. Therefore, climate change must be real and it must be caused by climate change conferences.
So, any more local media coverage? I haven’t seen anything in the broadcast media.
On detrending vs. differencing approaches, this post I wrote back in 2011 is still relevant: http://rankexploits.com/musings/2011/the-atlantic-multidecadal-oscillation-and-modern-warming/
I’m not comfortable mixing climate science skepticism with creationism or any other religious belief. This is exactly the wrong message for this conference.
This is probably, a little off topic ( not entirely though ), but the other day I was going trying to get some semblance of order and organization in my depot room ( the place where the junk from past history piles up ), and among the stuff I carried out there were a good number of boxes full of old magazines of various vintage, and as I went through them to make sure that there was nothing in there that I still wanted to keep before I transferred them to the garbage collection point I came upon the an old issue (august 1979) of the OMNI Magazine, and it tripped a recollection switch in my brain so I scanned through it and lo and behold there I found an an interview , snips of which had stuck in the quick access part my memory but had forgotten where they had come from originally,and could now verify their origin .
The man being interviewed was John D. Isaacs, who at that time was the director of the Institute of Marine Research at University of California, the interview is quite interesting and some of the opinion of Isaacs are just as relevant today as they were 3 decades ago.
Well to I’ll try make the story short, I dug up an URL of the on-line afterlife of the Omni issue which this interview appeared in , as I thought it deserved to be made more visible to a wider audience, and here it is.
https://archive.org/details/omni-magazine-1979-08
The interview with Isaacs starts at page 70, pick your preferred viewing method from the side pane at the left ( below the ‘View the book’ headline ) to get at it. ( Suggest you avoid the ‘full text version’ though , at least it appears hopelessly ‘fubar-ed’ and impossible to navigate through on screen in my browser, but the pdf or epub links come across nicely ).
After I reread the Interview piece , I got a little curious about the man and fed ‘John Dove Isaacs’ to the search input at Wikipedia and found out that it only carries a stub page about him (and none to precise at that, his birth year seems to be bungled up) but there are two links at the bottom of that stub, one leading to a short to biographical page about him at some NOAA subdivision, and another and fuller memoir page at the National Academy of Science , a kind of obituary ( Isaacs passed away only about a year after the Omni interview ) written by someone who apparently was a both a friend and for many years a coworker , and I came away from reading it with a picture in my mind of a the curiosity driven sailor/fisherman who came ashore and went back to school to find answers to some of the questions popping up in a fertile brain and in the process became an out of the box thinking and curiosity ( not money ) driven scientist who set out to sea again mostly hunting for more knowledge instead of fish ( or money) . In short the type of knowledge hunter the science departments the universities of the world (or at least those located outside the socialist/communist countries where some political correctness was sort of mandated) used to produce on a regular basis before the heavy onset the post normal politically correctness of the most resent decades, and left me thinking ” They surely do not make the like they used to!!!”, and “ If this guy was still alive today and active he would probalby be in Las Vegas right now”
(Oh I starting to ramble again , I’ll just quit here ). Below is the link to memoir page of Isaacs at NAS.
http://www.nasonline.org/publications/biographical-memoirs/memoir-pdfs/isaacs-john.pdf
enjoy.
“Among the really great talks this morning was Jay Lehr’s proposed five year plan to replace the EPA with state EPAs.”
Agreed. This is the ONLY way the damage of run away alarmism will be stopped. The scientific method will not do it. One speaker called it essential to protect the constitution. I agree. Congress is being bypassed, and the courts have been outwitted.
The EPA has outlived its mission. All federal agencies should have a sunset clause, whereby the agency must justify it’s existence and a law must be passed to reauthorize it. This proposal involves more than reviewing the budget — the agency must explain what is has accomplished and whether or not it has achieved its statutory purpose and why it needs to be renewed.
Anthony’s presentation today was interesting. Essentially the results are that both the “compliant” and “non-compliant” stations were upped a bit as compared to the first draft, but the relationship remained. However, Anthony did not reveal the data for the rural-compliant data and MMTS rural compliant data, which were reviewed int he first draft and both of which are supremely important. The reason is that in the first draft the ‘rural only’ stations (without airports) the trend was about 0.1 C per decade (the official trend being 0.3 C or so per decade), while the MMTS compliant stations had essentially zero trend over the same period of time. I wonder what are the revised figures for those two categories in the final paper? And why does Anthony continues emphasizing the compliant only data that include both rural and urban stations, instead of eliminating the urban data outright?
Anthony, your presentations were models of clarity and insight, but it’s hard to beat Monckton doing Monty Python’s dead parrot sketch.
Here there be GIANTS.
Willis is on right now!
PhilCP says:
July 9, 2014 at 9:12 am
@JohnWho:
“I can’t help but wonder, on the Alarmist/Warmist side,
who won this year’s “Voice of Unreason” Award?”
Way too many candidates for that one…
Well, sometimes an individuals award is given to a team.
That can only mean WE, SM, and LS are going to give him the Dr. Evans treatment.
hopefully, this is being promoted at the Conference, by every speaker:
9 July: Rasmussen: Only 20% Think Debate About Global Warming Is Over
Voters strongly believe the debate about global warming is not over yet and reject the decision by some news organizations to ban comments from those who deny that global warming is a problem.
Only 20% of Likely U.S. Voters believe the scientific debate about global warming is over, according to the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. Sixty-three percent (63%) disagree and say the debate about global warming is not over. Seventeen percent (17%) are not sure. (To see survey question wording, click here.)…
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/lifestyle/general_lifestyle/july_2014/only_20_think_debate_about_global_warming_is_over
9 July: UK Telegraph: Raziye Akkoc: Lord Lawson: BBC has banned me because of my climate change scepticism
Although Lord Lawson said he did not support the ban on non-scientists discussing climate change issues, he argued it should be “even-handed”.
“They should also ban non-scientists such as Energy Secretary Ed Davey, Ed Miliband, Lord Deben (chairman of the Government’s Climate Advisory Committee), Lord Stern (former adviser to the Government on the Economics of Climate Change and Development) and all the others who are regularly invited to appear,” he wrote.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/10955605/Lord-Lawson-BBC-has-banned-me-because-of-my-climate-change-scepticism.html
I have never had a problem arguing Dr. Spencer’s scientific credentials,
Roy W. Spencer, B.S. Atmospheric and Oceanic Science, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor (1978); M.S. Meteorology, University of Wisconsin, Madison (1979); Ph.D. Meteorology (Thesis: “A case study of African wave structure and energetics during Atlantic transit“), University of Wisconsin, Madison (1981); Member, Marine Observation Satellite (MOS-1) Validation Team, JAXA/NASA (1978-1990); Chairman, Hydrology Subgroup, Earth System Science Geostationary Platform Committee, NASA (1978-1990); Research Associate, Space Science and Engineering Center, University of Wisconsin, Madison (1981-1983); Assistant Scientist, Space Science and Engineering Center, University of Wisconsin, Madison (1983-1984); Member, Science Steering Group for the Tropical Rain Measuring Mission (TRMM), NASA (1986-1989); Visiting Scientist, Universities Space Research Association – Marshall Space Flight Center, NASA (1984-1987); Member, Subcommittee on Precipitation and Winds, Earth System Science Committee, NASA (1986); Technical Advisor, Global Precipitation Climatology Project, World Meteorological Organization (1986-1992); Space Scientist, Marshall Space Flight Center, NASA (1987-1997); Member, TRMM Space Station Accommodations Analysis Study Team, NASA (1987-1991); Marshall Space Flight Center Director’s Commendation (1989); Member, Earth Science and Applications Advisory Subcommittee, NASA (1990-1992); NASA Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal (1991); Member, TOVS Pathfinder Working Group, NASA (1991-1994); U.S. Science Team Leader, Multichannel Microwave Imaging Radiometer Team, NASA (1992-1996); American Meteorological Society Special Award (1996); U.S. Science Team Leader, Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer-E, NASA (1996-present); Senior Scientist for Climate Studies, Marshall Space Flight Center, NASA (1997-2001); Contributing Author, IPCC (1992, 1995, 2001); Principal Research Scientist, Earth System Science Center, University of Alabama in Huntsville (2001-Present)
And yes it is an ad hominem to reject his scientific arguments based on his religious beliefs. At the end of the day if Evangelicals are only going to listen to someone who shares their religious beliefs on the AGW debate I can think of no one more qualified to discuss the science.
Oops, ignore the comment above, posted it on the wrong blog :-p
Alan Robertson says: July 9, 2014 at 3:17 pm
Willis is on right now!
=============================
It was easy to tell that Willis is an engineer. His neck tie was noticeably crooked.
I am sure that many of you are unaware that i sent a letter to Heartland declining to read my poetry at this event which is currently taking place in Vegas. (And let me tell you all that it is totally irrelevant whether or not they asked me to read my poetry at this event!) In the letter I did promise that though I would not perform in person I would post my latest now completed poem on this web site while the event was in progress. Had any of you known of that promise I am sure you would be waiting with great anticipation for me to fulfill that promise. Well, here it is.
I am sure that the more poetically astute of you will notice that in stanzas 5-9 I did borrow certain “naughty bits” from William Blake’s deservedly obscure poem JERUSALEM.
PROFESSOR PHIL JONES
The English Prometheus
To tell the tale as it began —
An ego yearned
Ambition burned
Inside a quiet little man
No one had heard of Phillip Jones
Obscure to fame
(And likewise blame)
The creep of time upon his bones
Men self-deceive when fame is sought
Their fingers fold
Their ego told
That fire is what their fist has caught!
Because they’d rather rule than serve
They, with their heat,
The light defeat
And damning ignorance preserve
Such want to feel, not understand!
Jones made it plain
That Hell must reign
In England’s green and pleasant land!
What demon in him came to birth?
In mental fight
Against God’s might
Jones raised the temperature of earth!
And with his arrows of desire
In sneak attacks
He shot the backs
Of those who questioned — where’s the fire?
Raw data which was burning gold
He threw away
So none could say
It falsified what he foretold
East Anglia supports him still
The truth denied
Whitewash applied
Within that dark Satanic Mill
The evil that this wimp began
Will go around
And come around
Prometheus soon wicker man
Eugene WR Gallun
This is an urban legend, Willis has a B.A. in Psychology and as never been professionally employed as an engineer but he does have an extensive background in Commercial Fishing, Construction and the Peace Corps.
I have had the opportunity to check out quite a few of the breakout session. Amazingly good info and graphics. Those need to be shared!
There was an impressive display of true science at this conference.
I would state that if any one who had an issue with CO2, watched some of these presentations, they would understand, as opposed to being told. That is what science is about.
Hence, why I have asked Heartland to publish these videos on their channel on YouTube (where is it). This must be easily shared.
Thank You, Heartland and your organization. We need more of you!
The live portion is over, but you can select specific videos now. Very nice job with making that happen fast!
http://climateconference.heartland.org/
Hopefully, archived and available moving forward.
Regards Ed
Alarmist media coverage so far:
http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/07/08/return-denial-palooza-heartland-institute-hitches-anti-science-wagon-freedomfest
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101807383#.
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/07/08/what-a-german-climate-denial-rap-tells-you-abou/200021
http://www.vice.com/read/us-congressman-opens-climate-science-denial-conference-with-rant-against-water-fluoridation-708
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/07/08/watch-calif-republicans-anti-fluoride-rant-opens-climate-skeptics-conference/
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/07/08/1312501/-Heartland-Conference-Kicks-Off
http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2014/07/heartland_institute_climate_change_conference_optimism_is_the_new_denial.html
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jul/09/climate-change-hysteria-sci-fi-movie-coalition-mp
Some honorable mentions:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/07/140708-decarbonization-pathways-climate-change-report-science/
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/un-avoiding-climate-disaster-tough-feasible
ossqss, they have uploaded all the previous conference videos to their YouTube Channel “HeartlandTube” found here,
https://www.youtube.com/user/HeartlandTube/videos
Uploading the recent conference to YouTube will take some time.
I found where Dr. Ball’s cartoon was published in New Scientist, September 1, 1977:
http://books.google.com/books?id=3F-kaFarx8cC&pg=PA530&dq=%22Either+the+gods+are+angry+or+there%27s+been+a+0-3+per+cent+m+shift+in+the+axis+of+rotation.%22
Sea faring Willis with a neck tie? That’s gotta bite. It was probably crooked because it itched.
Roy Spencer getting an award with a religious word in the title is no different that Greenpeace awards. Every award comes with a title in the name of the award. Don’t care.
One of these days I promise I’m going to met Anthony, Willis, Leif and Bob Tisdale. Those four brainiacs have given 100’s of hours of joyous eye candy reading time to me. Forever grateful.
Poptech says:
July 9, 2014 at 7:23 pm
ossqss, they have uploaded all the previous conference videos to their YouTube Channel “HeartlandTube” found here,
https://www.youtube.com/user/HeartlandTube/videos
Uploading the recent conference to YouTube will take some time.
==============================================
Thanks Poptech, that closes the loop on searching for many of us. I would also note acknowledgement of the quick and courteous response from the organization I received earlier with regard to my access to the video question.
First Class!
This stuff needs to be shared and shared in a big way!
Make it so folks!
We certainly need the facts to be broadcast!
Our future, and our children’s future, depends on it!
Zeke says:
July 9, 2014 at 10:22 am
Yes, it is blatantly political. Yes it needs to happen. EPA has way, way outgrown their britches. As Jay pointed out, there hasn’t been a single piece of legislation backed by EPA that benefits the environment or the American people since pre-1980. I am planning political action in my home state of Arizona immediately.
Please.
All American readers of this blog, familiarize yourself with this initiative and let’s get this straightened out.
Right. Now.
Poptech says:
July 9, 2014 at 4:29 pm
“I have never had a problem arguing Dr. Spencer’s scientific credentials…”
Stop. The BS. Over religion.
Now.
Stop. Now.
This is about facts. This is about data. This is about basic, human respect for truth.
It makes no matter if the messenger is:
Christian
Jew (Gosh sakes I hope not!)
Muslim
Born Again
Atheist (Yes. A Religion)
Yoga
Hindu
Zoroaster (I met a Zoroaster priest at a Hanukkah celebration – he was a senior electrical engineer at Intel…)
Stop the intolerance and foolishness.
Facts are facts; and the fact that Dr Spencer is allegedly, (I have met him personally, religion never came up) a Christian has absolutely no bearing, as far as I can see, on his stature as a scientist.
If anyone can produce a credible argument that his faith has compromised his scientific integrity, then produce it now or STFU!
gregole, agreed but the concern is the alarmist spin from the title of the award and its use as an ad hominem. I understand the concern but as I stated presenting his extensive scientific credentials is all that is needed to nullify that argument. There is also no evidence what so ever of his religious views being a part of his climate science. Anyway you forgot Jedi.
Dr. Singer is certainly deserving of the lifetime achievement award,
S. Fred Singer, BEE, Ohio State University (1943); A.M. Physics, Princeton University (1944); Ph.D. Physics, Princeton University (1948); Research Physicist, Upper Atmosphere Rocket Program, Applied Physics Laboratory, Johns Hopkins University (1946-1950); Scientific Liaison Officer, U.S. Office of Naval Research (1950-1953); Director, Center for Atmospheric and Space Physics, and Professor of Physics, University of Maryland (1953-1962); White House Commendation for Early Design of Space Satellites (1954); Visiting Scientist, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Cal Tech (1961-1962); First Director, National Weather Satellite Center (1962-1964); First Dean of the School of Environmental and Planetary Sciences, University of Miami (1964-1967); Deputy Assistant Secretary (Water Quality and Research), U.S. Department of the Interior (1967-1970); Deputy Assistant Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1970-1971); Federal Executive Fellow, The Brookings Institution (1971); Professor of Environmental Science, University of Virginia (1971-1994); U.S. National Academy of Sciences Exchange Scholar, Soviet Academy of Sciences Institute for Physics of the Earth (1972); Member, Governor of Virginia Task Force on Transportation (1975); First Sid Richardson Professor, Lyndon Baines Johnson School for Public Affairs, University of Texas (1978); Vice Chairman and Member, National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmospheres (1981-1986); Senior Fellow, The Heritage Foundation (1982-1983); Member, U.S. Department of State Science Advisory Board (Oceans, Environment, Science) (1982-1987); Member, Acid Rain Panel, White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (1982-1987); Member, Space Applications Advisory Committee, NASA (1983-1985); Member, U.S. Department of Energy Nuclear Waste Panel (1984); Visiting Eminent Scholar, George Mason University (1984-1987); Chief Scientist, U.S. Department of Transportation (1987-1989); Member, White House Panel on U.S.-Brazil Science and Technology Exchange (1987); Distinguished Research Professor, Institute for Space Science and Technology (1989-1994); Guest Scholar, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Smithsonian Institute (1991); Guest Scholar, National Air and Space Museum, Smithsonian Institute (1991); Distinguished Visiting Fellow, The Hoover Institution, Stanford University (1992-1993); Distinguished Research Professor, Institute for Humane Studies, George Mason University (1994-2000); Commendation for Research on Particle Clouds, NASA (1997); Research Fellow, Independent Institute (1997); Director and President, The Science and Environmental Policy Project (1989-Present); Expert Reviewer, IPCC (2001)
We have very few great communicators like him in the scientific community.
The problem with Spencer isn’t his religious views as such. As several people have said, that’s irrelevant. It’s his association with Cornwall Alliance, that smells strongly of a “belief trumps facts” approach, and has unclear sources of funding.
Text book argumentum ad hominem.
I’m glad I attended this ICCC9. Met many fine people from all over. Saw some excellent presentations.
Suggestion: the same person who holds up the “one minute left” card should also hold up a “microphone!” card when the speaker wanders away for the microphone and a “louder” card when they’re not close enough to it or aren’t speaking loud enough. Also, whoever is controlling microphone gain needs to pay more attention to it.
Forgot to add something I’m seeing again in a replay – sometimes it takes many minutes of someone referring to slides before those slides are finally shown in the video.
Well, title or no title, he certainly behaves like an engineer. (Is there such a thing as a Climate Mechanisms Engineer? If not, maybe there should be.)
I got to meet Dr. Singer once and shake his hand. It was all I could do to not say, ” I am not worthy! I am not worthy!”
At http://climateconference.heartland.org/ list of archived videos, the panel 17 link plays Tuesday’s panel 11 video. I don’t see a website problems link to report this. Every website should have a link to report problems, but far too many don’t.
Winston, after you select Panel 17 and it launches a new USTREAM window, on the right bar select Panel 11 and that video will play.
All the speakers have been informative, some inspiring and entertaining. I am puzzled by Lord Monckton’s presentation. I was laughing, smiling and nodding along with the audience until the very end. He recommended we all write our representatives to make sure they include a “Freedom” clause in the Kyoto treaty allowing the country to withdraw after three years. He then jumped on the freedom band wagon pointing out that the US is all about freedom, etc, etc. Did anyone else find this odd? It was a very sour note out of tune with the entire rest of the conference. If I write to my congressman or senator it will be to demand they do not under any circumstances enter into the Kyoto treaty. I will be watching Lord Monckton very carefully henceforth.
At last the final version! In poetry less is often more.
PROFESSOR PHIL JONES
The English Prometheus
To tell the tale as it began —
An ego yearned
Ambition burned
Inside a quiet little man
No one had heard of Phillip Jones
Obscure to fame
(And likewise blame)
The creep of time upon his bones
Men self-deceive when fame is sought
Their fingers fold
Their ego told
That fire is what their fist has caught!
Such want to feel, not understand!
Jones made it plain
That Hell must reign
In England’s green and pleasant land
What demon in him came to birth?
In mental fight
Against the light
Jones raised the temperature of earth!
And with his arrows of desire
In sneak attacks
He shot the backs
Of those who questioned — where’s the fire!
Raw data which was burning gold
He threw away
So none could say
It falsified what he foretold
East Anglia supports him still
The truth denied
Whitewash applied
Within that dark Satanic Mill
The evil that this wimp began
Will go around
And come around
Prometheus soon wicker man
Eugene WR Gallun
Eugene WR Gallun,
You have a real talent! Thanks.
==================================================================
Well said.
How many warmist attack Hayhoe because of her religion(s)?
I am still completely puzzled by what Anthony is doing and why, referring to his latest presentation at Heartland, but also the first draft of the paper from 2012.
Anthony Watts from the Press Release on the paper from 2012: “U.S. Temperature trends show a spurious doubling due to NOAA station siting problems and post measurement adjustments.”
Anthony Watts from the paper itself 2012 p.24 “These large differences demonstrated between regional and CONUS trends accomplished by removal of airports and choosing the rural subset of stations to remove any potential urbanization effects suggests that rural MMTS stations not situated at airports may have the best representivity of all stations in the USHCNv2”
The only problem is that the press release and the paper are in complete contradiction, because the MMTS compliant stations that Anthony himself says are the best have only 0.032 S per decade of warming, not 0.155. And consequently the “spurious” warming is not by adding a half but rather a 9/10 to the correct trend. Why did Anthony had chosen and still continues to advertise obviously irrelevant and incorrect figure of the warming trend for ALL of the compliant stations, majority of which are urban and thus artificially warm, instead of emphasizing the flat trend at good, rural stations that he himself claims represent the true climatic trend? In his presentation at Heartland he did not even mention the rural MMTS! What’s going on?
[” 0.032 S per decade ” ?? .mod]
it’s 0.032 C, sorry for the mistake.
Did they recognize Fred’s contribution about cancer risks of passive smoking when presenting him the award?