Posted by Dee Norris
Mark your calendars.
The 2009 International Conference on Climate Change returns to New York City on March 8th, 2009.
The 2009 International Conference on Climate Change will serve as a platform for scientists and policy analysts from around the world who question the theory of man-made climate change. This year’s theme, “Global Warming Crisis: Cancelled,” calls attention to new research findings that contradict the conclusions of the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report.
Last year’s conference was reported to be a great success and you can access the audio and video recordings of presentations made at the 2008 conference Web site.
Distinguished scholars from the U.S. and around the world have addressed these questions seriously and without institutional bias. Their findings suggest the Modern Warming is moderate and partly or even mostly a natural recovery from the Little Ice Age; that the consequences of moderate warming are positive for humanity and wildlife; that predictions of future warming are wildly unreliable; that the costs of trying to “stop global warming” exceed hypothetical benefits by a factor of 10 or more; and more.
Often, these scholars have been ignored, and often even censored and demonized. They have been labeled “skeptics” and even “global warming deniers,” a mean-spirited attempt to lump them together with Holocaust deniers. The truth of the matter is that these scholars dissent from a false “consensus” put forward by a small but politically powerful clique of government scientists and political allies.
Actual surveys of climate scientists and recent reviews of the scholarly literature both show the so-called “skeptics” may actually be in the majority of the climate science community. They do not lack scholarly credentials or scientific integrity, but a platform from which they can be heard. Their voices have been drowned out by publicity built upon the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, an entity with an agenda to build support for the theory of man-made catastrophic global warming.
This year promises double the attendance as in 2008 and the esteemed Anthony Watts is a confirmed speaker.
I plan on attending. Do you?
Confirmed Speakers
| Name | Affiliation |
| Dennis Avery | Hudson Institute |
| Joseph Bast | The Heartland Institute |
| Robert Bradley | Institute for Energy Research |
| Bob Carter | James Cook University (Australia) |
| Frank Clemente | Penn State University |
| John Coleman | KUSI-TV – San Diego |
| Joseph D’Aleo | International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project |
| David Douglass | University of Rochester |
| Myron Ebell | Competitive Enterprise Institute |
| Michelle Foss | University of Texas – Center for Energy Economics |
| Fred Goldberg | Royal School of Technology (Sweden) |
| Laurence Gould | University of Hartford |
| William Gray | Colorado State University |
| Chris Horner | Competitive Enterprise Institute |
| Craig Idso | Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change |
| David Legates | University of Delaware |
| Jay Lehr | The Heartland Institute |
| Marlo Lewis | Competitive Enterprise Institute |
| Richard Lindzen | Massachusetts Institute of Technology |
| Ross McKitrick | University of Guelph |
| Christopher Monckton | Science and Public Policy Institute |
| Jim O’Brien | Florida State University |
| Tim Patterson | Carleton University |
| Benny Peiser | Liverpool John Moores University (United Kingdom) |
| Paul Reiter | Institut Pasteur (France) |
| Arthur Robinson | Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine |
| Joel Schwartz | American Enterprise Institute |
| S. Fred Singer | Science and Environmental Policy Project |
| Fred Smith | Competitive Enterprise Institute |
| Willie Soon | Science and Public Policy Project |
| Roy Spencer | University of Alabama at Huntsville |
| James M. Taylor | The Heartland Institute |
| Anthony Watts | Surfacestations.org |
Perhaps we can get Al Gore to speak so we are assured of cold weather.
Just an afterthought: As many of you know, Anthony does not receive funding for his work at www.surfacestations.org or here at WUWT. The funds to attend this conference will most likely come out of his pocket. Look to your right and you will see at little yellow Donate button under the SHAMELESS PLUG heading. WUWT gets over 10,000 views a day and if just 0.5% of this traffic contributes ten dollars apiece, we can entirely fund Anthony’s conference expenses. How about it? Do we walk the walk or just talk?
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Joel Shore:
Read the following, where Santor (from Lawrence Livermore,
http://esi-topics.com/nhp/2007/january-07-BenjaminDSanter.html)
uses “consensus” and agreements between AGW-funded/biased theories and AGW-funded/biased computer models (more theory with even more approximations!) to throw out the measaurements of the real world.
“We found rather puzzling amplification results for the UAH lower tropospheric temperatures (TLT). For “fast” (month-to-month and year-to-year) fluctuations in tropical temperatures, UAH TLT anomalies were 1.3 to 1.4 times larger than surface temperature anomalies, consistent with models, theory, and other observational datasets. But for “slow” (decade-to-decade) temperature changes, the UAH TLT trends were noticeably smaller than surface trends.
In contrast, amplification results from nearly two dozen computer models were consistent with theory across all timescales considered, despite large differences in model structure, physics, and climate forcings.
We also saw tropospheric amplification of surface temperature changes in a second observational TLT dataset developed by the Remote Sensing Systems group (RSS) in California. Although RSS and UAH scientists relied on the same raw MSU data, they made different decisions on how to adjust that data for the effects of drifts in satellite orbits and for instrument calibration problems.
One possible explanation for our results is that the UAH data are reliable, and that different physical mechanisms control the response of the tropical atmosphere to “fast” and “slow” surface temperature fluctuations. If so, all models must have common errors that prevent them from capturing these different physical mechanisms, which have yet to be identified.
A second explanation is that significant inhomogeneities remain in the UAH tropospheric temperature records, leading to residual cooling biases in the UAH long-term trend estimates. In our view, this second explanation is simpler and more plausible, given the consistency of amplification results across models and timescales, our theoretical understanding of how the tropical atmosphere should respond to sustained surface heating, and the currently large uncertainties in observed tropospheric temperature trends.”
What Santor is deliberately saying is that “Atmospheric theory and computer climate derived from that theory agree with each other, but don’t agree with the measured data, so we must throw out the measured data because it makes our theory wrong.” (And, by the way, this disagreement means my funding and reputation are threatened.)
Should “science” be an answer in political debates?
Absolutely!
But should politics be an answer in scientific debates? It is now: The IPCC IS a powerful political machine, and one that no scruples, morals, nor ethics as ot seeks to move trillions of dollars to corrupt dictators, and to the politicians that empower the bureaucrats.
Robert A. Cook PE (17:12:25) Excellent point. I also disagree with Santer when he calls the models’ scenario ‘simpler and more plausible’. Simpler, yes; overly simplified, the regulation of the climate is extremely complicated. He has hit on one great flaw in the CO2=AGW paradigm, that is, that it is too simple. The data tells the tale.
I suspect he’s also hit the nail on the head with his first scenario, that ‘all models must have common errors that prevent them from capturing these different physical mechanisms, which have yet to be identified’. Isn’t that practically admitting what every skeptic knows, that clouds and convection are inadequately parameterized at present?
I think I’ve never heard so loud
The quiet message in a cloud.
Still louder, now, but still and all,
Still ’tis shadows on the wall.
=========================================
The moon over which will have jumped the cow.
Will o’ the wisp, optical path length Tau.
======================
kim (03:52:18) Come to bed, it’s late, dear.
-I can’t, there’s someone wrong on the internet.
-Is your pome about models trying to mimic clouds being like a cow flying over the moon?
-Yes, but it’s no good if you have to explain it.
======================================
PDO negative SOI positive = Draught in USA. As the “water cycle” shows: Cold seas less evaporation=less clouds=less rain=draught. Draught=less wheat=higher prices.
Remember William Hershel?
Has anyone heard of the Institute for Energy Research? Since there seems to be a little controversy with Heartland sponsoring this event maybe they could get invovled – that is if they are legit too. Big Oil has got to be involved somehow I’m sure..
http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/about-us/
“Why not set up a separate fund for donations to enable people that can contribute to the conference but can’t afford to attend. I would be willing to donate provided we could find someone to audit the cash and so on.”
This idea has a lot of merit.
“Dr. James Hansen receives the Heinz Award in the Environment for his exemplary leadership in the critical and often-contentious debate over the threat of global climate change.”
Why not just get your opinion of Dr. Hansen straight from the horses mouth so to speak….. http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/
That site is his own words and his own agenda. I personally do not see any… ANY!!!! form of objectivity coming from him only his agenda. Is this the kind of scientist you want researching your future?
A catchier and more descriptive name for this convention would help. I suggest “The Cooler Heads Convention on Global Warming”–which would be easier for TV reporters to refer to by its shorthand title, The Cooler Heads Convention.
Holton WEather Forecasting, (Australia)Hasthe following forecast
Solar & Ocean changes are shown to be the dominant drivers of Global Temperature Trends, with CO2 playing a more minor role than previously thought, according to the Holton Weather NEW REVISED NEW Statistical Global Temperature Model HSOC M3! (These latest results show that Global Cooling now has a distinct possibility of occurring during and for the next approximate 30 to 40 year period at least)
Solar & Ocean changes are shown to be the dominant drivers of Global Temperature Trends, with CO2 playing a more minor role than previously thought, according to the Holton Weather NEW REVISED NEW Statistical Global Temperature Model HSOC M3! (These latest results show that Global Cooling now has a distinct possibility of occurring during and for the next approximate 30 to 40 year period at least)