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.
John-X (10:02:31) :
I shall just give a few examples. You can easily find many more [I’ll help if needed]:
WHICH foundations are “ultra-conservative,” Leif?
The Heartland Institute has received hundreds of thousands of dollars [to support ‘general operations’] from the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, that has also has provided funding for the Project for a New American Century (PNAC). PNAC brought together prominent members of the (George W) Bush Administration (Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz) in the late 1990s to articulate their neoconservative foreign policy, including sending a letter to President Bill Clinton urging him to invade Iraq.
WHO from “Big Oil” is “funding” Heartland, Leif?
http://democrats.science.house.gov/Media/File/Commdocs/hearings/2007/oversight/28mar/mccarthy_testimony.pdf
pahe 15:
Heartland Institute $561,500 Nearly 40% of the total funds that the Heartland Institute has received from ExxonMobil since 1998 were specifically designated for climate change projects. ExxonMobil donated $119,000 in 2005, its biggest gift to Heartland since 1998.
All the rest of your emotion laden stuff you can keep.
Re Lucy Skywalker (08:11:50) :
“Here’s an idea to put out early… how can we compile a list of anonymous but verifiable scientists who would attend but cannot owing to discrimination against skeptics…”
If some of the presentations (e.g Keynote speakers) were available as live webcasts for pre-registered log-in (free or very nominal cost), this probably wouldn’t affect attendance but would reach a wide audience, with some interesting stats from registrations or even just IP addresses.
This could generate some interesting post-event publicity “world’s largest conference audience” etc.
Some of the Information days for Research Programmes in the European Union are available in this way.
Leif wrote,
“It seems to me that the Institute has its own political agenda and it is a bit sad that they can fool well-meaning people to do their bidding.”
No one’s being fooled. “Their bidding” in this case is demonstrating that the IPCC is wrong. And hey! That’s exactly what the scientists and experts want to show as well. Which is why they form a conference at all. No one’s being taken advantage of here; guests would not agree to come if they did not want to. It really is irrelevant who hosts the event, because the seniorirty/expertise of the event is due to its guests, not its host. Even if 100% of the institute’s funding came straight from ExxonMobil, it wouldn’t make a difference because the authority of this conference does not lie with the host.
Hallo Mr. Watts,
thank you very much for your phantastic worc. Your blog is very important for me. Also why i have not so much money, i just gave 10 Dollars over paypal. Please do your best, thank you!
Greetings from Munich (Germany)
Alexander
Lief,
Per your observation: “The conference is sponsored by the Heartland Institute…”
In my opinion, the USA is politically polarized. Very unfortunately, even independents must (perhaps temporarily) align left or right to get something done on a large scale.
So, I do not assign credibility based on sponsorship or the presumed ideology of the presenters. Rather, I assign it on the basis of the quality of arguments presented.
Parenthetically, I am an independent who would solve some problems with far-left action, others with right-wing action, others in the middle. And, I do not think the USA is unique in its polarization.
Pet Rock (10:58:01) :
The proper way for people to fight AGW, if that is their desire, is to criticize their science, not their politics.
And to do that in open debate. How many of the speakers are pro-AGW so we can hear their side of the story? IMHO the ‘pure and honest’ scientists are being used. Now, that may be OK with them as long as they get their message out. My fear is that that message will be distorted and filtered. But, hey, if someone wants to carry wood to an Anti-Environment, Big Business, etc fire, so be it, but give me the freedom to voice my opinion too, without heaping abuse on me. Or maybe that’s not allowed here?
Pet Rock,
While I don’t agree with your Left-Right division entirely, because there are some of both in both camps, I think it still holds up for the most part. Here is why. Liberals today are Progressives, and like those of the 20s and 30s they are more open to extremism today. That is really the proper title for them. Progressives have a vision of a paradise they’d like to create. They think there is simply nothing stopping us except corporate greed from driving around in electric cars, operating homes of solar and wind-generated electricity, eating free-ranch meats, and shutting down Wal-Mart. Many of them have an idealistic vision such as this. The leaders, however, I do not believe are as ignorant. They know the costs of their plans, but they plan to profit from the changes while others suffer. Conservatives have been idealists in the past too, particularly socially, and there is nothing wrong with a healthy dose of idealism period. But most conservatives today are not interested in turning the clock back. We (I say that because I am one) only want freedom and prosperity for our fellow human beings, except of course for people like Putin, Ahmadinejad, and Kim Il-Jong. Those people can hang like Sadaam for all we care. And therein lies the difference.
Conservatives want change too. They just want a different kind of change, one that is slower and gradual, and most importantly one that is in the right direction. Liberal progressives today want change for change’s sake. And they paint such grandiose visions with such fervor (sort of like some televangelists, oddly enough) that they convince a lot of people (e.g., the global warming movement). Similar to John McCain, conservatism is pretty sturdy but rather boring too. Most of life is filled with the mundane and the routine. There are of course deeply good things about it too, but nothing very flashy. Similar to Barack Obama, progressivism sounds great, particularly after something bad has happened that they can attribute to conservatism like the financial crisis. But when it is closely examined you see the costs of progressivism far outweigh the benefits, much like the New Deal or the Great Society, or Obama’s plan to raise corporate taxes among other things. The reason that progressive plans eventually fail is that they ignore fundamental truths about not only economics but also the human condition itself. The genius of our current system of government here in the United States is its ability to bind a disparate People into one nation while still allowing them their individuality and the associated freedoms. It’s not perfect, but it works pretty well and is better than the alternatives. Progressives are socialists. Co-operation, sacrifice for your fellow man, and things along those lines – while not bad things and in of themselves – are not left up to individuals but are incorporated into the philosophy and the laws of government by the State (i.e., the Federal government in our case). You do not have the right to dissent or refuse because if others followed it would destroy the plan. Progressives are very ordered, and that is a good thing too, but when the good of Order is taken to override the necessity of Freedom, that is when Society is in great danger. And that is where we stand now in the great Global Warming debate.
RE Leif svaalgard’s statement above: That statement above is not his usual fare. I was surprised as it it usually is only solar science (strictly). In any case the sun’s minima is neing prolonued and yes temps are staying low and arctic and antarctic ice are increasing both nearing normal and probably going beyond… good luck. I think David archibald will be proved right at this rate,,, LOL
I honestly find it a bit disheartening that there are conferences for AGW proponents and separate conferences for AGW skeptics. That is a real tragedy. There’s much better chance for substantial progress in the science when these separate parties are in the same room arguing, so long as the arguements remain technical.
I look forward to reading what the scientists and others say in their lectures, but the only chance of MSM coverage is if all the little Leifs of the scene turn up with their placards, chanting about Big Oil, and tobacco, preaching precautionary principle (their last real argument). Hope they’re there. Should make it fun.
It was sad to have some one whose opinion I value lower himself to the point of using the old axiom, Big Oil, Big Tobacco, They are just extreme conservatives, Perhaps they will do the math, and considering last years speakers I see no prospect this year . Yep lets not look at the science lets look at the messenger. It has been my experience that if you pay some one to study green ants they will find green ants to study. If you pay them to find a blue and gold fish they will find a blue and gold fish to study. By the same token if you pay some on to study the prospects of global warming/climate change they will fine some to study. Then to continue funding they will find some compelling reason to continue the study. I just wonder what would happen if the big bucks would dry up what would be the findings from either position.
I believe that before I discount the science presented I would at least wait for it to be presented and study it and try to falsify it.
Bill Derryberry
Sorry, can’t attend. There will still be snow out West that others don’t want to pack down. It’s a tough and continuous job, but someone has to do it. A personal sacrifice for sure.
John Phillip–it will be interesting to see the results of the new Von Storch survey:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/09/a-new-survey-of-scientists/
Sorry–got this from realclimate–I feel I must bathe now
WHO from ‘Big Oil’ is ‘funding’ Heartland?
$676,500 from ExxonMobil in the last decade since you ask. This is from Exxon’s own company reports and accounts, Heartland themselves keep their benefactors a closely guarded secret. Doesn’t make them bad people of course, but it would surely be better if such potential conflicts of interest were voluntarily disclosed.
REPLY: John that’s no longer an issue. So please don’t keep repeating that. Heartland did at one time, take some research money from Exxon but does no longer. I asked the same questions last year as a condition of my attendance. Nothing from this conference (nor last years) is funded by oil companies or tobacco. Though many people like yourself seem to enjoy making those connections, even if they aren’t true. My parents both died of smoking related illnesses, and if I felt Heartland was advocating smoking, I would not be involved nor would I attend.- Anthony
Leif (9:37:56) I thought someone might say that Svensmark has already done the math, and shown that there is not much room for AGW, as in “The Chilling Stars,” or here:
http://www.space.dtu.dk/upload/institutter/space/research/sun-climate/full_text_publications/svensmark_2007cosmoclimatology.pdf
For the love of God, will you folks at the Heartland Institute please spell “canceled” correctly?
You go to all this trouble, come up with a nice theme, probably hire a marketing company to do the logo & web design, make it all look professional — and then you misspell one of the words in the theme for all to see. Do you know what “due diligence” means?
And you do all of this knowing the media is going to look for any reason they can find to discount what this conference is about. Well now you’ve already given them an angle: a group of skeptical scientists who can’t spell.
That’s just embarrassing.
It seems that Lewis Gordon Pugh is still talking Pollocks.
Don’t jump on Lief. Read his words carefully. He alludes to the very important problem that all non- establishment scientists face.
If you are not part of a consensus or not part of a recognised government sponsored institute then you must be either not qualified to speak or sponsored by a private, vested interest. Afterall, where is your money coming from if not. You will not receive money from a non-interest/invested party, will you?
Now, don’t jump and rage. Think about what I’ve said and come up with a solution; Even sites like climateaudit, whatsup and co2science are sponsored by vested interests, you and me mostly, but we don’t do out of philanthropic love, or do we.
To Alan the BRit.
Yes I think the BBC were there but not to report it. As we now know it was that half wit stewart could pursue his private interests
Apologies for the off topic, but it appears that the Denmark Strait (between Greenland and Iceland) is freezing up:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/NEWIMAGES/arctic.seaice.some.001.png
A brief scan through peak ice limits on cryosphere today suggests this hasn’t happened since records started in 1979 (though I certainly didn’t check every page).
Does anybody know when was the last time you could walk from Iceland to Greenland?
Interesting times……..
MarkW (10:08:19) :
1) There is no reliable science that demonstrates the harm of second hand smoke. The best are “studies” that use highly questionable methods and correlation numbers.
As a performing songwriter, I can tell you that playing in smoky clubs was not a joyful, or inexpensive, experience. It meant damage to sinuses, vocal cords, and, of course, lungs. Musicians were an important part of the political coalition that got smoking outlawed in clubs in Rhode Island, where I lived at the time.
On the level of nuisance, coming home smelling like other people’s favorite toxin wasn’t fun or relaxing.
You can, if you choose, fund a study to disprove my experience, but you will never convince me that secondhand smoke is harmless.
I don’t think that the political right will “own” the anti-AGW movement, nor should it. Bad science is bad for everyone.
Funding by Big Gore and Big Sierra Club and Big transnational corporations such as WWF are OK, though?
It appears the word may be getting out.
Europe’s climate revolt
Posted: October 20, 2008, 10:28 PM by NP Editor
Climate change, Benny Peiser
In the wake of the financial crisis, some EU member states are reassesing the union’s carbon dioxide reduction goals
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2008/10/20/europe-s-climate-revolt.aspx
I especially like the quote by Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, who threatened to veto the whole package on economic grounds: “We do not think that now is the time to be playing the role of Don Quixote, when the big producers of CO2, such as the United States or China, are totally against adherence to our targets.”
Per Wiki Don Quixote is a country gentleman who descends into fantasy thinking he is a knight. Does this suggest that AGW is fantasy – are they jousting with windmills after all? Quixotic has entered the English language meaning “foolishly impractical especially in the pursuit of ideals.” Is this the AGW omission we have all been expecting or, could the Italian PM have used a better choice of words?
Personally I have no political affiliation, but I get lumped in with right-wing nutjobs all the time. I can’t stand the polemics from both extremes of the argument, and just wish scientists would practice science and not activism.
Moving a bit OT, it looks like APS is acting like it got burned with their “debate” in the July issue of Physics and Society Forum. They’ve got a couple of letters in the October issue (one pro, one con) and a single article from, where else, realclimate.org. Why am I not surprised?
http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200810/index.cfm
M White (10:48:11) :
‘Migrating Alaskan pollock creat potential for new dispute with Russia’
Folks, I think we have a winner. Unscientific associations between AGW and cooking, typhoons, or sex have hurdled over infinite, other trivial possibilities to the inevitable, penultimate relationship.
AGW LEADS TO NUCLEAR WAR!!!
I can’t take it anymore. I must convert.