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?
2 greenhouse gases on the rise worry scientists
“WASHINGTON – Carbon dioxide isn’t the only greenhouse gas that worries climate scientists. Airborne levels of two other potent gases — one from ancient plants, the other from flat-panel screen technology — are on the rise, too. And that’s got scientists concerned about accelerated global warming.”
“The gases are methane and nitrogen trifluoride. Both pale in comparison to the global warming effects of carbon dioxide, produced by the burning of coal, oil and other fossil fuels. In the past couple of years, however, these other two gases have been on the rise, according to two new studies. The increase is not accounted for in predictions for future global warming and comes as a nasty surprise to climate watchers.”
“accelerated global warming.” Damn, Gore & Hansen underestimated the problem and the end is closer than they predicted.
Basil (15:31:10) :
I think Leif’s mistake is to think that just because it is sponsored by the Heartland Institute that this means that anything presented there is immediately suspect.
That was not what I meant. I was concerned about quite the opposite, namely that the good presentations [of which there will be some] will be used as support for the political agenda. I’m against science being used in this way. Now, I realize from the many negative reactions that these people may not share that view. But let me have it, please.
BTW – Al Gore was invited to attend last time, but would not.
I imagine he will be invited to attend this time, but will not AGAIN.
He will hide behind the same excuse however, his exorbitant costs and expenses, but last time the Heartland Institute was willing to pay them, just to get him on stage, (much applause)
I never did hear why he did not make it last March.
I wonder if we’ll ever hear why he will NOT make it to the conference in March 2009.
Oooops, there I go, predicting AGAIN.
(much applause) – for The Heartland Institute obviously.
And, was I above, “predicting AGAIN” or projecting……….LOL.
Ice area and extent both in the normal range today.
http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/ice-area-and-extent-in-arctic
RBerteig (14:44:56) :
According to my favorite dictionary applet (WordWeb, http://wordweb.info/) the spelling they used is correct US usage. Your spelling is accepted as correct to our North and on the other side of the pond. This is a US conference, after all…. 😉
The “New Millenium Effect” strikes again. If the majority thinks the new millenium starts 1/1/2000, change the rules. If they spell “canceled” with two “L’s,” change the rules. I missed both of those back in 6th grade, the latter costing me a shot at 1st place in the school spelling bee. Now somebody’s changed the spelling and there’s one less trophy gathering dust in my attic.
Now the majority thinks CO2 causes global warming, and so we change the rules for the uneducated once again. It’s a wonder I can keep up with everything that was once right and now has been proclaimed wrong by a majority vote.
Those of you who think a mere reversal of temperature can stop them, abandon all hope. As Tom in Texas quotes: AGW is a Hydra that will not die:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081024/ap_on_sc/sci_greenhouse_gases_3
(Sorry I don’t know how to use the tags to create a link.)
[…] A Gathering of “Skeptics” Posted by Dee Norris Mark your calendars. The 2009 International Conference on Climate Change returns to New York City […] […]
F. Rasmin. My thoughts exactly!
why hasn’t any speaker at the 2008 Conference been exposed as a scientific liar, bought off by conservative industrialists?
There are just some ‘papers’ that are so bad that they are not worth exposing.
Thanks for responding, Leif, but you dodged my point. Are you suggesting a that the fact that these papers you cited as “bad” were in some way connected with the financial sources of the Heartland Institute? If so, I feel you need to legitimize your assertion.
AEG: According to MS XP dictionary, it’s spelled with one “l”.
I lament the left-right split on this issue too. I’d like to see more left-leaning scientists take a closer look at the actual science and see those holes that are so easily found but they won’t even bother while the realist side is dominated by obvious right wing politicos. It needs to be about truth, not dogma. I’m quite sure the Tamino’s of this world believe they are actually green heroes daily combating the evil of big oil and I’m not sure how to redirect them towards actually using their brain but realists surely need to stick to the facts and not turn it into a battle of ideologies. You might be sure of your political convictions but too often you are merely following your herd instinct just like your opponents do.
Of course most academics in earth sciences are left-leaning. It goes with the territory, just like economists are usually right wing. But they are left-wing because they believe in societies more than in individualism. It’s just a basic difference of opinion. Nobody’s trying to take away your freedoms – they only want to stop you crapping on someone else’s freedoms – like not blowing smoke in someone else’s face for example. The guy above who says that most conservatives “only want freedom and prosperity for our fellow human beings” should be reassured that most progressives want exactly the same. The difference is in the way of achieving it. Most of you of course only see the failures of the other side because you belong to your own herd. You might want to look for the failings of your ideology and the successes of the other from time to time. Oh yes they are both easily found when you dare to look and it’s an eye-opener.
Leif is dead right that it would be better that it wasn’t a right-wing think-tank hosting this event. Unfortunately there’s nobody else going to do it. That’s a triumph for dogma and a failure of science.
Don B (09:15:21) :
Anthony, congratulations, again.
Last evening I finished reading the 1997 “The Role of the Sun in Climate Change,” by Hoyt and Schatten. ………….And yet, despite all of that, they refused to take a position, saying the math didn’t support the sun doing all the warming and so maybe AGW had something to do with it.
So Doug Hoyt and Ken Schatten can’t find a convincing link between the sun and global warming. Leif Svalgaard has, so far, failed to establish a link. If I were you, Don, I’d accept the fact (for now anyway) that solar activity cannot explain most of the climate change we have seen in the past ~250 years.
Has not Exxon Mobil ceased giving out grants to “non” AGW organisations after the accusations from the Green left mob?
I fail to understand why the AGW mob do not accuse Big Oil etcetera of profiteering from the incoming emissions legislation – after all they stand to do very well from subsidised alternative energies.
(Note the etcetera- not ECT)
Leif Svalgaard (15:46:06) :
Leif, I have been blissfully unaware of Tamino, thankfully so. I am sorry if you are losing sleep due to the affront to your science. It is my belief that it is a gain on your part to be excluded from a site referred to as OPEN MIND, an oxymoron, in that you will not be tempted to waste your time to correct obvious errors and devote the time to the WUWT forum where you will always be welcome but not always agreed with.
The opening paragraph on the “open mind” website describes the AGW acolytes accurately: “A lot of people have spread a lot of misinformation about global warming. Some of it is deliberately deceptive,…Some of it is so ridiculous, it’s hard to fathom how people can believe such things.”
Leif Svalgaard (15:46:06) :
A small case in point is that several people on the Heartland’s list of 500 scientists […] do not want to be on that list and have asked to be removed, which Heartland has refused, that is using people against their will.
I have heard that many did people did not want their names on the IPCC reports
either. It cut’s both ways.
Leif said:
I have the finest of credentials: I’m banned permanently from Tamino’s blog because of my criticism of AGW. That’s where I come from.
Wow. That just says volumes about where Tamino is coming from. Personally I have not seen another person more committed to the facts and data than you Leif. I guess I didn’t realize Tamino was so far gone into the polemics of this whole thing although maybe I should have.
I do struggle a bit with how you characterize the Heartland Institute. I guess my most charitable reading would be that you see them more committed to polemics than science. And if I think about whether there is any evidence for that it seems that there may be in the form of their strong advocacy for “it’s the sun stupid” when there is precious little evidence in that direction. Your point about them not taking names off their list when asked is also pretty good evidence for it being a bit too much about polemics.
On the other hand though, it seems that this global warming thing has escalated into a full-fledged war of deep ideology about how we should organize society. It seems like the utopian hydra rearing its ugly head again. And it sure seems difficult to try and counter it with “it’s LTP stupid”.
AEGeneral (12:14:54) :
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.
This is a good example of ‘Muphry’s Law’.
Cancelled is correct in Great Britain and Canada, and probably all those other countries that misspell ‘skeptic’ as ‘sceptic.’ It used to be the accepted spelling in the U.S., where the double-L makes the preceding e short instead of long.
And we already know that scientists aren’t great speelers.
Leif sure has an ability to provoke debate! I am surprised at the reactions though (in many threads). My own reaction to Leif’s comments when they disagree with my own thinking is that I have to rethink my opinions, since Leif comes pretty close to always being right.
So how do we get a fair and open debate about AGW? Is that even possible in a politicized climate?
As far as funding goes, the way to make the AGW case stronger is to fund more researchers to try to poke holes in it. If that is done and they can’t, that strengthens the case for AGW. If they repress all attempts to rebut AGW, that leaves AGW untested and with unknown flaws.
It’s sad that a large part of the public doesn’t even realize that there is a case against AGW.
John Finn
“solar activity cannot explain most of the climate change we have seen in the past ~250 years.”
Well It sure hasn’t been CO2 either for 250 years. So what might you suggest it is?
The sun is the only significant source of energy which the earth, atmosphere, ocean etc, etc, etc system plays with in a multitude of ways (most of which mankind has no clue). If I were a betting man I would bet on the sun (despite Leif) – a gambler bets on the best odds and that doesn’t have to be 100%)
Leif- you say “There are just some ‘papers’ that are so bad that they are not worth exposing.”
I’ve attended and presented papers at conferences organized/sponsored by IEEE, OSA, AIP, MRS, SPIE, NSF, and in all cases there are always some atrocious papers, many average papers and a few excellent papers. I suspect the same holds for any climate conference as well. I plan to attend in March, 2009.
Les Francis:
Unfortunately, business [especially big business] is proving itself to be afraid to put up a fight. This is nothing new; see Supreme Court justice Lewis Powell’s memo from the early ’70’s. The chickens have come home to roost, because big business [with a few notable exceptions] has consistently failed to stand up for for freedom, and against socialism.
[Oh, and iceFree, here’s a handy tool: clicky]
Pet Rock says:
I don’t see much difference between the extreme right (like Hitler) and the extreme left (like Stalin).
Actually both Hitler and Stalin were leftists. Hitler was National Socialist and Stalin was International Socialist. For both of them it was all about the all-powerful State. I think the far right is more about free-minds and free-markets – Friedman, Hayek – libertarian sort of stuff – a long long way from Hitler. The left tends to be about the state and thus this AGW stuff provides a nice cover for expanding state power. The right tends to be about the individual and so this AGW stuff is anathema because it is empowering the left to gain more state control.
I find this a very compeling graphical demonstration that indeed the sun is responsible for earth climate change(s)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Sunspot_Numbers.png
from no other source that wikipedia which is totally AGW biased.
Its not the ups and downs its their frequency over time and thats why the mean so closely follows the temp graph. Sun heats oceans decadal effect, oceans release heat decadal effect.
The trouble with this particular sponsor is that it just feeds into Naomi Oreskes’ deep misunderstanding of the nature of skepticism over the paradigm CO2=AGW. Still, there is a need for such a conference, and no one else has stepped up to the plate. The fact is that this conference has attracted a diverse group of truth-seekers, and if the truth of climate regulation ends up not being cosmic rays, or the sun, then that’ll just be that, no matter what the opinions of the sponsor.
More facts that are; you are already participating in an effective truth seeking convention, fortunately moderated by the skeptics’ skeptic, and in this case I do not mean Anthony, or even the impressive Dee.
===========================================
==========================================