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?
My donation is in. And I’ll double it if Anthony takes Leif…..
iceFree (07:41:29) :
He asked me to name a scientist who wanted his name removed from the IPCC report. The one that comes to my mind first is Paul Reiter
Reiter was allegedly a reviewer of the report. Is he trying to claim that he was not a reviewer? Reviewers are not necessarily [ideally should not be, perhaps] ardent supporters of what they review. I don’t know if in fact he was a reviewer. If he was not, he should not be on the list. Maybe you can tell us if he was actually a reviewer or not?
@Leif Svalgaard (09:33:13) :
“The conference is sponsored by the Heartland Institute, which has been actively involved in debate over tobacco policy, opposing restrictions on smoking and criticizing science which documents the harms of secondhand smoke.”
… And so does the danish musician Kim Larsen. I guess his music and everyone he’s involved with, is not worth listening to, then?
Regards, MH
I see that some people are questioning about a gathering of CO2 skeptics.
Because of some fallacious reasoning.That somehow anything that is produced from the conference.Will be tainted by “oil” money or other “undersirable” funding sources.
I remember last year.The conference went well with a lot of people coming from diverse backgrounds.From a few countries.Speaking from a skeptical position.Showing clearly that a lot of people are not influenced by “big oil” money.
The Manhattan Declaration was a big success.It has become the second most read article in history of my forum.Surely people are hungry for diverse viewpoints on this topic.
I consider it irrational for people to whine about funding sources.But gloss over the science presentations.It reeks of political baloney.
I went round and run in a forum about a post that was 100% ad hominem.I call him on it and showed him was a fallacy is.I even referred to a good sourse that explains all about how fallacious writings are worthless.
He continues to stand by his fallacies and ignore the actual writing of the people he personally attacked.Thus not providing any actual counterpoint to what the writer of the petition project paper wrote about.Just attack him for some alleged tainted funding.Or that he was canned by Linus Pauling.Proving that anything he writes will be no good.And so on.
It is garbage!
It needs to stop!
How I long to see climate science go back to work and publish papers free from such uneeded political influences and funding innuendos.
Where even rival groups can freely exchange data and refer to each others papers.
I value this blog.Because it provides an outlet for climate information that will not otherwise be readily available.I post some of the articles at my forum from here to widen the availability of reading a different way of seeing the climate.
Really I care less who funds it.It is efficacy of the argument between opposing views.Is all I care about.
It is the increased availability of a skeptical view.That enhances the learning curve.I read Liefs Svalgaards postings.Who provides some refreshing counterpoints.That creates thinking.He might be wrong in some things.But golly it is a priviledge to read what a solar scientist has to say!
Please lets drop the fallacies and go on.
Mikael H (12:08:19) :
… And so does the danish musician Kim Larsen. I guess his music and everyone he’s involved with, is not worth listening to, then?
Don’t know the critter. Does he smoke?
Les Johnson (11:45:26) :
And I’ll double it if Anthony takes Leif…..
To quote Groucho Marx: “I don’t know if I would belong to a club that would accept me as a member” 🙂
Leif Svalgaard (12:03:20) :
Its my understanding that he resigned from the IPCC project. But had his name used in reports he did not believe were based on sound principles. And only after strongly
protesting did he manage to get it removed.
So was he a reviewer? I guess if he had his name removed no.
Intellectually and polemically, the sponsor and source of funding probably make no difference. The funding source is at least open, as opposed to Gore’s $300,000,000, probably engaged in illegal electioneering as we speak. It’s a joke that he claims his money is from ‘anonymous and internet donors’. I hope at least some of them care enough about their investment to send the very best. Lehman sends condolences. Oh, wait a minute.
================================================
iceFree (13:49:10) :
Its my understanding that he resigned from the IPCC project. But had his name used in reports he did not believe were based on sound principles. And only after strongly protesting did he manage to get it removed.
So was he a reviewer? I guess if he had his name removed no.
He was once [before they removed his name]. And there is the crucial difference: IPCC abided with his wish [as they well should].
I have a beef with respect to the last conference. At the time I tried to find the papers, or a video of the presentations etc and could not.
Was it ever made available on the net?
As long as we are quoting the mustachioed one.
Tamino, to me, while I look at a thermometer:
“So who are you going to believe? Me or your own eyes?”
From what I have observed in the past year I would estimate that the funding from any source for skeptic leaning organisation is pitifully small compared that available to warmist outfits. In fact I would guess that the Oil industry in general funds far more AGW supporting groups, directly or indirectly, than it does non-warmists. Think about it – it is in their interests to see higher oil prices accepted based on public fear forcings in order to have a means to gain acceptance of increase margins and so provide money for increased exploration and R&D investment. They are, after all, subject to a 2 pronged attack based on the CO2 argument and the Peak Oil concept.
However it seems even clearer that big business in general has come to the conclusion that it can run rings around politicians (or, as the mainstream media refer to them these days, lawmakers, giving them far more inference of importance than they earn by their actions) and use that ability for their own purposes.
I first saw the light on that [pun intended] when the whole ‘ban incandescent light bulbs’ think blew up. Now there is a great example of how to introduce a rapid and wholesale change to a long established market and technology by statist (pretty much global statist at that) enforcement by government. Other than greasing the lawmaker’s cogs to make that happen the marketing costs are pretty low for what has been achieved making a rapid change which is not entirely without negative aspects. (If it were entirely without negative aspects there would be no argument from me.)
And then there are the financial Institutions who have for a year or so been very actively seeking a place at the tax funded trough provided filled by the state. All of them seemed (or seem for those who have so far survived) to want a piece of the carbon trading action. I assume they new their time was up with the existing ways and desperately wanted to have a chance to balance the books using legal mandates and tax dollars from their political friends. Things just didn’t move quickly enough for them this year but now some of the decks are clear, the toxic containers having washed overboard, and ready for delivery of state money from several sources. All it took was for them to believe that Carbon Trading was likely to become a reality. Bankers and financial institutions know very well how to create a self benefiting market and, as we have seen recently, their ability to trade in intangibles and line their pockets is proven.
So, compared to Exxon’s alleged funding of skeptic organisations which seems at best to have been at a very low level in recent years – perhaps even non-existent, how much financial support have the AGW proponents received from Big Banking, Big Insurance and all the others who are looking to claim a slice of the new tax take pie? How much do people love the bankers these days? Is Exxon a worse company than Lehman Bros? How do businesses like Goldman Sachs manage to work both sides of the fence at the same time and earn their managers huge amounts in the process?
Indeed from this side of the pond I have to say that if the reports about the funds available to Obama are accurate and given that the amounts seem so much greater than McCain has managed to obtain, one has to wonder just what is going on in the world of political influence. And why.
Perhaps ‘the science’ is these days merely a side show to distract the punters whilst the new tax extraction laws are put into place and people jostle for positions of influence in the sphere of operation of an over arching world government which exerts control through fiscal mechanisms based on all encompassing carbon taxation. Other than water, which has the disadvantage that it can be seen and measured, carbon/energy would seem to be the perfect means of obtaining direct control over every aspect of out lives – if we let that happen.
The grandchildren will surely love that and thank us for saving them from … well, perhaps nothing.
sunsettommy:
Examining funding is important, I won’t deny that. For example, I am not too interested in reading a study showing why socialism is a superior form of government if it was written by the KGB, with input from neoNazi organizations. I’m not interested in reading a large treatise against Chrysler products that was financed by Ford.
The problem here, as with most things lately, is that the AGW crowd have for some time been misdirecting, successfully identifying “big oil” with “unreasoning denial”. This has been a major propaganda accomplishment. From where I sit (close to Big Oil), the guys jumping up and down with glee about AGW are…. BIG OIL.
Imagine if you owned a business, and someone came along with a way to triple your profits while halving your production. It’s perfect!
I discount many things that are financed by big money of questionable origin. Unfortunately, the opponents have done a good job of smearing the organizations that I happen to agree with. Heartland is one. And yet, we rarely have the same venomous response to someone like, for example, Pembina. http://www.pembina.org
Either way, there are a lot of problems with the PR around this ICCC. I agree with Leif’s original post in this thread, in that the problems are with PERCEPTION, not necessarily with the Heartland Institute itself. Many of those I regularly talk with are programmed like little robots to despise certain organizations and people, for reasons that are usually ridiculous.
The original intent was to counter the “Intergovernmental Panel” with a “Non-governmental” one, where the goal was not to prove that humanity is destroying the planet (environmentalist agenda), but to determine if there actually is a problem, and if so, what is causing it and how to deal with it.
As with, I assume, the majority here, I have no problem identifying that there have been some climate changes. I do have a problem with claims that there is anything unusual at all, or that trends continue unabated, or any of the utter sci-fi BS about “tipping points” and having ten years to dismantle our entire civilization. Yes, we as humans alter our local environment. That is how we stay alive, especially since we are not furred animals equipped to live in anything other than ideal equatorial climate.
Personally, I think the best way to deal with Global Warming would be to resite most of the temperature recording equipment. Then again, hey, I live in a northern city known to reach -40C from time to time. I’ll sign up for any global warming I can get.
Surely the overall concern here is climate science.
Who funds it may just indicate the paper/s are or maybe biased, (Mann springs to mind) but usually (and Mann is a really good warning…) if a paper is bad it becomes obvious, unfortunately occasionally only with time.
I have a “left” background and natural disposition, don’t we all really,
it’s just the method used that is different…
I realised that the only “side” that was allowing science was the “Right”.
That is not political support, it is a means to an end.
I’ll repeat that, it is a means to an end, the end being better climate science for all.
I may have misunderstood Leif, and one or two others,
(obviuosly not Tamino..and maybe not Leif.)
but I think that is probably the case here with many.
To discount last years conference in part or whole because the organization behind it previously supported tobacco,
really is missing the most important point.
Good science is good science, and bad science is bad science
regardless of who funded it.
Really should not scientists be THE ones to rise above such (funding) pettiness..
Dee: “I know this nice Gulch if any one cares to join me.”
Why not kill two birds with one stone and have a sceptics conference in Gult’s Gulch?
A Gult’s Gulch venue would have two major advantages: 1) the model of rational discussion already exists, if only in theory; 2) no pesky dissension.
The occasion could also provide spiritual and intellectual solace for a wounded soul whose worldview has apparently collapsed in the aftermath of the financial meltdown.
BTW, what is the technical term for a gathering of sceptics: a reservation? a doubt? a reluctance? a misgiving? I like qualm, myself.
@Brendan H (16:17:38) :
Hmmm… How about a brain trust of skeptics?
Anyhow, I am not sure a conference in the Gulch would be well received. Someone would accuse it of being funded by Wyatt Oil or Rearden Steel. Then Dr. Floyd Ferris and Wesley Mooch would just call for Ellis and Hank to be arrested for high crimes against humanity.
The Heartland institute was just against the science that the EPA used
to prove second hand smoke was harmful.
http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results.html?artid=13833
Its history to me but I do believe that the EPA was fudging
the numbers to appease the anti smoking Zealots.
Again I may get attacked for my stance but I don’t think second hand smoke
Is a big deal. I quit smoking a few years ago. My choice.
Lucy S.
Never heard of Joanne Nova in Australia before yesterday, but she has been writing a Skeptics’ Handbook which looks like a brilliant short, accurate, simple, much-needed resource
Thanks for this. I have left a comment discussing Joanne’s ‘4 simple points’ and she has said she will respond, which I look forward to.
But when do you think you will be able to respond to my question? If you remember I asked you where you found the information on the Gallup poll of AGU and AMS members that indicated that only 17% of them believed that mankind was influencing the climate. Prominently displayed on your online primer
Not a hard question, I would have thought.
JP.
Dee
At 05:13 you posted but we all need to steer clear of ad hominem attacks or baiting.
after which we had to wait just under nine hours before the next unsubstantiated ad hominem attack on Al Gore
The funding source is at least open, as opposed to Gore’s $300,000,000, probably engaged in illegal electioneering as we speak.
Is this a record?
Reply: We have covered this before with Brenden (no H), John. Gore is a public figure and not participating on this forum. – Dee Norris
I think it’s probably a non-issue too. I just don’t like people smoking around me, and stinking up my clothes. That’s enough to ban it from public places if you ask me. The premise that you shouldn’t be able to force others to partake in your habit is a good one. It’s tantamount to forcing a non-drinker to take one drink for every 5 you take.
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. ”
Well I don’t know about 2nd hand smoke, but I know a credible epidemiologist, recently retired for U of Miami, and long associated with the CDC; and at the Uof M he was in constant contact with doctors at the med school who certainly knew about direct firsat hand smoke; and my friend says the evidence linking smoking with lung cancer, is more convincing that the evidence linking sex with the occurrence of children.
——————-
Why don’t you argue the point I made, instead of the one you want.
I never denied that smoking causes cancer. I stated that there is no evidence that second hand smoking is harmfull.
You are aware that danger goes down dramatically as doseage goes down. This is a well known phenomena. It holds true for all manner of poison and carcinogen.
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.
Man Leif, and to think people keep calling you a respectable scientist.
Why don’t you attack the science produced, instead of attacking the funding behind it.
Reputable scientists deal with the facts. Those that whom the facts don’t support, attack the messanger.
I notice that Leif is declaring that this conference is illegitimage because there are no pro-AGW speakers.
Somehow Leif’s dander never gets aroused over the refusal of pro-AGW conferences, journals, etc to permit any anti-AGW speakers, papers, etc.
Oh yea, the source of funding corrupts science. Unless it is science that he agrees with.
Harold Ambler (12:43:21) :
And just who forced you to play in smoke filled clubs?
If you didn’t want to, then don’t.
Why do you presume that your desire to have only smoke free environments must trump everyone else’s desire.
If you want to play in a smoke free pub, feel free to buy one, and make it smoke free. Do not presume to tell everyone else what they can and can’t do with their property. Down that path is tyranny.
“I don’t see much difference between the extreme right (like Hitler) and the extreme left (like Stalin).”
Hitler was a socialist. So he’s a creature of the left, not the right.