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?
Leif Svalgaard (16:14:51) :
Nick (16:02:26) :
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.
———————–
Translation: I disagree with them. I can’t disprove them. So I’ll pretend that they are so bad they don’t need disproving.
Hitler was a Statist and his particular brand of Statism was Facism, not Socialism
————–
Fascism is nothing more than socialism with a strong dose of nationalism thrown in.
I think it’s probably a non-issue too. I just don’t like people smoking around me, and stinking up my clothes.
——
If you don’t like being around people who smoke, then I suggest that don’t.
It’s the height of arrogance to assume that you have the right to dictate how other people lead their lives, in order to maximize your pleasure.
MarkW
Calm down. Not always a non smoker can escape the second hand smoke.
In some unavoidable situations it might be imposed on him against his will.
Whether this will result in a cancer might be debatable.
John Philip 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.
I don’t remember because I never saw your request. I don’t read every thread here. I hope this is not the way rumours start! And if you want an answer, how about emailing me or posting on our forum? Please, if you want an answer now, contact me. I’m not going to lengthen this thread even more.
However, the question is fair, and I have to admit I cannot remember but will look for it. Occasionally in my excitement I forget to source such material. Almost always in the past, I’ve found the source later, so I trusted the same would happen here I guess, when I put it up.
JP, got it. Gallup Poll of the Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Society. Of course it may not be “correct”. I put it in, at that point, where I am “starting to doubt”, as an example of evidence that starts to make one doubt. It doesn’t have to be totally correct so long as it seems like a smoke signal one should at least take seriously. After that comes all the sifting and checking.
Lucy, it is outdated information from 1991 which is still circulating. Here is an email thread I sent to Junk Science back in 2000 to get it removed from being cited.
From: Barry Hearn
To: Charles xxxxxx
Date: Oct 04 2000 – 6:59pm
Thanks, I’ll post a supplemental note today.
b++
; —–Original Message—–
; From: Charles xxxxx [mailto:]
; Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2000 11:37 AM
; To: Barry Hearn
; Subject: RE: citation
;
;
; From USA today.
;
; One conservative group criticized the news media for accepting claims that
; there is widespread scientific agreement on global warming. The Media
; Research Center cited “a recent Gallup poll” that said only 19% of the
; members of the American Meteorological Society and the American
; Geophysical
; Union think that a warmer climate has been the result of greenhouse gas
; emissions.
;
; The Gallup organization said the poll was taken in October of
; 1991. It noted
; that some people, opposed to claims that human-induced global warming is
; occurring, “have used the study to support their position.”
;
; “These writers have taken survey results out of context that
; appear to show
; scientists do not believe that human-induced global warming is occurring.”
;
; The statement from Gallup noted that when asked if they thought
; human-induced global warming was occurring, 66% of the scientists surveyed
; said yes.
;
;
; http://www.usatoday.com/weather/clisci/wclis28c.htm
;
; I agree with the positions of EVAG, but I think it is important to cite
; information that supports the case, rather than information which
; is easily
; refuted or out of date.
Gore is a public figure and not participating on this forum …
Ah well, if that is this site’s criteria for permitting ad hominem remarks then these must be legitimate observations about the above list of speakers ….
Skipping over CEI and AEI employees, Dennis Avery is an agricultural analyst and food supply specialist, John Coleman is a TV weather forecaster who failed to follow through on his threat to sue Al Gore for fraud, Joe D’Aleo runs the unreliable Icecap website, Laurence Gould is a Physics professor who needs to improve his teaching, Ross McKitrick is an economist who confuses degrees with radians, Christopher Monckton claims that spotting a typo in an IPCC summary report endows him with the status of Nobel Peace Laureate, Benny Peiser is a social anthropologist who claimed to have discredited Naomi Oreskes analysis that found no peer reviewed paper contradicting the concensus, but later conceded that he had found only one, non-reviewed paper in the report of an oil industry journal, Arthur Robinson is a biochemist who authored the bogus ‘scientific paper’ that was mailed out with the Petition Project, S Fred Singer posts lies on his website supported by non-existent papers. His own ‘paper’ for last year’s conference was shown by ABC to climate scientists from NASA, from Stanford University and from Princeton. They dismissed it as “fabricated nonsense.”. Willie Soon coauthored a paper on past temperatures that was so poor it precipitated the resignation of half the board at the journal that was unwise enough to publish it.
I pass.
JP, the poll seems to be about 10 years old. It was straightforward to google. Since then, sides have hardened, and a lot of scientists now have to be seen to toe the line… however, there are also signs of prominent scientists doing U-turns, one at a time… and stories of attempts to prevent free speech are emerging (see Lindzen’s recent paper; see http://www.climateofdenial.net/?q=node/5).
So overall thanks. The details nailed here seem to confirm its rightness at that point in my script. A piece of evidence that one should take seriously… but may also have flaws and qualifications… so in the end, proves to be well representative of the difficulty facing those trying to get “the truth”. I’ll add a couple of words to this effect, to the primer.
Sorry about the length of all this folks, but it’s good to see the scientific process at work and I do want my primer acceptable to enough people, to help people through all the confusion.
Jeez and JP, alteration to Primer done, hope you find it ok now!
Nice try with that lame link trying to discredit Icecap, John Philip, but you fail. As one commenter points out: “I suggest you critique that report (or even Al Gore’s movie) in the same vein as you do to icecap. Otherwise you are just another partisan blog masquerading as science.”
Exactly.
And the kissy-face behavior between the censorship prone Tamino and your blogger tells us all we need to know about their partisan climate propaganda. Two peas in a pod.
Warning: Alright everyone, let’s simmer down. I think each person’s biases are self-evident from their posts and can stand or fall without outside assistance. – Dee Norris
This forum gets so off topic with banal chatter at times that it resembles a group of blabbing housewives high on sugar.
Concerning the conference, focus on the science presented and not the funding sources. Take the funding where you can.
I’d like to see more constructive ideas and suggestions on how to expand on last year’s conference, and less useless chatter and noise. My suggestions is:
1. Seek recent AGW alarmists who have converted to the sceptic position.
2. Press releases with convincing graphics.
Maybe others can add to the list?
Lucy (and Jeez)
Like it! Thanks for clearing that up.
I commented on the Lindzen piece here (16:20:15). Climate modeller Michael Tobis has a few thoughts here.
Smokey – Grumbine deals with your point ( to my satisfaction at least ), in the comments and followup post.
And Holy Moly!
2 non-Anglo speakers! Hooo-doggy!
– Fred Goldberg Royal School of Technology (Sweden)
– Paul Reiter Pasteur Institute (France)
Suggestion No 3: More global representation.
There are others from other countries, you really ought to know.
Or maybe we should rename it: The Heartland Conference of Cowboys. This conference ought to be more than just a clique of western libertarians.
John Philip (02:57:50) John gives up all pretense at objectivity in this slanted post about skeptics. What a laugh.
So, John, doesn’t it bother you that Gore’s source for his $300,000,000 is concealed from the public? Why would his donors not want to have their names attached to his effort to ‘save the world’?
===============================================
Pierre GosselinI’d like to see more constructive ideas and suggestions on how to expand on last year’s conference, and less useless chatter and noise. My suggestions is:
1. Seek recent AGW alarmists who have converted to the sceptic position.
2. Press releases with convincing graphics.
Maybe others can add to the list?
Though we’ve already started a “conference” thread on my forum, I think yours is a good idea for a thread of its own that I can “sticky” to keep it visible – so I’ve done it. Please feel free to repost your ideas here.
A conference on climate science and all its contemporary manifestations, it seems, should involve those scientists who are engaged in research, or are analyzing research, on climate issues. For example, an agricultural analyst and food supply specialist might have the best understanding re how additional CO2 is enhancing life in many different ways — droubt tolerance, greater growth, more reproductive success, etc. Perhaps John Philip does not want the world to know all the scientific facts? I read him as a grouch.
Just make the conference the best of the current science. And if it is possible, make it available around the world, some of it in real time.
Sorry Mark W. Just because you cannot find a second-hand smoke study of which you approve — second-hand smoke is very harmful to everyone forced to endure it. My father died a five-year excruciating death from a life-time of heavy smoking. No one else in the family smokes, but during his lifetime everyone endured hell because he was too selfish to go outside and smoke. If you were forced to live through hours and years of meetings and plane rides and restaurant meals in an atmosphere filled with smoke (because people like you demanded to perpetrate their selfishness on others), then you might appreciate one of the truths of this country — freedom. One of its other truths is freedom for the truth and that clearly involves a science that is science rather than propaganda — like secondary smoke never hurt anyone.
Pyro – I don’t know whether Avery will present on food policy or the scientific concensus. I do know that he authored the Heartland list of scientists whose work, he claimed, contradicted the reality of AGW. Here are just some of the responses to that document …
“I am horrified to find my name on such a list. I have spent the last 20 years arguing the opposite.”
Dr. David Sugden. Professor of Geography, University of Edinburgh
“I have NO doubts ..the recent changes in global climate ARE man-induced. I insist that you immediately remove my name from this list since I did not give you permission to put it there.”
Dr. Gregory Cutter, Professor, Department of Ocean, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Old Dominion University
“I don’t believe any of my work can be used to support any of the statements listed in the article.”
Dr. Robert Whittaker, Professor of Biogeography, University of Oxford
“Please remove my name. What you have done is totally unethical!!”
Dr. Svante Bjorck, Geo Biosphere Science Centre, Lund University
“I’m outraged that they’ve included me as an “author” of this report. I do not share the views expressed in the summary.”
Dr. John Clague, Shrum Research Professor, Department of Earth Sciences, Simon Fraser University
“I am very shocked to see my name in the list of “500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares”. Because none of my research publications has ever indicated that the global warming is not as a consequence of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, I view that the inclusion of my name in such list without my permission or consensus has damaged my professional reputation as an atmospheric scientist.”
Dr. Ming Cai, Associate Professor, Department of Meteorology, Florida State University.
“Just because you document natural climate variability doesn’t mean anthropogenic global warming is not a threat. In fact I would venture that most on that list believe a natural cycle and anthropogenic change combined represent a greater threat.”
Peter F. Almasi, PhD Candidate in Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Columbia University
“Why can’t people spend their time trying to identify and evaluate the facts concerning climate change rather than trying to obscure them?”
Dr. James P. Berry, Senior Scientist, Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute
“They have taken our ice core research in Wyoming and twisted it to meet their own agenda. This is not science.”
Dr. Paul F. Schuster, Hydrologist, US Geological Survey
“Please remove my name IMMEDIATELY from the following article and from the list which misrepresents my research.”
Dr. Mary Alice Coffroth, Department of Geology, State University of New York at Buffalo
Heartland refuses to remove any names from its report. Is this science or more like propaganda?
Hi Lucy:
Other (unappreciated) ideas I’ve had:
1. Photo gallery: Liftestyles of the Rich and Alarmist
Photos of homes of the eco-warriers like Gore, DiCaprio, Madonna
John Edwards, Travolta, etc.
2. Charlatan Hall of Fame
Atart with Gore. And Who is the Korean scientist who said he had mapped the entire human genome.
3. Cancel your newspaper subscription -Save the planet and trees!
The liberal media will love that campaign!
4. Global cooling exhiibit in the major cities.
5. Leading Climatic Indicators.
A lot of news going around right now about Heat or Eat. More news like that might be able to break Climate Change from the inside out. At least the Carbon credit part of the deal.
Also did you check out that new post from Hansen I linked above? Seems like being nutty might just turn off a few people too.
MarkW (19:56:44) :
Man Leif, and to think people keep calling you a respectable scientist.
Maybe there is a lesson for you there…
You’re acting like I actively seek them out. So what you’re saying is if someone lights up when I’m somewhere public, I should just leave, even though I’m not adversely affecting anyone else by my habits? Again, no one has the right to force their habits on someone else.
I suppose you’d tell people who are injured/killed by drink drivers that they shouldn’t have been driving when drunk drivers were about.
John Philip, It’s pretty irrelevant whether those scientists views don’t agree with skepticism, but if any of there work shows that AGW might not be man-made then their names should be on the list. I care about the scientific results, not the personal opinions of a scientist.
Jeff Alberts (14:13:41) :
JIt’s pretty irrelevant whether those scientists views don’t agree with skepticism, but if any of there work shows that AGW might not be man-made then their names should be on the list
Even if the scientists themselves believe that their papers support AGW? As several of them have said.
Leif Svalgaard (15:06:40) : “Even if the scientists themselves believe that their papers support AGW? As several of them have said.”
I some cases, probably so. Like the Hockey Stick and any supporting papers which “validated” it using the same poor data and statistical methods. These caused some properly skeptical folks to re-confirm that there actually was an MWP and LIA (maybe they weren’t “global”, but neither has any perceived warming in the last 30 years been global). So MBH98 indirectly invalidates AGW, IMHO.