I spoke at this conference in Washington DC yesterday, and presented preliminary findings of my surfacestations.org report which you can see here.
I was also privileged to hear MIT’s Dr. Richard Lindzen give a presentation on the state of climate science today, as well as his views on Climate Sensitivity.
You can look at his powerpoint presentation here.
In addition, a significant new report was released, the NIPCC. It is a comprehensive rebuttal to the IPCC report.
Climate Change Reconsidered, the 2009 report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), is the report on global warming the United Nations’ climate panel should have written – but didn’t.
The 880-page report, released June 2nd, 2009 at an international meeting in Washington DC of scientists and policy experts, rigorously critiques the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which concluded that harmful global warming “very likely” has been due to human activity in the release of greenhouse gases. The science behind that conclusion is soundly refuted in Climate Change Reconsidered, coauthored by Dr. S. Fred Singer and Dr. Craig Idso.
The full text of the report and related materials can be found here.
You can also watch a Youtube video of the press conference June 2, 2009 in Washington DC to announce the publication of Climate Change Reconsidered: the 2009 report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC).
Here is Joseph Bast, President of Heartland as he introduces it:
Here is the official written press release:
Scientists, Economists
Challenge Global Warming Alarmism
Third international conference
attracts SRO crowd to Washington, DC
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Global warming skeptics, who for a decade have emphasized hard-science evidence to refute doomsday predictions from alarmists, added new ammunition to their arsenal Tuesday at the third International Conference on Climate Change.
More than 250 people crowded into Washington Court hotel meeting rooms to hear a dozen elite scientists refute the claim that global warming is either man-made or would have harmful effects on Earth.
But The Heartland Institute, a 25-year-old think tank that produced the three international climate conferences, also recruited seven elite economists to focus on the devastating personal and broad economic impact of legislation, sponsored by Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and headed for approval in the U.S. House, to put a cap on greenhouse gas emissions. Businesses, commercial structures, farms, and other emitters could purchase and trade the permits to emit carbon dioxide and other gases that exceed the cap.
While the scientists reported on a vast array of peer-reviewed literature that cast doubt on the causes and severity of global warming, the economists produced data that showed the cap-and-trade scheme not only wouldn’t halt the release of greenhouse gases, but would add huge costs to business activity that inevitably would be passed along to consumers in the form of higher prices.
Roy W. Spencer, Ph.D. and David Douglass, Ph.D. discuss temperature trends over breakfast at the Third International Conference on Climate Change in Washington, DC on June 2. |
Dr. Jeff Kueter, an economist and president of the George C. Marshall Institute, referred to Waxman-Markey as “a dismal down-payment on injuries more intrusive into our lives and economy” than ever seen before.
Kueter cited independent economic studies that showed the diversion of capital to emission permits from the investment in new plant and equipment in the U.S. economy would:
- reduce employment by 1.1 million jobs a year from 2012 to 2030, and more than double that job-loss in 2035.
- slash gross domestic product by an average of $491 billion a year from 2012 to 2035, and hit $662 billion in 2035 — a total evaporation of productive output of goods and services worth more than $9.4 trillion.
- reduce average global temperatures by an insignificant 0.36º Fahrenheit by 2100 and by 0.09º F by 2050.
Similar costs with negligible benefits in Waxman-Markey were cited by other economists and public officials, including Dr. David Tuerck, president of the Beacon Hill Institute and chairman of the economics department at Suffolk University in Boston, and U.S. Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla).
U.S. Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), a veteran global warming skeptic, urged attendees to call Waxman-Markey a “cap-and-tax plan” that amounts to “unilateral disarmament in the economic sphere” for American businesses and workers.
Another long-time skeptic, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (D-Calif.), provoked sustained applause when he declared that the partisans of Waxman-Markey are “stampeding the public and elected officials in the biggest power grab in the history of human kind.”
Economist Dr. Gabriel Calzada of King Juan Carlos University in Madrid reviewed the dismal performance of cap-and-trade mandates in Spain, where unemployment has reached a daunting 18 percent, carbon emissions are higher today than before cap-and-trade was installed, and fraud and misrepresentation of emission abatement programs are rampant.
Calzada dismissed claims that such policies have created “green jobs” in the Spanish economy and presented data that showed Spanish businesses have spent billions of dollars on carbon credits and abatement programs, resulting in two jobs being lost in the regular economy or never being created for every one job created in the “green economy.”
Energy industry scholar Ben Lieberman of The Heritage Foundation rounded out the economists’ dire projections by showing that by 2035, the added costs stemming from Waxman-Markey would add 58 percent to the price of gasoline at the pump, 90 percent to the typical family of four’s annual cost of electricity, 55 percent to the price of natural gas, and 56 percent to the price of heating oil.
In all, Lieberman said, the tax impact for a family of four would average $4,618 a year through 2035, creating a total additional outlay of more than $110,000 with no added benefit to the family’s quality of life or personal consumption.
Additionally, a parade of climatologists and scientists during the conference challenged the science, causes, and severity of global warming.
Richard Lindzen, Ph.D. of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology delivers a keynote addresses at the Third International Conference on Climate Change in Washington, DC on June 2. |
Dr. Richard Lindzen, MIT professor of meteorology, reiterated premises underlying global-warming alarmism, such as dangerous increases in carbon dioxide emissions since the Industrial Revolution, rising global mean temperatures, and the slackening of the sex drive in butterflies. Such questions, he said, “are meaningless except in the propaganda war” being waged by a compliant mainstream media and a scientific community that finds it easier “to accept authority than disputing questions that are at issue.”
Dr. Patrick Michaels, a Cato Institute scholar and research professor of environmental studies at the University of Virginia, blamed some of the success of doomsday alarmism on the absence of fact-checking in mainstream media when alarmists go on a sortie.
Citing recent television and print coverage, Michaels noted faulty assertions such as Al Gore’s statement that 49 percent of the United States is in drought conditions; U.S. Sen. Harry Reid’s statement that California wildfires are a manifestation of global warming; several alarmist predictions of a three-foot rise in sea levels; and a decline in agriculture yields.
Lord Christopher Monckton, former science advisor to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, who has closed each of the two previous international climate conferences, once again brought the crowd to its feet in a cheering standing ovation when he concluded his typically witty speech, “… the highly placed conspirators who seek to ride the climate scare to world domination have reckoned without one thing. You. You are here, and you will not let the truth go.
“Thanks to you, it is becoming evident that the rent-seeking promoters of this great boondoggle, through the very scientific ignorance that they had sought to exploit in others, have merely deluded themselves.
“In the end, it will be here, in the United States, that the truth will first emerge. … Not in Europe, for we are no longer free. … It is here, in this great nation founded upon liberty, that the battle for the world’s freedom will be won.”
For more information about the Third International Conference on Climate Change, visit the event’s Web site at http://www.heartland.org/events/WashingtonDC09/index.html or contact Dan Miller, publisher, or Tammy Nash, media relations manager, at 312/377-4000, email dmiller@heartland.org or tnash@heartland.org.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.






[quote] Our government is run by criminals whose objective is to increase taxes and make profits for companies like Al Gore’s Generation Investments.[/quote]
Welcome to politics. How long did it take you to realise that politicians are jobless people who live on welfare from us and always have to make up new rules to increase the size of their welfare payments for them and their “family”?
Keith Minto: Re your comment re Senator Fielding. It is clear to me, but perhaps not to others, that you are referring to the Australian Federal Parliament.
Taken from the wikipedia page on the Mayan calendar
“For the ancient Maya, it was a huge celebration to make it to the end of a whole cycle,” says Sandra Noble, executive director of the Foundation for the Advancement of Mesoamerican Studies, Inc. in Crystal River, Florida. To render December 21, 2012, as a doomsday or moment of cosmic shifting, she says, is “a complete fabrication and a chance for a lot of people to cash in.”
There are some similarities between AGW and the Mayan long count, both subjects are poorly understood (even less by the MSM) and yes there are people who will sell it as the comming of the end but not before they got their share of the loot.
I’ve only reached p29 so far but it is impossible for any open minded person who reads the NIPCC report to believe that “the science is settled”. Understanding that lie is Step 1 in seeing it all as a fraud.
I wonder why Lindzen was not one of the Contributors and Reviewers for the NIPCC report.
John Galt (13:52:10) :
But is it peer-reviewed?
Certainly, LORD Christopher Monckton has reviewed it.
can we have a post of the key findings for all the chapters as a list in a format that I can email to all the politicians who persist in pushing the IPCC line.
Great work !!
O/T – sort of
This is beyond a joke
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/5436335/Fat-people-causing-climate-change-says-Sir-Jonathan-Porritt.html
KW (13:33:38) :
I hope someone will notice this from DC!
They know. The GOP has not forgotten the slap heard round Congress the day Waxman pulled his stunt on Monckton. For them, it’s very personal.
Leif Svalgaard (23:17:53) :
It gets a lot worse than Ch.5, and that movie about 2100 is a good example of how the other side seeks to scare the nation and the world off a cliff.
There is some merit in making the point of “Hey, wait a minute, the debate is NOT settled, nor is the science”.
Neil Jones (03:26:47) :
O/T – sort of
This is beyond a joke
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/5436335/Fat-people-causing-climate-change-says-Sir-Jonathan-Porritt.html
Evidently he has never heard of the Atkins Diet.
Anthony, Thanks for a great effort and a job well done.
Anthony, how about a project to insure that a copy is mailed to every senator and congressman? Set it up and I will donate my $$$ to help make it happen.
Jeremy (16:31:04) :
“The US swings from fear of WMD (and the potential for military contractors to make obscene profits) to fear of AGW…”
For any Defense Contractor it’s really hard to make “obscene profits” on the 10% margins the US Government allows. However, to lower costs to the US Taxpayer, Congress does allow defense contractors to make whatever deal they can from foreign sales. Sometimes, a contractor will knowingly lose it’s shirt on the US contract with the expectation of making money on foreign sales. I’ve seen it done many times. But even then you are only talking about a 15 to 20% margin, bigger than that is really rare.
If you want “obscene profits”, don’t go into the Defense Industry, the commercial sector is where the action is. That’s why in the 90’s so many firms sold off their Defense businesses.
@ur momisugly George E. Smith (15:05:51) :
Well if it’s peer-reviewed, then every other study that came previously must be wrong and must be discarded immediately!
I think you missed the sarcasm in my question but I hope it comes through here.
Hey, let’s play the bad guy for a while. How many reviewers were there for the NPCC report? How many are truly climatologists? How much peer-reviewed papers are supporting that AGW is a hoax?
About the Heartland institute, at the basis of this report. You could imagine it is a gathering of scientists or an organization having as a goal to scientifically assess the origin of warming. This is what the Heartland site says:
“Heartland’s mission is to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems.”
So: they seem to actually don’t care about what the problem is, for they already know that the solution is free market. Now this is clearly an objective point of view… It clearly means they oppose AGW not because it is scientifically not sound, but because it does not support free market. Wonderful piece of disinformation in my sense.
What a narrow concept some people have on peer reviews and how dogmatic the question about peer review has been. Have you read the list of scientists who signed the petition?
I’m sure that if a scientist read the new publication and finds something wrong, he or she will make the authors know about that error. For example, Leif Svalgaard has made an observation, and I’m sure other solar physicists will revise Svalgaard’s assertions and, if they find the same errors, I’m sure the authors will make the pertinent corrections in the next edition of the publication.
By the way, as a good example on integrity of the members of the NIPCC, I had been included in the list of signers when I was in Texas. As soon as I moved to Mexico, my name was removed from the list.
Nasif Nahle (10:03:14) :
Leif Svalgaard has made an observation, and I’m sure other solar physicists will revise Svalgaard’s assertions and, if they find the same errors
What do you mean: me making errors? 🙂
Leif Svalgaard (10:19:38) :
Nasif Nahle (10:03:14) :
Leif Svalgaard has made an observation, and I’m sure other solar physicists will revise Svalgaard’s assertions and, if they find the same errors
What do you mean: me making errors? 🙂
Heh! I dropped off in the last paragraph. 🙂
@ur momisugly Flanagan (09:31:51) :
Wow, is that what they call ‘deconstructionism’? They don’t like AGW because it’s not ‘free market’?
It’s amazing to see how your mind works.
And tell me, how do you conduct ‘free market science’?
Smokey: the IPCC does not start by giving the solution before they know the problem. It’s simply not a scientific way of doing things. And what would be the political agenda of the UN? Being re-elected?
John Galt (10:45:36) :
@ur momisugly Flanagan (09:31:51) :
Wow, is that what they call ‘deconstructionism’? They don’t like AGW because it’s not ‘free market’?
You’re out of orbit, John… It’s not a matter of “likes” or “dislikes”, but of scientific assessments. AGW doesn’t pass the test of falseability. Deconstructionism is the same as it is poststructuralism and is based on the proposition that the real world is apparent and is actually a vast social paradigm and that the way to education resides in dismantling in one’s mind this thing that society has constructed.
For example, AGW idea changes what observation and/or experimentation have established to construct our current knowledge on heat transfer science and thermodynamics. Yet, some AGWers have despised the external “forcings” which drive the Earth’s climate. Those AGWers isolate the terraqueous system from the remainder systems of the solar system and express ideas which coincide with the idea of a thermos-like Earth.
Oops! I forgot to include a link to the article on deconstructionism… Sorry! 🙂
http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles/LockeDeconstruction.shtml
@ur momisugly Nasif Nahle (11:17:18) :
I hear you. I remember quite well the scientific method.
Flanagan (10:55:06) :
Yes, they did. The IPCC started with the conclusion that AGW is real. Then they set out to prove it. The IPCC wasn’t chartered to find out IF man is changing the climate.
In the scientific method, you observe, make hypothesis and test (experiment). If the results of the test do not match the expected results, discard the hypothesis and start over.
The IPCC did not conduct any experiments. They picked existing studies that support their premise and discarded all others.
Compare this with the police investigating a crime. Imagine they decide you are guilty, before looking at all the evidence. They only look for evidence that proves you are guilty while summarily dismissing anything that shows your innocence. If the police find evidence that you were in the Library with Miss Plum when Colonel Mustard was murdered in the Dinning Room and Mrs. White also saw you there, then the police are supposed to eliminate you as a suspect. But the police have already decided you are guilty so they claim Miss Plum is a tobacco scientist and Mrs. White is in the pay of Big Oil.
Then they create a computer model to show how you killed Colonel Mustard. They model doesn’t prove anything, it just shows what might have happened if you were guilty.
That’s how the IPCC works.
Aron (00:43:10) :
“How long did it take you to realise that politicians are jobless people who live on welfare from us and always have to make up new rules to increase the size of their welfare payments for them and their “family”?”
I’ve been a Libertarian since 1996, but most of that time I believed government was run by well-meaning but uninformed morons. The TARP bill plus their carbon tax schemes convinced me of their criminal intent.
Although congressman Waxman’s comments on the ice, tundra etc demonstrates that the term “morons” is still valid as well.