Off to the conference

I’m about to leave for ICCC4, which is predictably being billed as “denialpalooza” by our friends in alarmist world. Heh. Maybe smearapalooza might be a good label for their response.

This year, the conference is in Chicago, and it appears to be the biggest yet. I’ll try to have some on the scene reports posted when I can, but I’ve got a pretty full schedule.

I have a couple of posts set for auto insertion on schedule today, so my readers won’t be without new and interesting stories. New stories and moderation may be spotty the next 4 days. Volunteer moderators and guest authors, please help when you can.

I’ll be having dinner tonight with some very special people.

I hope that the restaurant won’t be so noisy that I’ll miss hearing most of the conversation. I look forward to seeing many friends there and at the conference.

I should note that Willis Eschenbach has been invited to make a presentation. Good for him! Steve McIntyre will be giving a keynote address, and Lucia and Jeff Id will be joining as guest bloggers, which is easy for them since they both live within driving distance of the conference.

Here’s a list of speakers, including yours truly. Here’s the program (PDF) Roger L. Simon at Pajamas Media also has a short summary.

A number of people with opposing views, including Gavin Schmidt, James Hansen, Michael Mann, Phil Jones and William Schlesinger, were invited to the ICCC4 conference. They all declined.

PJTV is providing an important service. Live video coverage (streaming and otherwise) will be at the PJTV CLIMATEGATE 2010 MICROSITE. I thank them for doing this.

Oh, and I want to sincerely thank Evan Jones, he’ll know why.

Advertisements

78 thoughts on “Off to the conference

  1. I’m heading out tomorrow PM, hope I’ll get there in time for the reception, I’m not sure how long it will take to get there from Midway.
    Not much free time during the event, I hope there will be enough to shake your hand!

  2. The tyrants of AGW would never stoop to consorting with mere mortals. Nevah! Just shows how open these so-called “scientists” really are. A pox on their egos.
    Give ’em what for, Anthony. I was going to say “Wish I could watch from the gallery.” but then realized I have access to live video coverage as Anthony mentioned. Kudos for technology!

  3. I hope at least one of these speakers points out that on geological time scales the Milankovitch cycles would appear to have much more impact upon the climate of this planet than anything other than a large impact or super vulcanic eruption. Man’s contibutions would be relatively immeasurably small in any event and there is absolutely nothing we can do about the natural causes of climate change other than adapt, if at all possible, given the magnitude and speed of that change.

  4. That would be a dinner I would love to be part of, Anthony!! I’m certain all the regulars on this site would love to be there as well. Judging by the hit count on WUWT? you have a LOT of people behind you Anthony. I wonder if the MSM can afford to ignore this one as the tsunami of public opinion has changed direction. I think it will be a very different conference than the threee preceding. Kick butt, chew gum, and take down names !!

  5. I’m surprised that Phil Jones declined. As a prime assembler of raw data, he is in a position to make a better name for himself, more so than many.
    That’s too bad.

  6. Anthony – WUWT is my favourite website. I thank you for your dedication and your integrity. I look forward to reports from the conference.
    Jack

  7. “A number of people with opposing views, including Gavin Schmidt, James Hansen, Michael Mann, Phil Jones and William Schlesinger, were invited to the ICCC4 conference. They all declined.”
    And when they have a conference they prohibit opposing views.
    That pretty much sums up the state of the establishment’s current brand of science and academia.
    Too full of themselves and intolerant.

  8. Anthony, good luck and by all means have some fun while you are there. Chicago is a fun town, and with plenty to see and do. YOU HAVE EARNED SOME FUN .

  9. should be a very biased meeting given the list of speakers. I do believe they should have worked harder to engage climate scientists to speak. There are MANY others besides the few Anthony mentioned in his post. And I believe this for the climate scientists who believe in GHG-induced warming as well. A real debate between the climate experts from both sides is needed (and I mean between the PhD scientists directly working in the field, not TV weather folks or political folks). That is something I’m pushing for the next annual GSA meeting (Geological Society of America).

  10. Wish I could be there, lots of very interesting and informed people attending.
    I really do hope that the USA is tuned in.
    Hope this time the world msm give it more and due attention – about goddamn time.
    Make lots of noise Anthony…… .
    Eventually by some strange twist (and if enough hell is raised); it may percolate into the ears of our dullard political ‘elite’ – who all reside in the AGW believers’ bunker aka Notting Hill lalaland, over here in Blighty.

  11. Anthony, have a good time and pass on our best regards to all those like you who are fighting the good fight.

  12. From the article:

    A number of people with opposing views, including Gavin Schmidt, James Hansen, Michael Mann, Phil Jones and William Schlesinger, were invited to the ICCC4 conference. They all declined.

    These climate alarmists are always afraid to interact with scientific skeptics. They never invite anyone to their conferences who has not drunk the catastrophic AGW Kool Aid, and now they tuck their tails between their hind legs and run for the hills when they are invited to share ideas and make their case with the hated and feared skeptical scientists [who, being skeptics per the scientific method, are the only honest kind of scientists; the alarmists are SINO’s]. Their absence says it all: CAGW pseudo-science cannot withstand falsification, so they hide out.
    No doubt Michael Mann has been furiously agitating behind the scenes as the enforcer of orthodoxy within his alarmist clique, threatening anyone who showed the slightest interest in attending this conference with having their future papers blocked from peer review journals.
    They really should have sent at least one emissary to avoid the appearance of their childish embargo, and to demonstrate to the public that some of them can think for themselves. Now, any critique of the conference will come from the ignorance of absence: they stayed home instead of having skin in the game.

  13. I just informed (i think) a controversial columnist at the Chicago Sun-Times about the conference. It is one of the major Chicago newspapers.
    Worth a try I guess.

  14. I wonder if Judith Curry will manage to visit, I didn’t see her name on the list, but I hope so.
    It is nice to be able to put Faces to the Names from the Conference Program.

  15. You would have thought that the proponents of AGW would have enjoyed such an opportunity to tell all these mis-guided souls where they are going wrong (Sarc off)
    But then again maybe the questions would be too awkward to answer.

  16. nednead says:
    May 15, 2010 at 10:35 am
    should be a very biased meeting given the list of speakers. I do believe they should have worked harder to engage climate scientists to speak. There are MANY others besides the few Anthony mentioned in his post. And I believe this for the climate scientists who believe in GHG-induced warming as well. A real debate between the climate experts from both sides is needed (and I mean between the PhD scientists directly working in the field, not TV weather folks or political folks). That is something I’m pushing for the next annual GSA meeting (Geological Society of America).
    —————
    Reply: Beg your pardon? Some of us “real scientists” actually went on to get real jobs. How’s that for an equivalent condescending attitude?
    Since two-thirds of the public now disbelieve AGW, wouldn’t it be logical for the AGW crowd to attend? Oh, I forgot–there’s the operative word “logical”. Really though, it does show how anti-scientific the annointed in the AGW cult really are. Smokey hit it on the head by calling them SINOs.
    But good luck with your GSA siege (an organization I dropped long ago); come crowing back if you’re successful.

  17. nednead says, May 15, 2010 at 10:35 am:
    “Should be a very biased meeting given the list of speakers.”
    “Biased” is an inappropriate word in this context. Invitations were sent out, and there was an ad for the conference running for the last month or two on the WUWT home page [and we know they read WUWT – they can’t help themselves].
    The blame must be placed entirely on what is obviously a concerted effort to keep anyone from the Hokey Stick Team from attending. Many of them no doubt wanted to attend; can you imagine the intense behind the scenes pressure to keep them away? And if Gavin Schmidt, James Hansen, Michael Mann, Phil Jones, William Schlesinger or any other well known alarmist had expressed any interest in making a presentation, they would have been accommodated with alacrity. But since their conjectures are scientifically untenable, they had no choice but to hide out.
    Those people are not interested in science. Their actions are 100% politics. And it is the SINO’s loss; now all they can do is snipe from the sidelines after the fact, having forfeited their opportunity to speak at the conference.

  18. A number of people with opposing views, including Gavin Schmidt, James Hansen, Michael Mann, Phil Jones and William Schlesinger, were invited to the ICCC4 conference. They all declined.
    Completely understandable. That would require either having a vertebral column or cajones. Or, some actual science.
    Happy conferencing, Anthony.
    “Denialpalooza?” Lame-O. On the other hand, we might call the 2010 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Cancún, Mexico in Nov. “Alarmalot”, assuming there’s a round table.

  19. Hope you enjoy the conference, but in all honesty these sort of things nearly always turn out to be a “preaching to the choir” kind of event on both sides of the aisle.

  20. Are they still offering a discount on registration fee if you sign a petition? I think it was this same conference that did so last year, and I tried in vain to get them to reconsider. Such a discount lessens the value of the petition and I was shocked the organizers couldn’t see that.
    As an opponent of alarmism, I am always disappointed to see other opponents do things which are counterproductive. Still, it’s important to call them on it. Helps one to avoid getting a tribal mentality. If only more mainstream scientists realized this, alarmism may not have become so rampant.

  21. Seems to be the perfect opportunity for the supporters of AGW to present their science and convince the ‘sceptics’. I wonder why they declined the invitation.
    Have a good time, Anthony.

  22. Curiousgeorge,May 15, 2010 at 11:15 am:
    And whose fault is that??
    These conferences should all have people with different points of view attending and speaking. But the climate alarmists would rather cancel a conference than allow a skeptical scientist to speak. And then they boycott these conferences, rather than attending and discussing the issues. No wonder they’re losing all credibility.

  23. Smokey – It has been advertised in The American Spectator for a while too , but I doubt they read it .

  24. The invitees, of the opposite opinion, that decline the invitation are branding themselves ‘Ivory Tower incumbent’ in a political mood that does not favor such. Their backers on the grant funding front also wear the label ‘incumbent’.
    What do you suppose the outcome will be post-elections?

  25. Anthony
    Thank you very much for your wonderful awareness!
    I am reminded of the movie “War Games”, where the ‘dead’ games programmer points to the screen and states “It is an illusion!”. As the nukes come crashing in, the computer sates ” Chess Anyone?”.
    Good luck, someone has to ‘save the world!’ If not, I am around to rebuild it ‘one by one’. If not, I have confidence in my 5 year old grandson!
    Kipling:
    If you can keep your head when all about you
    Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
    If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you
    But make allowance for their doubting too,
    If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
    Or being lied about, don’t deal in lies,
    Or being hated, don’t give way to hating,
    And yet don’t look too good, nor talk too wise:
    If you can dream–and not make dreams your master,
    If you can think–and not make thoughts your aim;
    If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
    And treat those two impostors just the same;
    If you can bear to hear the truth you’ve spoken
    Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
    Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
    And stoop and build ‘em up with worn-out tools:
    If you can make one heap of all your winnings
    And risk it all on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
    And lose, and start again at your beginnings
    And never breath a word about your loss;
    If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
    To serve your turn long after they are gone,
    And so hold on when there is nothing in you
    Except the Will which says to them: “Hold on!”
    If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
    Or walk with kings–nor lose the common touch,
    If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you;
    If all men count with you, but none too much,
    If you can fill the unforgiving minute
    With sixty seconds’ worth of distance run,
    Yours is the Earth and everything that’s in it,
    And–which is more–you’ll be a Man, my son!
    As the wonderful Kipling wrote:
    Thanks Again! We are here and listening!
    Eric

  26. I saw an ad for this in the USA Today that they gave me at my hotel this week (traveling for work). Distinguished list of attendees, most of the big name Evil Big Oil Funded Deniers (TM) looked to be there. 😉 Would love to be attending myself, I hope you have a great and productive time, though I know it’ll get about 1/1,000,000th the press coverage that the Copenhagen sky is falling festival got sadly.

  27. I think that this conference has already delivered major victory by the hockey team.
    My thanks to phil and the boys for confirming what most of the skeptics know but that the wider world may not. This conference provide a perfect platform to debate the science. What better place could there have been for them to make their message loud and clear and to interact with their adversaries in a topic of international importance. Its just possible that one or even two had other important plans but ALL OF THEM. I don’t think so. We are therefore left to draw the obvious conclusion that their case does not bear close scrutiny and because they could not control the data, they chickened out.(as it would appear, that they always do)
    Much should be made of this by the MSM and all the speakers. They, each and every speaker should begin their address with a statement of profound regret for the inexplicable of the absense of many colleagues and they should be named and shamed

  28. i implore the speakers to take up this suggestion.
    and i apologise for the bad grammer in my earlier post.

  29. Jim G says:
    May 15, 2010 at 9:40 am

    I hope at least one of these speakers points out that on geological time scales the Milankovitch cycles would appear to have much more impact upon the climate of this planet than anything other than a large impact or super vulcanic eruption.

    Bob Carter will be there, he’s a marine geologist with a good command of geology, lingo, and language. Geologists see the last Ice Age as a current event and terminal moraines like Cape Cod proof that it isn’t over yet.

  30. Smokey says:
    May 15, 2010 at 11:22 am
    Curiousgeorge,May 15, 2010 at 11:15 am:
    And whose fault is that??
    These conferences should all have people with different points of view attending and speaking. But the climate alarmists would rather cancel a conference than allow a skeptical scientist to speak. And then they boycott these conferences, rather than attending and discussing the issues. No wonder they’re losing all credibility.

    I wasn’t assigning blame, nor denigrating this conference. It’s just the way it works for many different reasons. Same holds true for other fields, including politics. I used to attend a variety of Engineering conferences on behalf of the company I worked for prior to retirement, and I’m sure that there will be a lot of information sharing and networking going on (as well as the fun stuff associated with these things ), but no one should expect it to change the oppositions mind or even enter the general public’s conscientiousness .

  31. Sadly unless prominent AGW scientist attend and debate their side then this conference has all the hallmarks of a talkfest of the converted. As such seen by the MSM ad yet another fringe meeting of deniers funded by big oil and big industry.

  32. nednead says:
    May 15, 2010 at 10:35 am

    should be a very biased meeting given the list of speakers. I do believe they should have worked harder to engage climate scientists to speak. There are MANY others besides the few Anthony mentioned in his post. And I believe this for the climate scientists who believe in GHG-induced warming as well. A real debate between the climate experts from both sides is needed …. That is something I’m pushing for the next annual GSA meeting (Geological Society of America).

    Have you looked at the ICCC program? The two full science tracks spill into another track. I need a clone or two.
    I fully agree their should be a conference that includes both sides, however, the Heartland Institute may point out that they sent invitations to some of the warmists, but I think they never expected them to come. Even the title of the conference, “Global Warming: Was It Ever Really a Crisis?” makes it clear there’s an unfriendly bias.
    OTOH, the scientists who have attended previous ICCCs have said they appreciate an environment where the politics can be pushed aside and science reigns, and there’s a place for that, even if it is one-sided.
    The AGU seems willing to let both sides mingle, e.g. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/30/agu-presentation-backs-up-mcintyres-findings-that-there-is-no-hockey-stick-in-yamal/ and http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/17/spencer-on-his-agu-presentation-yesterday/ so maybe there’s some hope.
    Science has a long history of abusing people with novel theories. Sometimes the theories violate various natural laws and should be discarded, sometimes there’s an interesting twist and laws aren’t being violated, and sometimes they’re right or pretty close. Probably the best example is continental drift morphing from ridicule to plate tectonics overhauling geology. See http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Wegener/wegener.php for a very good history.
    Very rarely does science rise above human frailties and two or more groups with such different expectations work together to learn how the things really work.
    Given the way grants are awarded now, there’s no chance of that ideal being realized. Until then, gatherings like the ICCC will serve a useful purpose. Climate science is such a wide field, no one can be an expert at all of it. So getting the specialists together with the generalists helps everyone learn details relevant to their work.
    Neither side has all the answers, and frankly, its really stupid the amount of energy the two sides have used to berate the other. I don’t know if there is a solution, but there certainly should be ways to improve on the status quo.

  33. Anthony – have fun and I am looking forward to your posts on the conference when you get back and have some time. Really, really wish I could have made it but I will be following it closely on the web. Wonder if MSM will be there? It is just astounding how they are missing the party since Climategate.

  34. I fear you’re right. And of course, with skeptics kept out in the cold from the pro-AGW-led conferences, “talkfests of the converted” are their speciality.

  35. Reminder to self:
    NEVER fly United into Ohare
    Looks like I’m hosed for the dinner meeting
    From SFO

  36. Oh dang, the HTML code didn’t work like I thought it would, so half my earlier comment (i.e. the quote I was responding to) is missing, and my out-of-context response ended up in italics. I hope some kind mod will correct that one and delete this later post.
    Thanks

  37. Make sure you get some good pictures of the inevitable protest. I hope you invite them in for intermission entertainment.

  38. Nedhead,
    Isn’t “weather folk” being a little catty? After all “climate science” is a multi-disciplinary field, and unlike many of those disciplines, the “weather folk” are the ones directly dealing with the same nonlinear dynamic system. Keep in mind that the cold fusion scientists were doing peer reviewed state of the art calorimetry to standards that that had been accepted for more than a century. Are you saying the physicists should have stayed out because they were not experts in calorimetry? They seemed to have been able to get up to speed with fresh scrutiny pretty quickly. So should “weather folk”, physcists, complex systems analysts, chaos theorists and nonlinear dynamics mathematicians leave the field to glaciologists, marine biologists, computer programmers, instrument specialists, government pollution monitoring specialists and vulcanologists?
    There needs to be some independent perspective, because there has been a failure of peer review in the field and institutionalized in the IPCC process. How often do you see model based papers that review the diagnostic literature for the models they are using and couch their attribution and projection conclusions with expanded error ranges and disclosure of uncertainties in recognition of the diagnostic issues? You certainly don’t see it in the IPCC expressions of “very likely”, 90% confidence.
    How often do you see “model independent” assessments of climate sensitivity that discuss the implications the non-linear dynamic nature of the system and acknowledge that the climate sensitivities to CO2, aerosol and solar forcing should not be assumed to be equivilent. It is patently obvious to anyone who has dealt with complex nonlinear dynamic systems, yet Knutti and Hegerl are the only ones that I’ve seen that has given it any lip service:
    “The concept of radiative forcing is of rather limited use for forcings with strongly varying vertical or spatial distributions. In addition, the equilibrium response depends on the type of forcing. As mentioned above, climate sensitivity may also be time-dependent or state-dependent; for example, in a much warmer world with little snow and ice, the surface albedo feedback would be different from today’s.”
    “There is a difference in the sensitivity to radiative forcing for different forcing mechanisms, which has been phrased as their ‘efficacy'”
    http://www.iac.ethz.ch/people/knuttir/papers/knutti08natgeo.pdf
    There are no good model independent estimates of sensitivity to CO2 forcing, and models which couple CO2 forcing to the whole mixing layer of the oceans ignoring that the penetrance of CO2 radiative wavelengths is mere microns rather than 10s of meters like solar don’t help clarify matters.
    If you can get the Geological Society of America to focus on the issue of whether net feedback to CO2 forcing is positive or negative, since even if they merely acknowledge that it is a open question, then there is no evidential basis for AGW alarmism, yet.
    Even though I am attending the ICCC, I think the proper forum for exposing the true evidential state of the science would be a open refereed exchanges on the internet. Conferences allow little time for questions or for well considered answers. But the scientists you appear to have in mind, appear to have been studiously avoiding them and been publishing in journals without being subjected to truly independent peer review. Where are those scientists, who did you have in mind? Reading their review article in totality, Knutti and Hegerl appear to have been more intellectually honest and less inclined to gloss over the state of the science. I’d have to read more of their work.

  39. Anthony
    From recent news reports it appears Algore has acquired new digs out in California, Montecito I believe. If he’s out there enjoying his new manse, you could give him a call and see if he’ll lend you a Gulfstream for your trip. Since not many of the alarmist contingent will be attending, it shouldn’t be difficult to find a parking spot for the jet for the duration. Unlike in Copenhagen where they not only filled all the local spots but about half the airports in Scandinavia.
    And don’t let Lord Monckton talk you into swilling down too much of that Big Oil provided Dom Perignon. The last thing the world needs at this point is a bunch of YouTube vids of all you sceptical madcaps with lampshades on your heads.
    All kidding aside, have a safe and hopefully productive trip and please let all those in attendance know that, despite all they must put up with because of the stance they have taken, there are very large number of people out here who are eternally grateful for their and your efforts on our behalf. Godspeed.

  40. James Allison says:
    May 15, 2010 at 12:48 pm
    You would be misreading the public mind: The ‘incumbents’ are not in attendance.
    It make Climate Change Legislation look like an edict in the same vein as Health Care.
    Backlash squared.

  41. BTW, for those who think the lack of alarmist participation somehow invalidates this conference, perhaps you can provide a list of prominent sceptics who had an opportunity to make significant presentations at Copenhagen, at least within the confines of the conference itself.

  42. nednead says:
    May 15, 2010 at 10:35 am
    A real debate between the climate experts from both sides is needed (and I mean between the PhD scientists directly working in the field, not TV weather folks or political folks). That is something I’m pushing for the next annual GSA meeting (Geological Society of America).

    Any such debate should consist of separate mini-debates focusing on separate sub-topics, since the whole ball of wax is too big and complex to treat adequately in a single debate.

  43. re:Bruce Cobb says: May 15, 2010 at 11:14 am
    On the other hand, we might call the 2010 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Cancún, Mexico in Nov. “Alarmalot”, assuming there’s a round table.

    One big difference is tax payers will probably be footing most of the bill for the Cancun jolly, but not a trip to Chicago. Which side is it that supposedly has all the money again?

  44. For some time I have forced myself to make a nearly daily visit to Climate Progress in the spirit of “keeping one’s enemies close.” Over time, it has become clear that their failure to provide solid proof of the AGW theory in order to refute skeptics/deniers, has resulted in resorting to various Alinsky-esque tactics to revile and discredit them to the point of molding them as veritable non-persons (or, the Orwellian “unperson”).
    The warmist’s refusal to participate in, or even acknowledge existence of gatherings of skeptical scientists (“anti-scientists”) comports with this walling-off as non-persons those who have contrary opinion or evidence. What really cements their psychosis is the certainty that each of us non-persons receives a regular check from some entity within “Big Oil.”
    This is sad to watch in human terms but explains their non-participation next week.
    We simply don’t exist.

  45. Welcome to Sweet Home Chicago, Anthony! I hope you brought a jacket, it is rather unseasonably cool & cloudy lately.
    Have a good time, and don’t bother taking in a ballgame, both the Cubs and White Sox stink so far!

  46. nednead says:
    May 15, 2010 at 10:35 am
    “A real debate between the climate experts from both sides is needed (and I mean between the PhD scientists directly working in the field, not TV weather folks or political folks). That is something I’m pushing for the next annual GSA meeting (Geological Society of America).”
    Nednead…PhD scientists may know a lot about one thing, but what makes them authorities on debates about climate change? There are so many different aspects to the climate change debate: cloud physics, sea level rise, ocean circulations, atmospheric circulations, atmospheric layer interactions, solar/atmosphere effects, radiative effects, biological impacts, land use changes, instrumentation, satellite technology, the hydrological cycle, geological impacts, volcanism, pollution, and so on. Each thing I have listed has sub-categories in which people earn their PhD’s. A PhD may be a good person to debate climate change ideas, but only if they have taken the time to study the many aspects of climate outside of their narrow field of interest. How many PhD’s do that?
    Anyone who has done that, PhD or no, is a good person to listen to.
    One thing, however, that all PhD’s do know about, is how to apply for research grants and publish papers. For example, if the government funds most of the science and the government is concerned about a possible climate change crisis, PhD’s know that you have to pay at least some homage to that golden calf if you want to get funded. For example, if you are interested in historical droughts in the Southwest US over the last 5,000 years, you would apply for the funds to study those droughts with the idea that it may lead to some understanding of future droughts under AGW, even though there is no scientific reason to believe that it would. That way, you get funded, even if you think AGW is a crock, and Ms. Oreskes can do a word search and proclaim that all PhD’s support the theory. See how it works?

  47. The HI should have invited Mann et al with all expenses paid including a pre-loaded credit card with $500.

  48. I am very proud of Anthony and those that represent a search for truth.
    As more people discover they have been scammed, we will see a surge. Anger and name calling. We will also see backlash at the polls. Algor, Maurice Strong, George Soros, Michael Mannn, and Jim Hansen are suffering in fear and anxiety.

  49. You just go ahead to your conference, Anthony, do what you have to do. Don’t worry about us, we’ll be fine. We’ll lock up for you when we leave.
    (Okay, I got a case, Goddard has his six pack, and nedhead dropped of a crock of… something. Smokey says everything is normal, Willis says it’s all cool, and wren and Kilowatt are supplying the music. Did he leave yet so we can get started?)

  50. Should be a far more informative gathering than those AGW fearfests held in such dreary locales as Bali. Of course, nary a peep will be heard from the MSM; the bleary-eyed network doesn’t even have Frankly Unctuous to pontificate over the AGW fantasy — all they’ve got to offer these days is the perky one.

  51. Anthony in airport hell says:
    May 15, 2010 at 1:11 pm
    > NEVER fly United into Ohare
    > Looks like I’m hosed for the dinner meeting
    > From SFO
    I used to have good success with that (typically MHT-ORD-SJC) when I went to an annual network testing event. Once it was followed a few days later going to Austin through ORD. Walking between gates I got this image of everyone being FedEx packages with legs.
    Of course, that was then. Now is different and is one reason why I’m going to Midway. Hope you get dinner, or at least dessert.

  52. Can you all charter some tour buses an trip to the CCX Chicago Climate Carbon Exchange. See the massive trading pits where billions and billions of tons of carbon credits change hands. Last I checked, the price was 7 dollars a ton and fell to 10 cents
    Why do people pay ten cents for an artificial concept?
    Oil for food fraudster Maurice Strong is on their board. He is hanging out in China. Too many people here ask questions.

  53. Could be a topic
    The Space and Science Research Center (SSRC), the leading independent research organization in the United States on the subject of the next climate change, issues today the following warning of imminent crop damage expected to produce food and ethanol shortages for the US and Canada:

  54. old construction worker says:
    May 15, 2010 at 6:47 pm
    Could be a topic

    I made a copy of their press release and was going to mail it to my daughter in Austin.
    After reading Leif’s comments, I trashed it.

  55. Good luck Anthony! I’m sure all our sympathy goes out to you over your airline hell… Hope you make it without more airline glitches, and that the conference is a blast! (And productive.) While this might not change the minds of warmists the events of last year show the power of just organizing and building support for a different dialogue. Had people in the past said “no point in doing this as the other side won’t listen” we’d be much worse off on the global warming issue today, and most likely a wall of terrible legislation would already have been foisted upon the citizens of several countries.
    There’s still the EPA to head off in its misguided agenda. Anthony et al. keep up this essential and tremendous work!

  56. James Allison says:
    May 15, 2010 at 12:48 pm
    Sadly unless prominent AGW scientist attend and debate their side then this conference has all the hallmarks of a talkfest of the converted. As such seen by the MSM ad yet another fringe meeting of deniers funded by big oil and big industry.
    ____________________________________________________________________
    James it has other value. They were invited, THEY ALL STAYED AWAY and I have every intention of rubbing my Senators and Congress critters nose in that. IF the Science is so “ROBUST” Why was the AGW crowd not there in mass to convert the skeptics many of whom are scientists?
    Skeptic: One who is yet undecided as to what is true; one who is looking or inquiring for what is true; an inquirer after facts or reasons.
    skepticism: : the doctrine that true knowledge or knowledge in a particular area is uncertain.

  57. I wonder if the eyjafallajokull volcano will be on the agenda , it is puffing real well at the moment I think All Gore should step in and tell it to stop making greenhouse gases

  58. Waiting for the college kids in the orange shirts to show up and remind everyone how much the DON’T know about climate, physics, and science in general.

  59. Smokey says:
    May 15, 2010 at 10:50 am
    If the alarmists are so cocksure of the ‘science’ they should be queuing up to attend this conference to set us all ‘straight’ surely!
    Regards,
    LOL, Athelstan.

  60. Gail Combs says:

    Why was the AGW crowd not there in mass to convert the skeptics many of whom are scientists?

    Athelstan says:

    If the alarmists are so cocksure of the ‘science’ they should be queuing up to attend this conference to set us all ‘straight’ surely!

    As someone who has spent a lot of time here trying to do that sort of thing, I am perhaps one of the best qualified to give insight as to why scientists in the field might not want to spend their time doing this: Most of the time seems to be spent just debunking the same debunked arguments presented again and again. You can’t set someone straight if they want strongly enough to believe a certain thing. Mostly, scientists want to spend time at conference discussing what they consider to be real and compelling scientific issues, not ones that they find to be basically manufactured issues.
    Also, scientists are used to going to conferences sponsored by reputable scientific organizations, not ones sponsored by ideological think-tanks.

  61. Joel Shore,
    I’m sure you’ve noticed the number of comments that appear here regularly from people who used to believe in CAGW, but after becoming educated on the subject, have come around to the skeptical point of view. And since comments from people who used to be skeptical of CAGW, but are now true believers are practically non-existent, it is clear that your efforts at conversion are failing. If you had solid facts instead of speculation based on computer models, you could make some headway.
    And the biggest ‘debunking’ issue occurred when Michael Mann’s hokey stick chart, showing no MWP or LIA, was shown to be fraudulent. In fact, when it comes to debunking, CAGW is a target-rich environment. Like playing Whack-A-Mole, every CAGW argument that appears is easily dispatched. Coral bleaching? Toad extinctions? Increasing hurricanes? Oceans acidifying? Caterpillar catastrophes? One by one, every CAGW scare is knocked off – and then another mole stick its head out and… WHACK!>
    Finally, you are blind to the very obvious fact that your “ideological think tanks” include such entities as the Joyce Foundation, the Heinz Foundation, the Grantham Foundation, multiple George Soros foundations, and many other purchasers of influence with a CAGW agenda. When $millions in grants are paid to scientists in return for their parroting of the CAGW mantra, the parrots naturally repeat the mantra. But it has nothing to do with science. It’s simply propaganda, and your “reputable” organizations have been corrupted by money and ideology, destroying their reputations in the process.
    If it were not for psychological projection, you wouldn’t have much to say, would you?

  62. I’m watching the conference on PJTV now. Very nice video in the feed!

  63. Bruce Cobb: “Alarmalot”! Perfect—their anthem only lacks some fine-tuning for a perfect fit.
    Camelot
    The climate must be perfect all the year.
    A law was made a distant moon ago here:
    July and August cannot be too hot.
    And there’s a legal limit to the snow here
    In Camelot.
    The winter is forbidden till December
    And exits March the second on the dot.
    By order, summer lingers through September
    In Camelot.
    More…
    http://www.lyricsbay.com/camelot_lyrics-camelot_movie.html

  64. I could agree with Steve McIntyre if the Hockey Stick stayed in the scientific world. But it does not. Every time a politician gives reason why they want Cap N Trade, or increased regulations on business over co2, they always say the “UN and its IPCC report says thus and so”. The Hockey Stick is a vital part of the IPCC report’s ‘science’. It was also a vital part of Al Gore’s movie which has influenced the public and the government over global warming/climate change. If the Hockey Stick is not valid then the taxation and regulation that is partly a result of the Hockey Stick are not valid also. It is also possible that the taxation may be ‘taxation without representation’.

  65. Perhaps the champion denialists are those who refuse to see the AGW crisis credibility gap.
    In some cases this may be from personal self-interest and in others it may be the result of their deep initial commitment to this agenda and a belief that it is their social responsibility to commit their lives to doing everything possible to avert this purported impending doom. I can imagine a book on this subject with the cover showing a herd of buffalo stampeding over a cliff.

  66. RE: Amino Acids in Meteorites: (May 16, 2010 at 7:02 pm) “It is also possible that the taxation may be ‘taxation without representation’.”
    At the very least, if the ‘Hockey Stick’ is not valid then we have ‘taxation without justification.’ Except for the scale involved, I am sure many will say this is nothing new. We may also have ‘taxation without re-election.’

  67. Rick Werme:
    The graph I found on montana.edu on the Milankovitch cycles supports your comment re the last ice age being a geologically current event relative to where we are with respect to precession, axial tilt and orbital eccentricity within the Milankovitch cycles. My best wishes to Mr. Carter.

Comments are closed.