Center for American Progress and Romm to mock Heartland conference with a phone call

I laughed out loud when I read the press release. Romm just can’t stand the fact that we are in Washington, which he considers his turf, so he had to do something, anything. Heh. Gosh a conference call where he’ll diss “deniers”. How original, we get this 24/7 already. But at least there’s some legitimizing going on in the attacking of it. So thanks, Joe. See what Caruba says in the essay. – Anthony

Center for American Progress

Guest post by by Alan Caruba

In the words of Gandhi, “First they ignore you, then they mock you, then they fight you, then you win.”

Thursday, June 30, will mark the beginning of the Sixth International Conference on Climate Change, sponsored by The Heartland Institute, a free market policy center headquartered in Chicago. The conference will be held in Washington, D.C., an appropriate location considering how much hot air emanates from Congress and the White House.

I attended the first conferences that took place in New York City, just across the river from where I live, so I was “there at the beginning” for conferences that were, in the words of Gandhi, largely ignored by the mainstream media and subsequently mentioned but only as the object of mockery.

When, in 2009, emails exchanged between a handful of scientists who provided the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change with the most specious, deliberately duplicitous “data” to prop up the “global warming” hoax were revealed, the whole house of cards began to collapse.

It has since been propped up by a bunch of media, political, and science dead-enders who had stacked their reputations on pulling off the great hoax of the modern era; that an infinitesimal amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere—0.038 percent—was causing the Earth to heat up, the seas to rise, and Minnie Mouse to announce she was pregnant.

The success of the forthcoming conference, however, has been blessed by the modern form of respect, a preemptory news release attacking it. The Center for American Progress issued a “press call advisory” titled “Climate Deniers Congregate in the Nation’s Capital.”

It began, “The Heartland Institute, a conservative group funded by Exxon Mobil and Charles Koch…” Whoa! Mr. Chairman, we rise to question why the Center for American Progress would engage in an outright lie? Answer: That’s what progressives do because they are immune to the truth.

For the record, neither Exxon Mobil, nor Mr. Koch, has contributed to the cost of the conference. The former has not contributed to the Institute since 2006 and the Kochs have not sent any money in more than a decade.

But let’s finish the Center’s opening sentence that characterized the conference as “boasting a full agenda of notable climate deniers.” The term climate deniers has long been attached to any scientist, academic, politician, or commentator such as myself who had the temerity to point out that every single claim made on behalf of “global warming” was pure horse-hockey.

Since 1998 we have been discussing the new climate cycle, a COOLING one!

The Center for American Progress sought to make light of the conferences’ theme, “Restoring the Scientific Method.” And a damn fine theme it is considering the damage to the entire scientific community that, prior to the global warming hoax, was not famous for deciding what the truth was by “consensus.”

Real science still depends on peer review and the thorough testing of a hypothesis until it can no longer be disputed because it is reproducible. You can say the Earth is flat until you are blue in the face, but it is still round. The “warmists”, however, did everything they could to short-circuit this rigorous process.

The Center for American Progress is concerned that the forthcoming conference asserts that “global warming is not a crisis” and it will be devoted to “ending global warming alarmism” and “disputing that global warming is man-made.”

Would someone please tell the Center that the Earth is now more than a decade into a perfectly natural cooling cycle and that mankind does not control the sun, the oceans, the clouds, the volcanoes, or any climate event? Whenever a tsunami, blizzard, or tornado occurs, Mother Nature’s advice to mankind is “Get out of the way!”

Since I am loath to travel further these days than the Bagel Chateau one town over from where I reside, I shall be watching the conference on streaming video, June 30 to July 1. It should be noted that, in addition to a roster of some of the world’s most respected climate scientists who will make presentations, the Institute has routinely invited some of the most prominent alarmists—warmists—to participate.

A recent Forbes article noted that “a virtual Who’s Who of global warming media hounds” had been invited to participate in the conferences over the years. Conference coordinator, James Taylor, the Institute’s senior fellow for environment policy, said that Al Gore, James Hansen, Michael Mann and others “all seem to have some sort of scheduling conflict whenever they have to share the stage with a scientist who will be challenging their evidence.”

Meanwhile, the egregiously misnamed Center for American Progress will hold a conference call on Wednesday to launch an attack on the conference. No longer ignored or mocked, the Heartland Institute and its conference are clearly on the winning side.

Funeral ceremonies for “global warming” will follow with the mourners all wearing green.

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
55 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
RockyRoad
June 28, 2011 8:15 pm

JimboW says:

June 27, 2011 at 11:35 pm
For an analogy, 0.038% is about the same concentration you would get from tipping a 44 gallon drum of black ink into an olympic size swimming pool. Anyone like to bet that the transparency of the pool to white light would not change fairly strongly?

Would there be much difference between tipping a 33-gallon drum of black ink vs a 44-gallon drum of black ink into your OSSP? If you had to visually spot a small submerged object in the deep end of the pool, would it make your chances any more likely? I doubt it.

RACookPE1978
Editor
June 28, 2011 8:36 pm

Be careful of both your math in that example, AND of the “lesson learned” from that example.
The volume of an Olympic varies depending on the source, but most list between 660,000 and 660,430 gallons of water. (US gallons.) .038 percent (more accurately, 395 ppm or 395/1,000,000 x 660,000 gallons will be 250 gallons of “ink.”
BUT – big BUT here!!! – the impact of today’s CO2 changes is NOT “adding 250 gallons of ink to an Olympic sized pool.”
Rather, it is trying to measure the difference between having added 280 gallons of water one hundred years ago, and then adding another 100 gallons this year. While six swim teams are practicing their turns in the shallow end and two dive teams are judging belly-flops in the deep end.

JimboW
June 28, 2011 10:21 pm

racookpe1978
Mea culpa. I certainly used an overly rough approximation, and just took the Olypmic swimming pool to be roughly 1,000,000 litres (a common, but apparently rather wrong comparison we often use in the water debate in Australia when trying to convey how big a megalitre is). I was looking for something more easily imagined than “emptying 380L of dye into a 1,000,000L pool”. My bad.
I couldn’t agree more about all the complexity you cite, but my beef is with the stupidity of the “a little bit can’t poassibly hurt” angle.
RockyRoad
I’ve hopefully correctly applied the Beer-Lambert law, and come up with the following: An object just visible at 0.6m depth in the 33 gallon solution, would need to come up to 0.51m depth to be visible in the 44 gallon solution. A 20% difference is pretty substantial (and far in excess of any change in overall radiative forcing being claimed by anyone from our additions of CO2). Again, this is missing my main point, i.e. how about we stick to the really good arguments, of which we have a rich selection, rather than giving away opportunities for ridicule?

JimboW
June 28, 2011 11:15 pm

Correction to response to Rocky Road,
I misapplied the formula. The same object viewed at the same depth should be around 18% brighter in the 33 gallon solution.

Allan
June 29, 2011 5:09 am

Small quibble. When you flame them for opening with a lie, you are not quite telling the truth. They do actually say in their article “in past years” when referring to the exxon and koche funding. I find the whole funding thing a bit tiresome really, but you are wrong in accusing them of lying. Great artixle otherwise, and keep at it.
Allan