Below is the live link to the 6th International Conference on Climate Change in Washington DC. Senator James Inhofe will be the keynote speaker.
Video link and agenda schedule follow.
http://climateconference.heartland.org/watch-live/
This schedule may be updated periodically as we approach the conference. Registration will be open from 7:30 a.m. both days.
The program starts Thursday at 8:00 a.m. with breakfast and a keynote speaker. Two morning panels, lunch with a keynote speaker, and two afternoon panels round out Thursday’s program. Dinner is on your own.
We return for a half-day on Friday, with an 8:00 a.m. breakfast and keynote speaker followed by two morning panels. We adjourn at 12:30 p.m.
ICCC6 Schedule (as of June 16)
It is getting worse. Long gaps without sound now.
The conference may be a success,
but the live streaming is not.
Really appreciate the feed! Thanks to whoever organised it.
It was however a bite surreal … I was drawing up a map of a local nature reserve on one side of the screen, whilst watching a conference … somewhere ??? I could throw a stone and hit the nature reserve, I’d have to fire a rocket with advanced navigation to hit the conference.
And on the news was something interesting … they had to shut down two nuclear power stations in Scotland due to Jellyfish. Now it is well known that jellyfish are increasing due to overfishing which in turn is reducing the fish that feed on baby jellyfish. And of course we were just lucky it wasn’t winter (although it is cold enough … the fire is on!) … but if it had been winter and we’d had that much power generation offline, with all the stupid wind, we’d surely have had power cuts.
But, what’s the betting this is reported as “yet another facet of global warming?”
AW I dont know if you noticed but Prof Singer made a very profound statement concerning the GISS, NOAA etc global temps from 1970 on……The implications are very important.
REPLY: Unfortunately, I missed Dr. Singer’s presentation, I was called away for a media interview. Please fill me in. – Anthony
Unfortunately most of us missed most of Dr Singer’s presentation however I suspect that Stephan is referring to good old Fred coming straight out and accusing the team et al of making the late temperature record up.
nevket240
Do you have a link o the Darwin cold story?
Couldn’t get the live streaming to work, tried four times on two different browsers during the day. Hopefully the key presentations will be available on youtube soon.
fredb says:
June 30, 2011 at 7:15 am
Given what’s happened to him through his career, I think he’s rather justified to be a little paranoid. He was one of the people I most wanted to thank for his years of work for the skeptical side while I was waiting for SC23 to end and the PDO to flip before getting involved.
I asked him how the lawsuits against him are going, and he said things are in pretty good shape. The one from Mann is impeded because Mann doesn’t want to turn over all the discovery they’ve requested, the one from Weaver is the more important one, but I forget why.
FredB, do you think it was coincidental that both lawsuits were filed at the same time and that the contents of the cases are so lame?
See http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/08/help-asked-for-dr-tim-ball-in-legal-battle-with-dr-mann/ for more background.
stephan wrote:
“AW I dont know if you noticed but Prof Singer made a very profound statement concerning the GISS, NOAA etc global temps from 1970 on……The implications are very important.
REPLY: Unfortunately, I missed Dr. Singer’s presentation, I was called away for a media interview. Please fill me in. – Anthony”
Singer, in a gruff very old school fashion which I found enduring since it reminded me of many a grand old professors during school demonstrating simple skepticism, said he didn’t trust the declared rises in T shown in the global average plots since they were not supported by other evidence such as satellites, balloons and diverging proxy data, plus a few other items I don’t recall. It was a very strong statement indeed, mainly in tone.
However, I looked up radiosonde (balloon) data and it seems to match the global average pretty well lately:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadat/images/update_images/global_upper_air.png
Let the jeering begin: Washington Post opinion. Typical flavor for WP, it seems.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/a-funny-thing-happened-at-the-climate-denier-conference/2011/06/30/AGLOmEsH_blog.html?wpisrc=nl_opinions#
It was more interesting today a bit less cheap scare mongering tactic.
But yesterday CO2 was said to stay in the atmosphere for hundreds of years, today it was thousands of years even if we stopped emitting CO2. Even though Dr Denning acknowledges that plant uses truck loads of CO2 every second?
There was this other thing as well, really weird reasoning, about the depth of the oceans taking a thousand years to come to the surface. So, essentially, that meant that they didn’t take measurements at hot spring and volcanoes and the likes, actually they don’t seem to have covered even one percentage of the oceans really, and he didn’t account for the fact that warm water has a “funny” tendency to stay on top too boot instead that warm water behaves like so seemed to him to be unnatural.
A bit lee way one need to afford everyone under time constraint so I guess he could explain better given time, but then again who wouldn’t?
The thing I can’t, for any reason, understand, under any circumstance, is why did he have to go all dictatorial?
Fine, he sees there might be a problem, because that’s what he feels, and he can’t envision any under outcome, that’s just peachy. But where does he think he has the right to demand that everyone else is supposed to solve his god damn envisioned might be problems?
If you think there’s a problem, then solve the problem yourself. If you need help to solve the problem, you kindly ask for it and also supplying proof that there’s an actual problem to begin with and not just a misunderstanding on your part. And usually people will want some valid proof if not to just judge how much time, money, and resources they need to spend to solve a problem.
Otherwise it was real great. :p
Actually, Dr. Demming is probably going to find himself lambasted from a number of quarters. In both the debate with Roy Spencer and in his later talk (both pretty much the same) much of his argument rested on the existence of the MWP and LIA, which Mann et al still pretty much suggest did not exist. He implies that solar irradiance, ir rather changes in it (if I understood him properly) caused the glaciations and the MWP and LIA…. I don’t think Dr. Svalgaard would be very forgiving on that point, and he seems to discount the possibility of negative feedbacks. At the same time, he does seem very sincere, even vehement, about wanting “conservatives” to propose market based solutions because he is convinced that solutions will come but wwe are abandoning the field to Greenpeace and the WWF, a prospect which really does seem to appall him…. so the environmental left is not going to be happy with him, either.
I did attend the conference…. just got back in the door, and was very pleased and impressed with the people I got to meet and speak with. Dr. Michaels was an excellent presenter and very generous with his time and materials after the conference. I was particularly impressed with Dr. Alan Carlin – his presentation was difficult, but I had the very great pleasure of speaking with him for a bit and there is a very keen mind there and an awesome, humbling courage. The attendees were equally impressive: I met a farmer from Texas, an MD plus Ph.D. who was very interested in the effects of diurnal temperature change on humans – and there was one outspoken Dr. Gray, a doyen and father figure for all the meterologists, who took Dr. Singer to task for saying anything nice about models. Oh… and Anthony did start off by asking if Tim wirth was in the room and repeated his offer to yield his fifteen minutes. The man, of course, was not there.