Peter Gleick ‘Fakegate’ Scandal, Debates on Latest Climate Science Featured
What: Seventh International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC-7)
Theme: Real Science, Real Choices
Where: Hilton Chicago, 720 South Michigan Avenue, Chicago, IL
When: Monday, May 21 – Wednesday, May 23, 2012
Media: Open to all media. Request press credentials here.
The Heartland Institute will host the Seventh International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC-7) from Monday, May 21 to Wednesday, May 23, immediately following the NATO Summit also taking place in Chicago. Heartland will be joined by dozens of think tank cosponsors and hundreds of scientists who understand the need for a real debate about the causes, consequences, and policy implications of climate change.
Real Science, Real Choices
This year’s conference theme is “Real Science, Real Choices.” The program features approximately 60 scientists and policy experts speaking at plenary sessions and on three tracks of concurrent panel sessions exploring what real climate science is telling us about the causes and consequences of climate change, and the real consequences of choices being made based on the current perceptions of the state of climate science.
Major developments on the science front since the last ICCC took place last summer in Washington, DC include publication of a new report by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) updating its 2009 report, Climate Change Reconsidered, and a new report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) on extreme weather events and climate change.
The past year was marked by major retreats in the U.S. and other developing nations from government subsidies and investments in solar and wind power. The widely publicized bankruptcies of companies including Solar Trust of America and Solyndra, and slow economic growth and fiscal crises afflicting many European countries, have forced policymakers around the world to reconsider the costs and consequences of basing energy choices on fear of man-made global warming.
Climategate and Fakegate
On November 22, 2011, a second batch of emails among scientists working at the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit was released by an unknown whistle-blower. “Climategate II” revealed prominent scientists concealing data, discussing global warming as a political cause rather than a balanced scientific inquiry, and admitting to scientific uncertainties that they denied in their public statements.
Like an earlier release of emails on November 19, 2009, on the eve of the 2009 UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, Climategate II caused an uproar in the scientific community and a further drop in public belief in man-made global warming. But a series of friendly investigations of the Climategate affair, along with the timely expiration of the statute of limitations for the offense of failing to comply with Freedom of Information Act requests, spared the scientists involved from any legal penalties.
On February 20, 2012, another global warming scandal broke, this one involving criminal behavior that is likely to be much more difficult to cover up. Peter Gleick, president of the Pacific Institute and an elected member of the National Academy of Sciences, confessed to using fraud to obtain confidential corporate documents from The Heartland Institute and arranging for them to be posted online. The scandal became known as Fakegate because Gleick also circulated a fake memo he claimed outlined Heartland’s “climate strategy.”
In his confession, Gleick said “a rational public debate is desperately needed.” We agree, which is why we have repeatedly invited scientists with wide-ranging views to speak at these conferences. Indeed, we even invited Peter Gleick to speak at a Heartland event, an invitation he turned down on the very day he began his fraud.
ICCC History
Past conferences have taken place in New York City, Chicago, Washington DC, and Sydney, Australia and have attracted nearly 3,000 participants from 20 countries. The proceedings have been covered by ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox News, the BBC, The New York Times, The Washington Post, Le Monde, and most other leading media outlets.
Past ICCCs have featured presentations by members of Congress, the president of the Czech Republic, Vaclav Klaus, and scientists who view themselves as “skeptics” as well as “alarmists.” Atmospheric scientist Scott Denning, who believes in man-made global warming, spoke at ICCC-4 in 2010 and ICCC-6 in 2011. Hear his remarks here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkL6TDIaCVw
Attendance Information
ICCC-7 is open to the public. Registration is required. More information is available at the conference Web site. For media credentials, register here or contact Tammy Nash at tnash@heartland.org or 312-377-4000. For more information about The Heartland Institute, visit our Web site or contact Jim Lakely at jlakely@heartland.org or 312/377-4000.
Get Twitter updates of the conference by following @HeartlandInst and the hashtag #ICCC7.
# # #
The wind on climate change is finally blowing another direction. This is fantastic.
Wait a minute… 60 scientists and experts speaking at the engagement?
I thought there was a consensus.
…..I guess they know what they are doing
but I would not have picked Chicago right now
I wonder: will any warmistas and pro-AGW academics have clued in enough to which way the wind is blowing to dare to attend this year?
In Chicago? In the heart of Barry’s kingdom? Might as well hold a Shire festival on the slopes of Orodruin.
They’ve ignored you, and then they laughed at you. This is the year they fight. This Conference is going to get Occupied.
Hey, I thought they had to disband the Heartland organization after that nice climate dude devulged that they take in over $50 a year in libertarian money! They still exist?
Peter Gleick: publicity genius ;-P
I think you are all giving Gleick way to much publicity. Remember it is not what you say so much that you say anything at all. Ignore him as that is all his foolishness deserves.
I didn’t think Scott’s comment about a “paranoid point of view” was helpful. He seemed to be implying that we (skeptics) could get more exposure if we simply would open up our minds to their ideas. That seems to be the common thread I read. It seemed condescending.
Nice to hear this is on, after last year’s conference in DC, Joe Bast said it might be the last, their cost is well ahead of what they bring in.
Gotta think about attending this one, it’s less than a year after the last one. I’ll go check the program.
Have them send a ticket.
Dennis Nikols says: April 6, 2012 at 2:43 pm
I think you are all giving Gleick way to much publicity. Remember it is not what you say so much that you say anything at all. Ignore him as that is all his foolishness deserves.
“Ignore him” is precidely what Gleick wants now. Ignore, forget, neglect to prosecute.
I don’t subscribe to the notion that “there’s no such thing as bad publicity”. I recall, while working for a middlin’-largish telecommunications company, having to deal with a company marketing weasel who did believe that. One day, he wandered into my office and proudly displayed a half-page, above-the-fold article about our company. He was ecstatic over the free publicity. I noted that the entire point of the article was how freaking lousy the company was. In great, extremely well-documented detail.
He responded, “Yeah, but it’s publicity. People will know who we are!”
And avoid the company like the plague, I added.
He disagreed. Shortly after, the company went bankrupt. Its assets were sold off piecemeal for pennies on the dollar, and it no longer exists.
Yes, do keep giving Gleick free publicity.
“The proceedings have been covered by ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox News, the BBC, The New York Times, The Washington Post, Le Monde, and most other leading media outlets.”
Given the inevitable tone of the coverage by most of these august journalistic institutions, this is only a good thing if all publicity is good publicity.
Reblogged this on Climate Ponderings.
I swear to God this is a true story.
I just received in the mail, a plastic wrapped “magazine” from the:
“ANTHONIAN ASSOCIATION OF THE FRIENDS OF ST ANTHONY OF PADUA INC”
===============
The mailman, delivered to the correct house #, but on the wrong street.
I didn’t open it, seems to be in Italian.
Seemed rather humorous ?
Mum!! Jim Hansen is playing with himself again.
Nasa scientist: climate change is a moral issue on a par with slavery
supermandia, meet superpacman.
debates are the backbone of our economy. why, without endless debate there could be no industry, energy or agriculture. without scientists and elite influential folks with clean fingernails chatting before lunch on your dime, nobody would produce anything of value evah. the us dollar is backed by debate. moar debate raises the standard of living. the
hallmark of the anthropocene is microdemagoguery.
we have progressed, as progressive people must, from the industrial age to the premenstrual. hail eris.
Sorry for the interruption But I would like to disagree with this in the blog role.
“Transcendent Rant and way out there theory”
* Climate Progress
* Climate Realists
* Tallbloke’s Talkshop
I know it’s not my site and I have no say what’s so ever but c’mon that’s ridiculous. lol.
The climate controlled Utopian dreamers are not going out with a bang so much as a whimper-http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/ipad/nation-goes-off-global-warming/story-fn6t2xlc-1226320777816
Don’t you just love that last bit-
‘Cognitive psychologist Stephan Lewandowsky, from the University of Western Australia, said the Australia SCAN result could be skewed by one part of the population, at the “conservative end of the spectrum”.’
and those 30% of rusted on true believers would be skewed by which particular part of the population spectrum Stephan? Err that wouldn’t be the particular part of the political spectrum you belong to would it Stephan? As if we didn’t know that such an esteemed and brilliant psychological mind like yours didn’t fall hook line and sinker for the mythical Arlene Composta tearjerk-
http://joannenova.com.au/tag/lewandowsky-stephan/
Great minds like Gleick and Lewandowsky think alike and the fools never differ.
Happy to see Heartland sticking to its mission after their encounter with the commies.
Too many ‘conservative’ groups get squeamish and timid after a shot across the bow.
“Atmospheric scientist Scott Denning, who believes in man-made global warming, spoke at ICCC-4 in 2010 ”
Many of us believe in some level of man made global warming. Far fewer of us believe in Catastrophic AGW. Even on this forum the great strawman creeps into the text.
I think I actually might make it to the ICCC conf this year. I also enjoy Chicago.
John
Any way Heartland could address the question of how to keep global warming and intelligent design out of the core curricula in the nation’s public school classrooms?
The news from Tennessee:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304072004577326060629555968.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
What a shame that it should take a law from the governor to allow the critique of two such topics in the classroom. What a mess that they should have become so entangled! I do have a suggestion.
I know that Heartland is creating a curriculum for teaching global warming, presumably in core classes, but I propose that they fashion their end product as an elective. Global warming, as well as intelligent design, and perhaps other topics of interest need to be addressed in high school science elective classes, which could be called “The History and Philosophy of Science”. Relegating these topics to a single elective simultaneously relieves and precludes: core science teachers from the responsiblity of teaching something they don’t believe in; students from the burden of sitting through presentations on unproven theories as “fact”; districts from becoming political tools at taxpayers’ expense; textbooks from being re-written to incorporate spurious (or questionable) text, marginalia, and footnoting.
I consider that such an elective class would serve legitimate purposes and be a worthy use of students’ time, since it would be designed to bring multiple viewpoints to bear upon these and other topics, and theories could be treated as such – theories – instead of the new facts-de jour, requiring the constant revision as the climate for such things dictates. The history of language, rhetoric and propaganda could be examined as they have affected other important periods in scientific history, with the intent of establishing when a hypothesis has undergone sufficient testing to become “fact”. “Dogmas” could be debated and discussed openly rather than learned by rote. Would such a class receive credits in college? I don’t know. Ironically, liberal arts colleges already entertain students’ whims to pursue environmentalism and climate change as careers, accepting AP Environmental Science, etc, so presumably, such classes would be treated seriously in Admissions Offices across the country.
Here’s an example of what the “History of Science Society” can do (a syposium 2 years ago)
The “Eddy Cross-Disciplinary Symposium on Sun-Climate Research” 22-22 October 2010 Aspen, Colorado
Dates: 10/22/2010
10/23/2010
The “Eddy Cross-Disciplinary Symposium on Sun-Climate Research” October 22-24, 2010 Aspen, Colorado
The “About” Page on History of Science Society:
http://www.hssonline.org/about/society.html
For those wondering why Chicago, that is where the Heartland Institute is based, http://heartland.org/contact-us
Has Gleick been invited to explain his position?
And what to say about this: tinyurl.com/89l883d
I find this disgusting.
fredb,
So what’s your opinion of James Hansen saying ‘climate change is a moral issue on a par with slavery’? We wouldn’t want to think you’re a hypocrite, would we?
Actually, I think the Heartland billboard is entirely appropriate. It shows people the kind of lunatics that believe in CAGW.
Own goal or brilliant tactics? http://climateconference.heartland.org/our-billboards/
REPLY: you should ask the same question about Rommco Inc.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/07/25/277564/norway-terrorist-is-a-global-warming-denier/
– Anthony
But I’m asking your opinion here – what do you think of the Heartland Institute’s campaign?
If you think Think Progress was wrong in their approach, does that mean you think HI was wrong? Or similarly, if you think HI is taking a brilliant approach, does that justify TP?
I’m genuinly interested in your opinion of both of these.
Dr Roger Pileke Jr has tweeted “Heartland invited me to debate a skeptic at their mtg, I declined due to a conflict if I accepted, would have canceled after new ad campaign”