Ninth International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC-9) to take Place in Las Vegas from July 7 to July 9, will feature world-famous scientists and writers, precede FreedomFest 2014
CHICAGO – Is the theory of man-made global warming still credible? Why do surveys show a majority of Americans and scientists do not believe global warming is man-made and a major problem?
Hundreds of the world’s most prominent “skeptics” of the claim that human activity is causing a climate crisis will converge in Las Vegas on July 7–9 to review the latest research and celebrate what they see as recent events that vindicate their opposition to what some claim is a “scientific consensus.”
The Heartland Institute – which The Economist magazine in 2012 called “the world’s most prominent think tank promoting skepticism about man-made climate change” – is joining scores of other think tanks and advocacy groups to host the 9th International Conference on Climate Change at the Mandalay Bay Hotel and Casino in Las Vegas.
Heartland has organized and hosted eight International Conferences on Climate Change since 2008. These events have attracted extensive international attention to the debate taking place in the scientific community over the causes and consequences of climate change.
Conference details are coming together as July approches, but the media and the public
can see updates and register now for the event at the conference Web site.
“The scientists Heartland works with demanded we host a ninth conference this year to foster a much-needed frank, honest, and open discussion of the current state of climate science,” said Heartland Institute President Joseph Bast, “and we just couldn’t refuse. The public, the press, and the scientific community will all benefit from learning about the latest research and observational data that indicate climate science is anything but ‘settled.’”
One co-sponsor of Heartland’s 9th International Conference on Climate Change is FreedomFest, which is holding its annual gathering in Las Vegas from July 9–12 at Planet Hollywood. Several speakers from Heartland’s conference at Mandalay Bay will join the FreedomFest line-up.
Heartland’s ninth climate conference coincides with the release of the fourth and fifth volumes of the Climate Change Reconsidered series by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC). The third volume, Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science, was released in September 2012. (Read the Summary for Policymakers.) The fourth volume, Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts, and fifth volume, Climate Change Reconsidered II: Human Welfare, Energy and Policies, will be released digitally by The Heartland Institute in late March, and printed volumes will be available in May.
Visit ClimateChangeReconsidered.org for extensive background on all five reports.
Previous Heartland climate conferences have featured 187 scientists, economists, and climate policy experts from around the world and attracted more than 4,000 participants. Nearly 300 videos of presentations can be found at the archive site for the conferences.
For more information about The Heartland Institute and the 9th International Conference on Climate Change, contact Director of Communications Jim Lakely at jlakely@heartland.org or 312/377-4000.
——————————————————————————–
The Heartland Institute is a 30-year-old national nonprofit organization headquartered in Chicago, Illinois. Its mission is to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems.
The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) is an international panel of nongovernment scientists and scholars who have come together to present a comprehensive, authoritative, and realistic assessment of the science and economics of global warming.
FreedomFest is an annual festival where free minds meet to celebrate “great books, great ideas, and great thinkers” in an open-minded society. It is independent, non-partisan, and not affiliated with any organization or think tank.
###
I agree with Anthony: there is little or no certainty. Anyone who thinks temperatures are warming irretrievably is not a skeptic. Anyone who thinks that man has nothing to do with the increase we’ve seen is not a skeptic.
As for UHI, anyone who thinks it has no effect, or that the effect is minimal is not a skeptic. I simply do not believe that you can adequately measure or adjust to determine the amount of warming in a location that was rural and isolated 100 years ago and is now urban. Or a location that was agricultural one hundred years ago and has now been re-claimed by forest. UHI or it’s reverse is simply too difficult to quantify. Too many factors and how do you weigh them?
Of that you can be sure I am uncertain.
Steven Mosher says:
There are plenty of fake skeptics.
They are not skeptics.
Neither are any of the believers in manmade global warming. None of them accept the Null Hypothesis, which has never been falsified. Clearly, you8 do not accept the Null Hypothesis.
There is nothing being observed now that is not fully explained by natural climate variability. Everything we see has been exceeded in the past, and by a significant degree — and during times when CO2 was much lower.
Most of us accept that CO2 has some effect. I do. But at current concentrations, the warming effect from CO2 is minuscule. It can be completely disregarded for policy purposes.
Finally, you use “certain” far too much. Scientific skeptics are “certain” about very little. But to convince us that your climate alarmism has a basis in science, you need to produce measurable, testable evidence showing that CO2 is a problem.
So far, no one has been able to do that.
You can always count on Steven Mosher to give you the uncomfortable perspective you don’t really want to hear. But who wants an echo chamber?
Thanks Steven.
Steven Mosher, intent on setting up 16 straw men, wrote:
“Most of what you see on skeptical blogs is fake skepticism”.
“1. Folks who are certain that C02 can have no effect.”
Actually, most think simply that it is likely that CO2 has less of an effect than is claimed by those who build positive feedback loops into all of their models. Your use of the word “certainty” reflects the bias and rot in your own mind only.
“2. folks who are certain that sensitivity is low or near 0”
Actually, most just think that it is possible that sensitivity is low, and that is what you cannot abide.
“3. folks who are certain its a socialist plot.”
Actually, it is the socialists themselves who are continually, and publicly saying that “Climate Change” proves that Capitalism is evil and must be replaced. Links can be provided if you are somehow unaware of these very frequent statements. But apparently, you are among those who think that quoting someone else’s words accurately must mean that they believe in “plots”.
“4. folks who are certain that the sun dun it”
Actual scientific evidence indicates that the sun plays a major role in Earth’s climate. You’d have to be a complete and absolute moron to think that it didn’t. Again, your use of the word “certain” reflects the bias and rot in your own mind only.
“5. Folks who are certain it’s all “natural variation””
“Actual scientific evidence indicates that natural variation plays a major role in Earth’s climate. You’d have to be a complete and absolute moron to think that it didn’t. Again, your use of the word “certain” reflects the bias and rot in your own mind only.
“6. Folks who are certain that the MWP was warmer”
Actual scientific evidence indicates a high likelihood that the MWP *was* warmer in some areas. Again, your use of the word “certain” reflects the bias and rot in your own mind only.
“7. Folks who are certain the earth has a magic thermostat”
You want to give even one link to that absurd statement? What about the ice ages? Again, your use of the word “certain” reflects the bias and rot in your own mind only.
“8. folks who are certain that popper was right.”
Karl Popper, if that’s who you are referring to, is still highly regarded in his profession. Much more highly regarded than you are. (Of that I AM certain)
Is your real point here an attempt to say that this whole concept of “falsification” should have no place in science? You’re an even bigger idiot than I took you for.
“9. folks who are certain that UHI has to bias the record”
There we go with “certain” again. Some people think it’s possible; you however appear to be “certain” that it is not
“10. folks who are certain that adjustments to the record are all a conspiracy”
This stupidity is getting old. See # 9 above.
“11. Folks who are certain that the ice in the arctic is melting because of soot, not warmth”
I’ll bet you really hate anyone who suggests that the ice in the arctic is growing. Hey, how about that Antarctic? Or the Great Lakes? Oh I know, they’re freezing up because of all the warmth being added to the system, yeah, that’s the ticket.
“12. Folks who are certain that holocene arctic ice cover was low and due to warmth, not soot”
I don’t know who is “certain”, but wasn’t there just a peer reviewed study that said exactly this?
And who besides you said anything connecting the holocene and soot?
“13. Folks who are certain that planetary alignments explain everything”
Oh come on, now you’re not even trying. How many posters on any site say that they believe that? 2? 3? Name them.
“14. Folks who are certain the climate is chaotic”
You’d have to be a complete and absolute moron to think that it doesn’t contain a chaotic element. But I guess by now, we’ve established that.
“15. folks who are certain that the climate is too complex to predict”
See #14.
“16. you get the idea”
Yes, I think we do.
Viva …. Le Monsoon! LOL!
@Steven Mosher
“Folks who are certain that the MWP was warmer”
The IPCC was certain that the MWP was warmer in 1990, before they realized they had to get rid of it and pulled the chart (copied from the works of Dr. H. H. Lamb) from later reports. Grinsted et al (2009) was certain the MWP was warmer when they showed sea level 8 inches higher then. But even earlier, 7,000 to 4,000 years ago, the Holocene Highstand was up to 2 meters higher than current sea level (Blum 2003; Baker 2005; Jameson 2012). Steven, higher sea level = globally warmer. And even earlier, the Eemian interglacial of 125,000 years ago had sea levels of up to 10 meters higher. When there is ample evidence of previous greater warming, and Al Gore and Co., with the support of consensus science, maintain that atmospheric CO2 was lower then, how can they then turn and say that CO2 drives warming?
Not only sea levels support previous greater warming, but the Greenland ice cores indicate that 9,100 of the past 10,000 years were warmer than any of the past 100 years. I’m sure you have read Richard B. Alley’s “The Two-Mile Time Machine”, so it mystifies me how you could claim that agreement with the science indicating that the Holocene Climatic Optimum, and Minoan, Roman, and Medieval warm periods were warmer is wrong. It would seem that any sincere, open minded investigator would have to at least make an allowance for the possibility that there have been recent periods of greater warming than the present. And that if CO2 was lower then, that something other than CO2 drove the warming.
Steven, do you know how the English say you can make a small fortune in English vineyards today (English vineyards thrived during the Medieval Warm Period)? Invest a large fortune in English vineyards. In vino veritas. Men can lie, but vineyards can’t.
You have to forgive Steven Mosher. He believes that estimates are the equivalent of measurements.
Jim Bo,
Another fine entry from William Connelley [This author may be grossly biased. Please help Wikipedia by banning him.]
Jimbo says:
March 27, 2014 at 9:25 am
I maybe wrong here but it’s important to note that Steve McIntyre is not a sceptic. If I am wrong then please accept my humble apologies in advance.
Huh? You do know what a “sceptic” is, don’t you? One who takes nothing on faith, demands evidence and data, and attempts to replicate/falsify scientific experimental findings as per the scientific method?
You know what Steve McIntyre is famous for?
And you think he’s not a sceptic?
Wow. Just… wow.
pokerguy says:
March 27, 2014 at 9:01 am
“Potter, You’re absolutely correct that it is a defining political issue. But I can’t help agreeing that the more persuasive approach is to leave to the extent possible, politics … out of it.”
This discussion reminds me of Betmax which was technically superior to VHS but lost the battle for market dominance. Ever noticed that large technical companies usually select someone from marketing as their CEO?
Most of what you see on skeptical blogs is fake skepticism
Most of what you see in climate science sites is fake science.
There are plenty of fake skeptics.
There are plenty of fake climate scientists. They receive tens of billions in funding.
To clarify: Steve McIntyre is the very *definition* of “sceptic.”
I agree with Russ R. and Pokerguy that scientific credibility is compromised by political or ideological entanglements.
I will probably go to ICCC9 in Las Vegas this July. I went to ICCC7 in Chicago in May 2012 and had a great time, met almost all the speakers face to face and chatted.
John
Yet another facile post from Mosher, and yet again he makes a
lightning raid and then disappears. Don’t bother commenting on
it because you won’t get a response.
Moshpit,
If science is merely applied reasoning, then a skeptic in the dialog of climate science is one who uses his application of reason to question, prima fascia, any aspect of the applied reasoning of climate science . . . . and a skeptic especially questions his own.
Applied reasoning by skeptics, an intellectual dynamo . . .
John
wws: You’re right on target. How the hell can anyone defend those alarmist claims? I keep asking for evidence, Please, some evidence. Invariably the talk about “consensus” or appeals to authority, or give you several links which supposedly contain the “evidence” that they will NEVER attempt to verbalize in their own message. While nothing may be called certain (who knows, the sun may not rise tomorrow, but that is an entirely irrational attitude outside of pure ;mathematics.)
They definitely picked a place the should be immune from the Al Gore Effect. If they have temps below a hundred, I will be amazed.
“7. folks who are certain the earth has a magic thermostat”
Not magic, no, but unless Stefan’s law has ceased to be valid, it has a thermostat. Rad. Heat loss is proportional to T^4.
In general the earth has a good thermostat, but a poor frostat (from our human comfort perspective). Warmer periods (interglacials) have always been more stable climate-wise, on nearly all time scales. Humans have no memory of experiencing an ice age; ice cores suggest far worse swings of temperature during the depths of ice ages.
15. Folks who are certain climate is too complex to predict.
Mosher
That is why 100 models completely bungled the last 15 years. It was because it was so simple to predict. You can throw #15 in the trash can with the other non-astute observations of yours.
I agree with other folks that care is required when associating skepticism with politics. However, I think it is important to connect the lying and shenanigans by the alarmists to their political sponsors, which are the left. It’s another piece of mendacity to go along with you can keep your health plan and your doctor, and it stems from the same control all-take all mentality. Let’s don’t forget that AGW ain’t about climate or the environment – it’s about controlling and taking.
Kyle D says:
March 27, 2014 at 1:36 pm
> They definitely picked a place the should be immune from the Al Gore Effect. If they have temps below a hundred, I will be amazed.
On the plus side, the room rate is $80/day. Way to low to interest the UN conferences!
Thunderstorm season cranks up in July/August. One of those would be nice. We have too many trees in New Egland for good Tstrm views. Well, except above treeline, and you really don’t want to be there in a Tstrm.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/27/ninth-international-conference-on-climate-change/#comment-1599796
Steve McIntyre is the epitome of skepticism.
Somebody quoted this the other day:
“Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.” …….Richard Feynman
I think the same can be said about skepticism.
You are confused because “skeptic” is a label people who stand in opposition to an uncritical belief in global warming alarmism have applied to themselves. In that sense you are correct: Steve McIntyre doesn’t see himself in that group. That makes him an agnostic in my book.
Vegas in early July. They weren’t taking any chances with the Gore Effect.
http://www.weather.com/weather/wxclimatology/monthly/graph/USNV0049
This comes from the “What are they thinking?” department.