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.
###
In the defense of Mosher, who cares if he is highly regarded?
Obviously Mosher is being paid to comment.
No I don’t think Mosher is being paid to comment.
I suspect that he’s taking anti-depressants and alcohol at the same time.
I recognise that persistent ranting mode we just witnessed above.
A full blown adult tantrum, loud and repetitive – driven by pure rage with a dash of frustration.
Steven Mosher says:
March 27, 2014 at 9:50 am
Egads, Mosh, could you be more unpleasant and condescending? First off, the idea that there are “real” and “fake” skeptics seems bizarre … I greatly doubt whether many of the commenters here are faking anything. They almost all seem sincere in their beliefs. So the term “fake skeptics” encompasses the empty set, and little else.
So let me go through your list and discuss them … boring, I know, but otherwise someone will be fooled into thinking that you were right.
That’s a wide category, encompassing folks who wrongly but strongly believe that downwelling IR can’t heat the planet, as well as heretics like myself who think that the global average temperature is not a function of the forcings, CO2 or otherwise.
And this makes them “fake” how? Craig Idso thinks sensitivity is low … does that make him a fake skeptic? And me, I think the idea of “climate sensitivity” as a stable independent constant value is an extremely flawed and incorrect way to conceptualize the climate … which is why in thirty years we haven’t narrowed the uncertainty of the sensitivity at all. Millions of man-hours and dollars and computer hours have been expended on the question, and despite all of that, our estimate of climate sensitivity is no better than our results from steam-driven computers thirty years ago … to me, that means that the concept of “climate sensitivity” is deeply flawed.
The push of the global warming activists is certainly in that direction, as has been revealed (often inadvertently) by the UN folks … you may not like it, and it may not be a plot, but that’s assuredly the direction that many folks are using global warming alarmism to push us.
While I don’t think this myself, because I think that the system is remarkably impervious to changes in forcings of any kind, why does holding this view make someone a fake?
As far as I can tell, “natural variation” is a term of art in Climatese that means “We don’t have a clue what is making it change, but we want to look all scientific.” As such, it is misused by both sides in the discussion, skeptics hardly have a monopoly on this one, fake or otherwise.
Say what? There is a good chunk of evidence to show that in a variety of places around the world it was as warm or warmer than it is today. Me, I don’t think we have much accuracy back that far, wide error bars, so I don’t have a strong position on this question. But for those that do choose to believe that the MWP was warmer, how does that make them a “fake skeptic”.
I think the earth has a thermostat. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve explained exactly and in detail how I think it works (primarily by variations in the timing of emergence of the various thermoregulatory climate phenomena such as thunderstorms).
Despite that, you have continued to refer to it over and over as my theory about a “magic thermostat” … which indicates to me that it is a theory which concerns you so greatly that you want to cast it into the outer anti-scientific darkness indicated by “magic”. People don’t continue to attack on bogus “magic” pretenses and refuse to read the evidence without a reason …
How on earth does that make someone a fake skeptic, Steven? Thinking Popper was right has nothing to do with skepticism, either fake or real. This list is a joke.
Bad news, buddy … UHI has to bias the record. The only question is … how much?
I’m not a conspiracy theorist myself, although Climategate showed me that in fact they do exist …
Mark Jacobsen of Stanford gives us a look at the numbers on that question here … is he a fake?
There is certainly evidence that there were nearly ice-free periods earlier in the Holocene. Anyone who says they know the reason is blowing smoke.
Most folks know that I think that is nonsense. But how is it “fake”?
I don’t think I know anyone who claims it is not chaotic … are you saying it’s not? If so, I’d refer you to Mandelbrot …
I’m not certain of that, but it certainly can’t be ruled out. Given that the climate is the most complex system that we’ve ever tried to forecast, and the relatively small gains in forecast horizon and forecast accuracy that have accompanied unimaginable gains in computer power, I wouldn’t say I’m optimistic that you or I will live to see such predictions become commonplace.
I will go on record as saying that I’m certain the climate is far too complex for the current generation of models to predict … the “pause” has proven that beyond question.
The only idea I get is the idea that you want to reduce the effectiveness of those who disagree with you by hanging a big bogus sign around their necks that says “FAKE!” … you haven’t defined what a skeptic is, or what would make a skeptic fake, or how we could tell, but by god STEVEN MOSHERS OPPONENTS ARE FAKES!! And don’t you forget it.
Mosh, sometimes it seems like there’s two of you—one guy who posts interesting, intricate, well thought out scientific ideas, claims and questions … and another guy who does drive-by one-line postings, and has an enemies list of people he’s trying to discredit in an underhanded manner.
Which one is the real you?
Finally, let me try to define what I would call a climate skeptic in such a way as to avoid politics, and yet provide a bright-line distinction.
For me a climate skeptic is a person who thinks that the error estimates in the IPCC reports are exaggerated beyond credibility.
And as to what a “fake skeptic” might be, I haven’t a clue …
w.
Willis. My man!
Steven Mosher says:
Most of what you see on skeptical blogs is fake skepticism.
[…]
5. Folks who are certain it’s all “natural variation”
You mean people who believe the null hypothesis hasn’t been disproven are fake skeptics? Sounds like you’re doing a Kevin Trenberth, advocating the null hypothesis should be that AGW is fact. Now I remember several papers showing bad station siting and UHI—as well as adjustments to the record—have resulted in reported local and regional man-made warming. But the lingering winter in North America has shown the warming is nowhere global.
Looks like the court jester hijacked the thread with one post. Such mischief-making! Well, perhaps that’s his role… ‘made ya look, made ya look!’ Nevertheless, I’ve enjoyed the to and fro; never stop.
Katherine you are so right. There are so many micro-climates in a region, that to have one record apply to all and especially global, is sheer poor science equations. There are many variables involved, and the position of the landmass on the globe. The elevation also of course.
Seasonable variations are not new to us. Pollution of course is a real problem in some cities around the world. So is land erosion and soil depletion, that can be halted. But we are small voices until someone or some people take the principal scientists to task. When they have, they get called names or a law suit awaits them.
Maybe I missed Steven’s point. I thought by ‘fake skeptic’ he meant people who don’t apply the same degree of skepticism to AGW alternatives as to AGW. Maybe it’s a straw man. I can’t claim I can’t point to anybody specific and say ‘oh, that’s YOU.’
It’d be clearer if Steven decided to clarify. Based on past experience I don’t think anybody’s holding their breath.
Katherine,
Good point. I agree with you.
Oops.
should have read
Pardon my red face and my foot protruding from my mouth.
Willis Eschenbach said:
“Most folks know that I think that is nonsense. But how is it “fake”?”
I think the fake bit is supporting and promoting unfounded nonsense, while claiming that the “conventional” version is unfounded nonsense.
I think the best replies to Mosher were:
And
Personally, I think some misconstrued what he said but even if they didn’t, what he said can serve as a caution.
We don’t want to become as certifiable as the Wizards of COz who are certain that CO2 emissions are the doom of Man.
How about “Ninth
InternationalContrarian Conference on Climate Change”?Acronym: NiCoCliC, pronounced Nigh Coh Click.
‘a majority of …. scientists’? Really? I would love to believe that, but is it true?
===============
what a great idea. no need to actually do any scientific research. just get a bunch of scientists together and let them vote to determine scientific laws. just like politicians. pass a law and solve problems. want to end poverty, make it illegal to be poor. want unlimited green energy, pass a scientific law that solar cells are 400% efficient.
PS : or NiCCC, pronounced Nick.
Steven Mosher says:
March 27, 2014 at 9:50 am
Most of what you see on skeptical blogs is fake skepticism.
============
better a fake skeptic than a skeptical fake.
PPS: Dropping “Ninth,” which is just a temporary prefix, CCCC could be acronymized as 4C.
Very nicely rebutted, wws and Willis.
Meh, Mosher just loves to come into a room and give everyone a wedgie. The original implication of the “fake skeptic” label is to imply that skeptics know the truth of global warming but lie and refuse to acknowledge it, mostly for their own personal profit. To the best of my knowledge, this label has only been used at platoon level by the likes of Susan Anderson over at Dotearth. Mosher diminishes his brand again by employing it.
They need a speaker debunking drought Alarmism, especially with Lake Mead nearby to the conference.
Says the fake scientist,
http://berkeleyearth.org/team
Steven Mosher, B.A. English Literature and Philosophy, Northwestern University (1981); Teaching Assistant, English Department, UCLA (1981-1985); Director of Operations Research/Foreign Military Sales & Marketing, Northrop Aircraft (1985-1990); Vice President of Engineering, Eidetics International (1990-1993); Director of Marketing, Kubota Graphics Company (1993-1994); Vice President of Sales & Marketing, Criterion Software (1994-1995); Vice President of Personal Digital Entertainment [Marketing], Creative Labs (1995-2006); Vice President of Marketing, Openmoko (2007-2009); President, Qi Hardware Inc. (2009); Marketing Consultant (2010-Present); [Marketing] Advisor, RedZu Online Dating Service (2012-2013); “Scientist” [Team Member], Berkeley Earth 501C(3) Non-Profit Organization unaffiliated with UC Berkeley (2013-Present)
“And as to what a “fake skeptic” might be, I haven’t a clue …”
A fake skeptic is simply one who believes argument “A” on faith rather than evidence (or even in the face of contradictory evidence), but claims to be a skeptic by virtue of disbelieving “not A” .
There are fake skeptics, just as there are fake scientists. And then there are fake-science peddlers who are certain about “folks” who don’t buy it. Oh, the perils of marketing!
This article, in E&E News, presents warmist arguments against the idea that CO2 will help agriculture. Those arguments seem rebuttable to me.
http://www.eenews.net/stories/1059996902