#ICCC10 Climate Conference, Day 2, Streaming Live from Washington

The #ICCC10 Climate Conference is online at 7:30AM EDT, available for free viewing and a schedule of events is posted below.

Grand Ballroom

(Scroll down for Atrium Ballroom)


Friday, June 12

8:00 AM EST – Breakfast Keynote with Mark Steyn, award for science communications presented to Anthony Watts

9:30 AM EST – Panel 9: Climate Change Reconsidered II: Human Welfare, Energy, and Policies with S. Fred Singer, Ph.D., Craig Idso, Ph.D., Christopher Monckton, and Bob Carter, Ph.D.

10:50 AM EST – Panel 11: Attacks on Scientists and the Corruption of Science with Bob Carter, Ph.D, William Briggs, Tim Ball, and Christopher Monckton

12:45 PM EST – Keynote Lunch with [to be announced]

2:15 PM EST – Panel 13: The Right Climate Stuff with Walter Cunningham, Tom Wysmuller, and Hal Doiron

Atrium Ballroom


Friday, June 12

9:30 AM EST – Panel 10: Climate Policy Impacts with State Sen. Carlyle Begay (D-Arizona), Alan Moran, and Amanda Maxham

10:50 AM EST – Panel 12: Effective Climate Science Communication with Tom Harris, John Coleman, and Michael Bastasch

2:15 AM EST – Panel 14: Action Items for Policymakers with Marc Morano, Bette Grande, and Myron Ebell

Direct link to access live streams


53 thoughts on “#ICCC10 Climate Conference, Day 2, Streaming Live from Washington

  1. Excellent opening address by Senator Inhofe. The amount of money being spent to promote global warming shocked me.

    • Now that was a jolly good speech. Well done David Davis. (I am glad he has taken on board all my many emails. … ;-). )
      Worth listening to. Succinct, to the point, reasoned and well argued.

    • Hilarious that little weasel who interrupted the speech and claimed that ALL the warming since 1950 was due to CO2.
      Yes, the continuous natural warming and cooling cycles of the earth that have been occurring for billions of years completely stopped abruptly in 1950. This is the kind of hysterical nonsense that we are up against.

      • The little weasel was well put down by the retort of quoting the text of the IPCC report ‘of less than half the warming post 1950 is thought to be of anthropogenic origin.’
        But this is the problem. Politicians consider the science to be certain and consider that the IPCC is telling them that 97% of all scientists consider that all the warming is manmade. I do not consider that the little weasel is alone in that view.
        The Politians do not even know what the Summary for Policy Makers states, still less that it does not reflect the underlying scientific reports which reports admit to being far less certain in knowledge and understanding. I think that they would be shaken if the actually read the underlying scientific reports, and we all know that even they do not fess up to the true error margins, poor quality data (which is not fit for purpose), and the full extent of the guesses that are being made and fudging with the models, and that the models are worse than useless at providing real world projections that can be relied upon with any degree of confidence. Indeed almost all models are running outside the 95% confidence band, and whilst this year if it is an El Nino year may flatter some of the models this is likely to be short lived if 2016/7 provides La Nina conditions. It is likely that before AR6, all models will be outside their 95% confidence band with many showing 3 sigma deviation. And every one knows that the average of garbage is garbage, and that in the real world a silk purse is not made out of a sow’s ear. .

      • @ richard verney
        June 11, 2015 at 6:32 pm
        Good comment. I agree wholeheartedly.

        … It is likely that before AR6, all models will be outside their 95% confidence band with many showing 3 sigma deviation. And every one knows that the average of garbage is garbage, and that in the real world a silk purse is not made out of a sow’s ear.

        They will not be able to build a computer model that has any real scientific value unless they get the first principles correct. Their models do have value — propaganda value.
        As long as the climate “science” fellows think that CO2 drives the climate by “warming” the surface 33 degrees by “back radiation” and that radiation explains all we will not see any progress in understanding. Conduction, convection, advection, and diffusion are the drivers of climate in the lower atmosphere. Additionally, understanding the role of water is critical to understanding climate.
        As Chiefio (E.M. Smith) noted some time back, it really is all about the water on our water world.

        Water Vapor Rules the Greenhouse System
        Just how much of the “Greenhouse Effect” is caused by human activity?
        It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account– about 5.53%, if not.
        This point is so crucial to the debate over global warming that how water vapor is or isn’t factored into an analysis of Earth’s greenhouse gases makes the difference between describing a significant human contribution to the greenhouse effect, or a negligible one.

    • Bravo, Scottish Skeptic, he’s a juggernaut for truth! However if I should pass on due to watching it, my dear wife would be heartbroken. ;-o

    • Scottish Skeptic
      The video you posted about the excellent speech in the UK Parliament has been replaced by a Goebbels Warming propaganda video with a pudgy balding east Coast lefty attacking climate skepticism.
      MODS please fix this.

      • Huh????
        When I click on this video I get a boxing match.
        Is this what we are supposed to see?????

    • A truly excellent speech.
      Considering the fact that the majority of UK politicians voted for the economically crippling Cimate Change Act and describe AGW as the greatest threat faced by mankind, the attendance at the debate was pathetic.
      But it at least gave an articulate sceptic the opportunity to show how blind the majority are.

    • Scottish Sceptic: I have already emailed my MP and asked him to congratulate Mr Davies. I also included a link to the vid.

  2. Maybe next year we can all chip in and buy you some more bandwidth. On the other hand, video buffering is indicative of a larger than expected audience.
    (I’m on 60MBPS+, so it isn’t me.)

  3. Darn it I missed Anth^^^’s presentation because I can’t tell one time zone from another. However he was asked several questions at the end. Taken altogether the presentation was smashing!
    As for Dr. Spencer’s contention that the jury is still out on finding a human signal. No kidding. Climate is a hard nut to crack in terms of forcing it to go this way or that. You need something immensely powerful to move a jet stream. A stronger pressure system is needed to move another one in front of it. Parking a pressure system in one spot for any length of time means that pressure systems can be very powerful yet we know that they all eventually weaken because something about them cannot be sustained.
    Now consider the amount of energy available from the portion of CO2 emitted by human activity. It is a fraction of a percent change in total ppm. Back of the envelope calculations tells me there is not enough energy in human sourced additions to CO2 ppm to be the culprit. This is even more true if Dr. Spencer’s data is correct in that the water vapor positive feedback is MIA.
    Bottom line, the known physics of the energy needed in climate and weather system ups and downs that creates both the natural noise and natural long term trends rules out the role of human sourced additional CO2 causing anything significant that is measurable in a highly energetic immensely large and powerful complex system.

    • I noticed a distinct difference in Anthony’s criticism of surface station adjustments and Dr. Spencer’s explanation of satellite data adjustments. I would have liked someone in the Q&A to have asked what makes one bad and the other good, or to put it better, when are they appropriate and when are they not. We know the answer, but in such a public forum an opportunity to explain a critical issue was lost

    • Hmm. We have added ~120ppm. That does not appear to have a whole lot of effect — not without the feedbacks, which have failed to materialize. But I don’t think it’s nothing. We do have lab experiments and the recent actual observations to support the CO2-warming hypothesis.

      • I would assert that if man has any effect on the climate it would be more from large scale agricultural endeavors – mainly increased water vapor in the atmosphere due to airborne irrigation and increased water surface area from reservoirs and dammed rivers – than from increasing CO2.

      • No observations of the climate system support AGW. Quite the opposite.
        Lab results support a mild GHE, but that is not the same thing. Not by a long shot.
        There is no evidence whatsoever in favor of man-made global warming, let alone catastrophic.
        As NOAA Programmer notes, humans have however had local effects on weather phenomena. The increased humidity in the lower Nile region has had negative effects on ancient Egyptian artwork, for instance.

  4. Nice job this morning Anthony Et al.
    Do you, or others from Heartland, know when the recordings will be available to share?
    Looks like about 10k+ viewership between the first two simultaneous presentations.
    You all should be considered Heroes for what you do for the populous!

  5. I very much enjoyed your talk and panel Anthony. It’s just a shame that it clashed with the other panel in the Grand Ballroom which I am very interested in. Will have to get that on catch up.
    I hope you don’t mind me saying so or consider this rude, but I have heard you speak, via the wonders of the internet, a number of times now. I was particularly taken with how much your diction has improved since you have had much of your hearing returned to you. I assume that this is just a product of being able to hear yourself speak more clearly. Having had a profoundly deaf partner for a number of years I am well aware of the difficulties and must say that I’m sure this has made life much easier for you and I’m so very happy for you.

  6. Thanks Anthony for continuing to represent us outliers, articulate and believable. Would a little financial support be appropriate? Also, kudos for your civilized and much needed one-on-one with Bill McKibben.

  7. I caught Anthony’s talk this morning and thought he did a very good job. Dr. Spencer’s presentation was more technically minded about his revised data set. But I had trouble following Dr. Armstrong’s talk since he kept referencing his handout. Without that or the links it referenced, I have only the vaguest notion of what his points were. I notice since this year’s conference was held in Washington, there are a LOT more policy and program talks than those about science.

  8. I thoroughly enjoyed todays presentation’s, and especially enjoyed the BarBQing of Sheldon Whitehouse Roasted over Charcoal. It wasn’t long enough. I’m telling anyone that will listen, the Wall St Environmentalist Industry is destroying our fishing culture, and our world, and NOAA is the hi jacked vehicle.
    The Big Green Money Machine – how anti-fishing activists are taking over NOAA

  9. Schedule for Friday looks to have “AM” that should be “PM” (Panel 14 at 2:15 AM which follows Panel 12 at 10:50 AM). Otherwise it would be on Saturday, June 13th at 2:15 AM.
    Friday, June 12
    10:50 AM EST – Panel 12:
    2:15 AM EST – Panel 14:

    • I’ve found the streaming so slow and so often paused to re-buffer, that I can’t bear to watch it. More’s the pity. Maybe it’s just too much demand on the server. I’ll try again another time.

  10. Anthony, I took in a few of your talks regarding US surface temp stations. Eye opening, to say the least. If the majority of people knew what you know we wouldn’t be where we are now.

  11. Congratulations, Anthony, on receiving the Excellence in Communications award at the ICCC conference.

  12. Steyn’s Keynote address this morning was grand, humorous and pointed, as always. Worth getting up in the early AM to catch it.

    • Mark Steyn’s blog posted the video of the Breakfast meeting.
      It is an hour well spent.
      0:00-7:40 Introduction by ? of Heartland Institute
      7:40- 14:45 Tom Harris: Exec Dir of International Climate Sci Coalition, giving award for Excellence for Climate Science Communication to Anthony Watts. (8:30 – standing ovation)
      14:45 – 21:30 Anthony Watt’s acceptance. Thank yous to many. Announcing the The Open Atmospheric Society http://theoas.org
      21:30 – . Introduction of Mark Steyn
      28:00 – 59:00 — Mark Steyn’s address

  13. Just got through listening to NPR’s coverage of this event as a thinly attended “D’nier conference” of aging white men. My assessment of NPR as a leftist/statist propaganda outlet, i.e. “Government Radio” is again, confirmed.

  14. Per IPCC AR5 Chapter 6
    1750………….…278.0 ppm……2.17E+15 kg
    (How do they know? No MLO! Ice cores? Tea leaves? Ouija board?)
    2011…………….390.5 ppm……3.05E+15 kg
    Difference.….112.5 Δppm…..8.78E+14 Δkg
    What was the source of the increase in ppm and kg between 1750 and 2011 and how does anybody know? Could be outgassing as the oceans warm. Could be limestone weathering. Lots of possibilities. Permafrost melting. Forest fires. But how to lay this at the feet of industrialized man?
    Per IPCC AR5 – 1750 to 2011
    Anthro carbon contribution, PgC: 555 (How do they know?)
    Anthro carbon atmospheric residual, PgC: 240 (43%, ditto?)
    CO2 residual, kg…….2.40E14*3.67 = 8.81E+14 kg
    Anthro residual as percentage of 1750-2011 delta…….100.3%
    How fortuitous! How coeenkadental! How convenient! How totally dry lab’d! These numbers are all made up! 200 of the 260 years have zero reliable data. Wags, estimates, approximations, somebody’s judgment call! The uncertainty on these numbers must be a barn door wide! However they clearly were selected and adjusted to match the foregone conclusion! Anthro = 8.81E+14 kg.
    Here’s the barn door as painted by IPCC AR5 6.3.1. All numbers in PgC.
    ………………………….minus……mean……..plus…Uncertainty +/-
    Anthro output…….470……….555……….640……..15.3%
    Fossil Fuel…………..345……….375……….405……….8.0%
    Net land use……….100……….180……….260……..44.4%
    Ocean flux…………-185………-155………-125……..19.4%
    Land sink…………..-250………-160………..-70……..56.3%
    Anthro Residual….230……….240……….250……….4.2%
    Residual %………..48.9%……43.2%……39.1%
    So how does the bottom line have +/- 4.2% uncertainty when the input data runs as high as +/- 56.3%. Square root of sum of the squares is +/- 76%! Must be that new math.

  15. Watched bits of the video here and there, and was somewhat disappointed when the opening speaker on Friday delivered the line, “Whom the gods would destroy they first make angry.” He then went on about the anger of the alarmists for a few lines. The actual line, though, is “Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad,” i.e. insane, not angry.
    If one is going to quote Longfellow, at least get him right.

    • I dunno James, if you’re talking about Steyn, his humor can be pretty oblique. He may well have deliberately misquoted the sentence to make a play on the ambiguity of ‘mad.’

    • I’m sure the slide was right. The emcee then misquoted it afterwards. (It wasn’t Steyn, who never mentioned it.)

  16. In Joel’s graphic what is that white are in the middle between Alaska and the lower 48, a climate change free zone?

Comments are closed.