#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)

Schedule:

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

Schedule:

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

http://climateconference.heartland.org/

0 0 vote
Article Rating
53 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Editor
June 11, 2015 5:49 am

As you’ll note, Anthony is part of the panel that starts at 9:30 EST this morning in the Atrium Ballroom.
http://climateconference.heartland.org/

Editor
Reply to  Bob Tisdale
June 13, 2015 9:03 am

EDT, but too late to fix now….

ECB
June 11, 2015 5:49 am

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

Alan Robertson
Reply to  ECB
June 11, 2015 7:05 am

Missed the Senator’s address. Did he give any links to that data?

Michael
June 11, 2015 6:00 am

Why is it listed as EST when Washington DC is in EDT?

Gary
Reply to  Michael
June 11, 2015 10:02 am

They’re skeptical of adjustments? 😉

Scottish Sceptic
June 11, 2015 6:28 am

Please watch this video and pass on.
[ https://youtu.be/ytzTMqs8XKA NOTE:link may be incorrect, -mod]

Silver ralph
Reply to  Scottish Sceptic
June 11, 2015 11:17 am

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.
Ralph

JT in Houston
Reply to  Scottish Sceptic
June 11, 2015 12:56 pm

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.

richard verney
Reply to  JT in Houston
June 11, 2015 6:32 pm

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. .

Reply to  JT in Houston
June 12, 2015 4:00 am

@ 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.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
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.

Dawtgtomis
Reply to  Scottish Sceptic
June 11, 2015 12:57 pm

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

Reply to  Scottish Sceptic
June 11, 2015 3:37 pm

Scottish Skeptic
HACK ALERT!
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.

Reply to  philsalmon
June 11, 2015 3:44 pm

Now it’s back to David Davis – what just happened? (Was it just me?)

Reply to  Scottish Sceptic
June 11, 2015 4:30 pm

David TC Davis – great to see a parliamentarian who is an articulate climate skeptic with fighting spirit – talking of which, here he is again:
http://youtu.be/pe0LvhXRJUg
I hope I live to see him become prime minister.

William
Reply to  philsalmon
June 13, 2015 12:30 am

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

Old'un
Reply to  Scottish Sceptic
June 12, 2015 7:03 am

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.

Harry Passfield
Reply to  Scottish Sceptic
June 12, 2015 8:35 am

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

Alan Robertson
June 11, 2015 7:13 am

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.)

Pamela Gray
June 11, 2015 7:44 am

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.

Harry van Loon.
Reply to  Pamela Gray
June 11, 2015 8:47 am

Quite apart from forecasting three chaotic systems effect.

Gary
Reply to  Pamela Gray
June 11, 2015 10:07 am

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

Evan Jones
Editor
Reply to  Pamela Gray
June 12, 2015 3:33 pm

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.

noaaprogrammer
Reply to  Evan Jones
June 12, 2015 9:23 pm

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.

Reply to  Evan Jones
June 12, 2015 9:28 pm

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.

ossqss
June 11, 2015 7:49 am

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!
Bravo!

zootcadillac
June 11, 2015 8:26 am

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.

Alan Robertson
June 11, 2015 11:14 am

Oh, but Koch brothers- sniff-. Over to you, Pavlov.
/s

Louis LeBlanc
June 11, 2015 11:50 am

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.

David L. Hagen
June 11, 2015 12:53 pm

The Health links referenced on JunkScience.com appears to be:
Climate Conference Human Health Effects Research
Posted on June 9, 2015 by john1282 | Leave a comment
Materials for Panel Eight—Human Health and Welfare
Heartland Institute of Chicago, 10th International Conference On Climate Change, Washington Court Hotel, Washington D.C. June 11-12, 2015.

David L. Hagen
Reply to  David L. Hagen
June 11, 2015 12:55 pm
Mumbles McGuirck
June 11, 2015 1:09 pm

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.

June 11, 2015 2:08 pm

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
http://www.fishtruth.net/

Steamboat Jon
June 11, 2015 7:33 pm

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:

ossqss
June 11, 2015 8:44 pm

BTW, the presentations are all recorded and available in the original live link for the time being.
http://climateconference.heartland.org/

Pat Frank
Reply to  ossqss
June 13, 2015 6:33 pm

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.

June 11, 2015 11:35 pm

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.

Joel O'Bryan
June 11, 2015 11:54 pm

Tweeted this picture screenshot to Big Joe Bastardi just now.
His predicted Garden of Eden summer is finally getting recognized by the boyz at NOAA.
http://i60.tinypic.com/3023xuf.png

Gary
June 12, 2015 5:26 am

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

Mumbles McGuirck
June 12, 2015 7:59 am

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

Reply to  Mumbles McGuirck
June 13, 2015 12:30 am

Mark Steyn’s blog posted the video of the Breakfast meeting.
It is an hour well spent.
http://www.steynonline.com/7000/mann-for-breakfast
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

Reply to  Mumbles McGuirck
June 13, 2015 12:36 am

Apart of Mark Steyn’s talk at 31:55
“This Monday is the 800th anniversary of Magna Carta.”
June 15, 1215.

Alan Robertson
June 12, 2015 12:55 pm

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.

June 12, 2015 7:40 pm

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.

Ross Lea
June 13, 2015 3:11 am

Anyone have a copy of Sen. Inhofe’s Handout ?

MRW
Reply to  Ross Lea
June 13, 2015 6:02 pm

DITTO. Anyone?

June 13, 2015 6:56 am

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.

Juan Slayton
Reply to  James Schrumpf
June 14, 2015 6:01 am

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.’

rw
Reply to  James Schrumpf
June 14, 2015 12:48 pm

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

Truth Disciple
Reply to  James Schrumpf
June 14, 2015 6:40 pm

He didn’t credit Longfellow. What happened to literary you snob?

nc
June 13, 2015 10:55 am

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

nc
June 13, 2015 10:56 am

Area not are.

paullm
Reply to  nc
June 13, 2015 8:48 pm

nc-the key notes: normal.

%d bloggers like this: