Heard the news? The 2009 International Conference on Climate Change begins today in the Big Apple.
But of course, it’s unlikely you heard. Zip from the mainstream media. Not even a peep taking pop shots at the gathering, likening it to a coven of conspiracists. Pure crickets…
Save one brave soul… the Canadian Free Press, running an article by Dennis Avery, Director of the Center for Global Food Issues. Avery is slated to be one of the 70+ speakers at the Conference.
This year’s theme? “Global Warming: Was it ever really a crisis?
Speakers at this conference will address questions that go to the very heart of the international debate over climate change:
• Does the plateau in global temperatures during the past eight years contradict computer model predictions, and therefore requires a reexamination of the greenhouse theory?
• Do proxy records of ancient climates contradict how computer models characterize the role of carbon dioxide in climate change?
• Does the modern warming have the “fingerprint” of having been caused by greenhouse gases, or is it more likely the result of other forcings?
• Is there a case—either in science or economics—for governments to legislate reductions in greenhouse gas emissions? Should such efforts be suspended until the case for anthropogenic global warming is stronger?
Keynote speakers at this evenings opening dinner are Hon. Vaclav Klaus, Ph.d., “No Progress in the Climate Change Debate”; and Richard Lindzen, Ph.d., Climate Alarm: What We Are Up Against, and What to Do”.
Klaus was the President of the Czech Republic who made headlines in 2007 when he questioned Al Gore’s sanity, and his relentless quest for global warming initiatives.
Lindzen is a member of the National Academy of Sciences, the Norwegian Academy of Sciences and Letters and a Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at MIT. Also, he is:
… a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Sciences, the American Geophysical Union and the American Meteorological Society. He is a corresponding member of the NAS Committee on Human Rights, and has been a member of the NRC Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate and the Council of the AMS.
This is a man who that Huffpo brain trust, Laurie David, labeled as “the famously discredited global warming skeptic”. Lindzen is a favored target of New Zealand’s Margaret J. Sparrow at LogicalScience. Ms. Margaret June has a “BS” in biology… (Yes, the quotations were a deliberate editorial comment.)
Normally Sparrow researches cancer, DNA repair, cellular division, exon prediction, astrobiology, and infectious disease… and places most of her personal focus on the population index, family planning, contraception and STDs. But I guess, of late, she’s expanded her self-perceived specialty areas into other arenas. Needless to say, she’d can’t be thrilled with New Zealand’s latest conservative PM, John Key.
Perhaps Ms. Sparrow should update her “professional deniers” page to include the ever increasing numbers.
As for Ms. David, apparently she didn’t feel her talents as Letterman talent coordinator-to-entertainment manager-and-comedy-show-producer were fully appreciated. She abandoned that field for a higher goal… activism on global warming. She founded the Stop Global Warming Virtual March with (sigh….) John McCain and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. All I can say about that is we dodged a bullet in order to be inflicted by a cannonball.
Forgive me if I take Ms. David’s judgment of the MIT Professor and Nat’l Academy of Sciences member with a grain of salt.
All points of the conference are worthy subjects of debate, most especially with the repercussions of global regulatios and cap and trade policies being discussed amidst the global economy.
From Avery’s article in CFP:
This week, at the 2nd international conference of man-made warming skeptics sponsored by the Heartland Institute in New York, I’ll predict the earth’s warming/cooling trends for the 21st century.
I will be among splendid company such as John Coleman, founder of the weather channel, Ross McKitrick, who debunked the “hockey stick” study, physicist Willie Soon, and many other presenters with brilliant credentials. A thousand scientists, economists, and skeptics from every walk of life will meet to discuss the current climate indicators.
I’ll use physical evidence of the more than 500 warmings in the past million years, which are found worldwide in ice cores, seabed sediments, fossil pollen and cave stalagmites. At least 700 scientists have published evidence on these solar-driven Dansgaared-Oeschger cycles. The good news is that the D-O cycle’s warmings have been getting somewhat cooler for the past 10,000 years—and there is no evidence that human-emitted CO2 will make them much warmer.
continue reading Avery article here…
The event, sponsored by Heartland Institude and 59 co-sponsors …. none of which, I’m sure, will pass any die-hard AGW believer’s muster. Alinsky tactics are alive and well in all fields.
So thru this week, I shall be on “media watch”. Will any major media cover this conference? And if so, from what perspective?
Holding my breath for fair coverage and debate now…. NOT!
Vietnam era Navy wife, indy/conservative, and an official California escapee now residing as a red speck in the sea of Oregon blue.
Didn’t computer projections get us into this sub-prime, derivative mess?
@Katie
No apparently climate change is a conspiracy caused by socialists. And apparently the sub-prime mess was caused by George Soros to bring down the capitialist system to usher in world socialism. Now if we can only blame 9/11 on socialism then we have the hat-trick.
Why is it hot? Why is it cold? Why do we have wind? Why do we get rain?
Could it be………………………………………THE SUN????????
GaffaUK,
Now seriously, are you that insistent on blaming mankind for the changes in the earths temperature? It’s absoloute hogwash of course and no proof has ever been put forth, but then, you are so correct about Mr Soros and the downfall of our country’s economy, I can’t believe you’d get this part wrong!
FYI- 9/11 is caused by Islamic Terorism, and some of it’s members are a growing blight that has all but taken over your once lovely country.
The National Academies of Science have a website, visit it. The earth is growing warmer by small amounts. What’s the downside to developing Green Technology if we’re wrong? Cleaner air and water? More green space? A new engine for our economy, because the Chinese or Indians would be more then happy to lead on this issue, for the business. We need a Green driven tech boom, that isn’t bubble based.
First, let’s get something straight. I doubt anyone supports dirty air and major pollution. And in fact, most everyone is for introducing alternative energies.
That said, the “downside” is money. Alternative energy has been around for awhile. Have you been able to afford it? What makes you think it will be cheaper when Obama attempts to rebuild the US power grid with this? Are the enviro lawsuits factored in for destroying the desert turtles with solar farms? Or the battle to prevent power lines from stretching thru prisine forest lands How about all those birds that will suffer from the wind farms? How about Ted Kennedy’s land value declining because of the Cape Wind Farm that he and his bud, Romney, killed a few years ago (now making progress under another Governor)?
How about the cap and trade/carbon credit scam that does nothing but enrich the pockets of the Al Gores of the world?
The point, Pragpro, is that no one is against increasing green technology. But not under BS ideas that have been proposed, the regulations they are trying to force nations to do, and plans that promise to totally destroy and already fragile world economy.
It ain’t all sweetness and light, ya know. Money is behind almost everything.
Speaking of, what makes you wander over from your progressive utopia to Flopping Aces?
Where you see spending I see investment, because Obama is smarter then W. The people voted, the GOP Party ID is -10% In relation to the Democrats, then the Independents. The GOP has become third party. Maybe you’re wrong. The National Academies of Science has a website, visit it..
Math isn’t your strong suit, eh Pragpro?
Reading isn’t your strong suit, eh Wack-o?
“Americans identifying themselves as Democrats outnumber those who say they are Republicans by 10 percentage points, the largest gap in party identification in 24 years.
The gap has widened significantly since President George W. Bush’s re-election in 2004, when it was a mere 3 percentage points. But by the time Mr. Bush left office in January, less than a quarter of Americans approved of his performance.
These days, 38 percent of Americans say they are Democrats, 28 percent call themselves Republicans, and another 29 percent identify as independents, according to an average of national polls conducted last year by The New York Times and CBS News.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/01/weekinreview/01connelly.html?_r=1
Look, Mr. Progressive. I realize you have a degree in what constitutes a worthless talent of analyzing politics. “scientist”… LOL
You wander over and assume no one here has ever seen, nor read opinions of the IPCC, Nat’l Academy of Sciences, and other sundry science academies who have broken the cardinal rule of mixing their science with politics. Then again, they have become virtually a welfare child of government, so one can see why they bend over so easily.
But speaking of psycho, you try to justify what you don’t see as spending by babbling party statistics? I guess if the cap and trade and carbon credit math boggles your mind, or you can’t compute the actual repercussions of revamping an entire US power grid at one time with a more expensive (and less stable) energy source, then you have to fall back on what you know…. statistics of political parties.
I guess this is your less than clever way of saying that if the nation voted for it, it must be right. Well, if you’re banking on humans, or American voters, as the measure of what you see as wise spending, you might well want to remember that the majority of the world’s population once was adamant that the world was flat.
The whole global warming stuff is not a subject I follow closely. In the end it is either going to be true or false, and maybe we might live long enough to know.
The bigger issue for me is dependence on foreign resources and our money going to cultures that were better left riding on camels, or south American or Russian Presidents (PM) for life, who despise America. I think T Boone Pickens has a point with wind energy etc. American needs a new widget to get this economy going again and to regain our independence. I tend to think we cannot afford not to move in this direction, and fast.
No one suggests that we do *not* move in this direction, blast. All thru last year was a bill the GOP was trying to get thru that was an “all of the above” approach. There needs to be a feasible bridge, and it needs to be done slowly. Obama’s trying to have it all… and all at once. It’s a throw of the dice, and he’s playing with the taxpayers’ money at a time we when just do not have it.
If he succeeds, we not only pay thru the nose for the borrowed financing, we’ll be paying thru the nose on top of that with more expensive energy costs. It needs to be implemented piecemeal.
You maybe right, but we are already borrowing the $400-500 Billion (a year) to buy the oil resources as it is. Look at how highly leveraged the economy became, it was not just housing that messed us up, but trade imbalances that go on forever that have hollowed out our national wealth.
That is not even taking into account the what if’s, such as a blockage of the Persian Gulf or the dictates of Chavez, or Russia, or Nigeria. If the supply of oil is cut we are out of business and fast. We depend on foreign oil for nearly 70% of our needs. This is a vital national security emergency.
On the issue of energy we need to act and not piecemeal.
blast, oil is not only used for fuels and energy. It is also a major component of our highest percentage of exports. We need to find our own mineral sources to use, and knock down what we need from foreign nations… absolutely. But we cannot ween overnight, and we will never *not* need oil. Unless capacitance makes leaps and bounds in advances, energy will be unstable when the wind doesn’t blow, the rain doesn’t fall, and the sun doesn’t shine. The fall back will always be oil products and natural gas.
Our oil wealth transfer was especially high when the prices per brl were skyrocketing from world demand, combined with a weak dollar. And what do you think this piling on to our national debt will do to the dollar? A weak dollar will make everything… including our own alternative energy more expensive (which will be more expensive anyway… even Obama admits that).
It is economic suicide to try to do it all at once. What should be done *at once* is exploiting energy fields in our own back yards, and not other nations’. And this will require pulling the stick from many an enviro’s rear end.
Do you think these products will get us into the 22nd Century? Even if we exploit every drop in our country Pikens has said would not drill our way out of the problem. Plus we are not speaking of an infinite supply, nor a production level that would significantly solve our daily needs anyway. What about future generations? Don’t they have some claim on the oil under the ground or is it just ours to use up completely?
There is no question, no at all we have to get out from under the oil economy. Yes, drill more now for short term, but honestly, that does not solve the problem and leaves those who follow here in the USA no resource once we dry up all of the wells. What a wonderful legacy to leave to future generations. Yep, we used up all of the oil here, fend for yourselves (oh, while you pay back that huge debt we left you too).
blast… did I say “drill” and don’t do anything else???
I will repeat… ALL OF THE ABOVE! But *not* all at once. Period. Done. Said it all.
I’m both for conservation and drilling off coast to get us off the need to by oil from the middle east. (which itself has benefited from technical advancements making negligible the hazard of drilling to the environment) As for many of the energy alternatives:
Solar energy is as yet still very expensive. The costs have come down, but not near enough to make it a viable alternative. The required storage battery technology is also not quite there yet. Solar cells don’t work as well at night. 🙂
Harnessing sea power can be even more destructive to the ocean environment than off-shore drilling, so I would rule that out.
Hydro-electric generation is expensive to set-up and requires the damming of tributaries. (Also environmentalists don’t like them.)
Clean coal is better than dirty coal, and is the major electrical generation means for most of the US. But it still has a negative impact on the environment. Then there is the danger factors and health risks for the miners.
Atomic power plant technology has come very far since 3-Mile Island and Chernobyl, and it is pretty darn safe now, (excepting what to do with the radioactive waste products of course,) but due to the afore named disasters nobody want’s it in their backyard.
Wind farms are great but the land has to be put aside for it and they need to be built, that’s the expensive part. Of course some people consider the generators an eyesore, and hurricane/tornado force winds can seriously damage them.
The only other really good method I can think of is geothermal, which is very promising. I honestly don’t understand why we haven’t explored and advanced this technology sooner. Geothermal systems have been used since 1904. It requires no fuel and the low amounts of waste heat can be used to drive heat-exchanger-air conditioners or for direct heating. They even have geothermal water heaters you can install for your home. The only problem is that after a few decades the heat zone begins to cool down, so you have to take a plant of-line to allow the Earth’s temperature to re-warm the area. Once that is done you can crank it back up again.