The 2008 International Conference on Climate Change is the first major international conference to focus on issues and questions not answered by advocates of the theory of man-made global warming.
Hundreds of scientists, economists, and public policy experts from around the world will gather on March 2-4, 2008, at the Marriott New York Marquis Hotel on Manhattan’s Time Square, to call attention to widespread dissent in the scientific community to the alleged “consensus” that the modern warming is primarily man-made and is a crisis.
——————————————————————————————————–
UPDATE
I was a delegate at the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change, March 2-4, 2008, New York City.
You can read some of my blog posts on the conference at the following links:
March 03, 2008
Climate Change Conference, New York – Day 1, In Review
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/002809.html
March 04, 2008
Climate Change Conference, New York – Day 2, In Review
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/002813.html
March 06, 2008
Climate Change Conference, New York – Day 3, In Review
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/002820.html
—————————————————————————————————————-
The debate over whether human activity is responsible for some or all of the modern warming, and then what to do if our presence on Earth is indeed affecting the global climate, has enormous consequences for everyone in virtually all parts of the globe. Proposals to drive down human greenhouse gas emissions by raising energy costs or imposing draconian caps could dramatically affect the quality of life of people in developed countries, and, due to globalization, the lives of people in less-developed countries too.
The global warming debate that the public and policymakers usually see is one-sided, dominated by government scientists and government organizations agenda-driven to find data that suggest a human impact on climate and to call for immediate government action, if only to fund their own continued research, but often to achieve political agendas entirely unrelated to the science of climate change. There is another side, but in recent years it has been denied a platform from which to speak.
The 2008 International Conference on Climate Change promises to be an exciting event and the point of departure for future conferences, publications, and educational campaigns to present both sides of this important topic.
The goals of the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change are:
1. to bring together the world’s leading scientists, economists, and policy experts to explain the often-neglected “other side” of the climate change debate;
2. to sponsor presentations and papers that make genuine contributions to the global debate over climate change;
3. to share the results of the conference with policymakers, civic and business leaders, and the interested public as an antidote to the one-sided and alarmist bias that pervades much of the current public policy debate; and
4. to set the groundwork for future conferences and publications that can turn the debate toward sound science and economics, and away from hype and political manipulation.
The 2008 International Conference on Climate Change is the first major international conference questioning global warming alarmism, but it will not be the last one. This event is intended to be a catalyst for future meetings, collaboration among scientists, economists, and policy experts, new research, and new publications.
The proceedings will be transcribed, edited, and published as a major contribution to the debate over global warming. Other possible follow-up activities now being discussed include:
1. an event in London in 2009;
2. launch of a new journal devoted to climate change;
3. launch of an association of philanthropists willing to support further research and public education opposing global warming alarmism;
4. support for an International Climate Science Coalition that will act as an alternative voice to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; and
5. expanded cooperation among the scores of organizations currently sponsoring research, publications, and events on the dubious claims in support of the theory of man-made catastrophic global warming.
James M. Taylor
Senior Fellow
The Heartland Institute
For more information visit: http://www.heartland.org/NewYork08/program.cfm
I will be there.
—————–
UPDATE
I was a delegate at the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change, March 2-4, 2008, New York City.
You can read some of my blog posts on the conference at the following links:
February 25, 2008
The 2008 International Conference on Climate Change: I’m off to New York
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/002787.html
March 03, 2008
Climate Change Conference, New York – Day 1, In Review
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/002809.html
March 04, 2008
Climate Change Conference, New York – Day 2, In Review
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/002813.html
March 06, 2008
Climate Change Conference, New York – Day 3, In Review
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/002820.html
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Have a good time and a safe journey.
Yes enjoy, but AVOID consensus as we all know it’s worthless.
No need to worry about them achieving any sort of consensus, Mr T, since half their stories contradict the other half. I wonder how many times they will link the sun to the temperature record, then have the next speaker say the temperature record is worthless?
SJT,
Many of the speakers already recognise
1. the limitations of the temperature record but would not dismiss it as ‘worthless’ but rather wanting, Williams Briggs has some ideas as to how to fix it up, and
2. most skeptics, including those who have problems with the current temperature record, recognise the sun impacts the earth’s climate.
Mr T,
I don’t think the conference organisers are after any sort of consensus, just more robust discussion including in the mainstream media
I am certainly looking forward to meeting in person some of the people i have corresponded with by email including Marc Morano.
Oh, but I don’t agree with Marc on everything, but value his efforts to get the skeptic view heard and respect his point of view.
Bob Carter will also be speaking. I also have the greatest respect for his work, but we disagree on definitions of pollution in the context of C02 … and some other issues.
Healthy debate is something I really value and it is mostly encouraged amongst the so-called climate change skeptics.
According to the AMSU-A satellite measurements, the 1 km temperature anomaly vs 1 year ago has gone from approximately 1.2 degrees F to about 0.2 degrees F in about 5 weeks.
I have seen no commentary or explanation of this anywhere, and it looks like an enormous change for planetary temperature in a very short period.
It is surely an interesting topic for discussion at the NY conference.
Why I do I have the feeling that human or system error might be at the bottom of this?
Healthy debate happens all the time amongst the research scientists. I don’t know why people assume it doesn’t. They are well aware of the fact that there are missing in the science, however, that is true for all science.
“Healthy debate is something I really value and it is mostly encouraged amongst the so-called climate change skeptics.”
This is part of the issue, sceptic is even used as a term of derision.
Arguably science progresses via scepticism, if you apply the Popper criterion of falsifiability then every scientific investigation must be carried out from the sceptical position. Silly as it might seem, but those who deride the “climate change sceptics” are deriding science; and in that case, what is the basis of their own claims? Not science, that is for sure.
Doesn’t look like many/any hockey team members or their extensions are attending?
Jennifer it’s pretty cold in New York. Bring your overcoat. heh
Counting Cats,
I agree with you about scepticism being essential to science. However, Popper’s idea is not universally accepted, and is beginning to look a bit thin and mechanistic. The voice of Pierre Duhem is growing louder, supported by Imre Lakatos and Paul Feyerabend. Hypotheses do not exist, and cannot be dismissed, in isolation. Hypotheses form connected webs. This applies to those put forward by climate sceptics, and those put forward by people like Luke.
Well if they were serious they wouldn’t just be inviting sceptics. It’s just more of the same old same old. “The alternatives club”.
Organise some participants from both sides and I’d give them a big tick.
“Organise some participants from both sides and I’d give them a big tick”
What, just like Bali?
No not like Bali.
“What, just like Bali?”
Bali was explicitly not a scientific conference. It was organised, by true believers, as a political conference for true believers.
Its stated purpose was to reach political decisions about what to do about what all involved accepted was the reality of AGW.
“Popper’s idea is not universally accepted, and is beginning to look a bit thin and mechanistic”
Sure, we all accept science happened before Popper, and his is not the sole definition of what constitutes scientific enquiry. That is why I used the word ‘if’ in – “if you apply the Popper criterion of falsifiability”.
Luke, I think they did in fact invite more than climate sceptics but they simply declined the invitation.
Unfortunately I can’t attend – my daughter is expecting a baby sometime during the first week in March. I see a similar event is proposed for London in 2009.
Jen,
I am there and presenting. My presentation is available on Warwick Hughes’ blog, God bless him. I have just presented at an aviation conference in Hong Kong, and very well received. It was a case of throwing the money changers out of the temple, in this case the people hoping to make money out of selling indulgences to the airlines. My torpedoes are set and running. God willing, we will prevail.
Have I said this before? Luke, when the cooling comes next decade, your current frothing at the mouth will be reduced to an intermittent dribble of spittle, diluted by tears.
Global warming freaks will tell you that you’re putting unnecessary carbon into the atmosphere by flying to NYC, but flying to Bali was okay. At least you guys are going to do business rather than sit out in the sun, pretending that it doesn’t affect Earth’s temperatures.
Obviously they’ll let anyone in.
We had a three page story in the local paper about the Mayor and her serial climate change junkets today. She has actually attended 18 conferences on global warming from Paris to Bejing, and she hasn’t been Mayor that long. Not one of those taxpayer funded vaction/AGW conferences ever invited a skeptic or hosted an opposing viewpoint.
Luke – you can stuff it.
http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/734633.html
Oops. I said she attended 18 AGW conferences. Mayor Fargo actually attended twenty.
My bad.
Take a look at the comment section. It will warm the cockles of your skeptic heart to see the response from my fellow Sacramentans.
Archie actually thinks he’s playing Biggles with his Dad’s Army sceptic buddies. What’s all this “prevail” crap? It’s not WWII mate.
The global atmosphere will make it’s own decision. You won’t have anything to do with it (whatever happens).
“The global atmosphere will make it’s own decision. You won’t have anything to do with it (whatever happens). ”
You know that is real close to what I have been saying all along.
It’s starting to rub off on Luke.
“Have I said this before? Luke, when the cooling comes next decade, your current frothing at the mouth will be reduced to an intermittent dribble of spittle, diluted by tears.”
David, as a person on your side of the issue, I want to say that someone like you, who is persuing the science in this debate, needs to work hard at remaining objective and leave people like Luke to the rest of us.
By the way, it’s almost 2 month and the second cycle 24 spot hasn’t made an appearance. It’s looking more and more like a weak 24. I expect that Hathaway will have to adjust his predictions a third time. 😉
David Archibald,
there is a major and unfortunate blunder in your paper as presented on Warwick’s blog.
You state that “The energy that stops the earth from looking like pluto comes from the sun…”
This is patently not correct.
Insolation contributes about 10% to the earth’s heat budget. The remainder comes from natural sources, the main ones being natural radioactive decay and gravitational differentiation. This is how the temperature at the centre of the earth can be about +5000 degrees.
Insolation contributes to variations in temperature at the earths surface, and in the atmosphere, but it contributes nothing to the vast majority of the mass of planet earth.
The earth has a radius of about 6,000 km. Our experiential world extends from the earth’s surface to the top of the atmosphere, a near negligible component of the total mass of planet earth.
I think you must correct your paper before it is published.
PP
trade itself has probably derived its name from it, the people of such scrapbook layouts done with the cricut produce of the industry of that country. It comprehends both the inland and fvwrjutois