Print 55 comment(s) - last by SoCalBoomer.. on Feb 25 at 1:05 PM

Hundreds of scientists to attend; conference organizers to challenge "myth of global warming crisis".

Vaclav Klaus, President of the Czech Republic and current President of the European Union, is scheduled to give the keynote address at the 2009 International Conference on Climate Change.

The conference is devoted to scientists and policymakers skeptical of human-induced global warming, and is intended in part as a counterpoint to the UN IPCC-organized climate conferences. It is being held March 8-10 in New York City.

Some of the many scientists scheduled to speak include:

  • Richard Lindzen, atmospheric physics, MIT
  • Willie Soon, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
  • Nir Shaviv, astrophysicist, Hebrew University of Jerusalem
  • William Gray, atmospheric science, Colorado State University
  • Fred Singer, atmospheric science, University of Virginia
  • Tim Patterson, paleoclimatology, Carleton University
  • David Legates, Delaware State Climatologist
  • Syun Akasofu, University of Alaska, founder International Arctic Research Center,
  • Fred Goldberg, Secretary-General, Swedish Royal Institute of Technology

Appearing as well will be ex-US Senator and Apollo moonwalker Jack Schmitt, who also has a Ph.D in earth science.

The event is expected to draw 1,000 participants, double the size of the 2008 conference. It is being hosted by the Heartland Institute, a nonpartisan think tank. According to Heartland, the event is funded entirely from personal and institutional donors, with no corporate funding accepted.

DailyTech will be providing live coverage from the conference floor.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Polarization of Climate arguments
By Artesian on 2/18/2009 5:40:41 PM , Rating: 2
The primary reason for the polarization is that the anthropocentric types like Gore, Suzuki, May, Hansen and Mann to name the obvious cadre will not debate. This situation probably springs from their deep inner knowledge that they have an agenda beyond scientifidc revelation. What could that be? Ask them. They are out to save the world that has evolved a successful climate for complex life over 4.5 B years. What ego!

By dgingeri on 2/18/2009 6:57:37 PM , Rating: 5
The primary reason for polarization is that the global warming pushers want us all to return to an agrarian society with them as the aristocracy. They want to remove all things that make us equal: opportunity, technology, weapons, and mobility. If we can't get to their level of wealth, we stay inferior to them. If we can't fight them, then we stay oppressed by them. If we can't move and communicate with each other, then we stay oppressed.

Ever wonder why so many old money families press the liberal line?

By ttowntom on 2/18/2009 3:35:30 PM , Rating: 2
DailyTech will be providing live coverage from the conference floor.
Does that mean you'll actually have a person there? I didnt think you guys did that.

RE: Clarification
By masher2 on 2/18/2009 10:42:08 PM , Rating: 2
We do in this case. :)

Bias on both sides...
By Schrag4 on 2/18/2009 10:07:27 AM , Rating: 2
Does anyone else find it odd that there are conferences for Global <insert current trendy name like climate change or warming> and for Skeptics as well? If they've taken sides already, is what they're doing really in the interest of finding the truth? Do you think a bunch of alarmists will get together and figure out that man isn't really having much of an impact? Of course not, they dismiss any evidence that doesn't support their theory and emphasize any evidence that does. And the skeptics will do the exact same thing.

I think the alarmists have more to gain from it though. Their doomsday predictions are a lot sexier and bring in a lot more money...

EU President.
By Landiepete on 2/18/2009 10:55:47 AM , Rating: 2
The european union is governed by a council. This council consists of the heads of state of the member states. The presidency of this council rotates every six months, and the current president is the Chechia's Topolanec.

It's day to day operations are supervised by the European Commission. This Commission does also have a president, Mr. Baroso.

Then there is parliament itself ,which also has a president, Hans-Gert Pöttering.

Peter R.

Where's the consensus?
By porkpie on 2/18/2009 11:30:50 AM , Rating: 2
The event is expected to draw 1,000 participants, double the size of the 2008 conference
Good to know the "science is settled" and no scientist could possible disagree!

By Tacoloft on 2/18/2009 5:08:09 PM , Rating: 2
How can somebody be a climate skeptic? That is like saying you are skeptic of air or water or fire or ect...
I understand the phrase “a skeptic of catastrophic Global Warming due to human activity”. But saying climate skeptic is basically saying “I doubt that climate exists” is just plain ridiculous.
“Global worming will occur two days before the day after tomorrow.”
“But…that’s today!”
“Run for your lives! It’s Global Warming!”

By Artesian on 2/18/2009 5:57:18 PM , Rating: 2
I have never liked the word sceptic because it has implications of bias and leads the argument. I would have preferred to see the word 'objective' substituted. It is never too late to be objective. Demand debate!

Skeptic numbers growing!
By Apprentice777 on 2/19/2009 10:35:40 AM , Rating: 2
I’m hearing more and more discussion on blogs and reputable news sources stating the global warming theory is being publicly challenged by reputable sources. Be they bonafied scientist, experts, professors, meteorologists I can’t say, but the response is noteworthy. Even liberal media outlets are starting to question the science. My question would be “Why”? Are we really to believe that the skeptics are all paid by “Big oil”? I don’t know that I can say for sure but as the skeptic community grows it’s getting really fun to watch.

By Silverforce11 on 2/19/2009 8:04:07 PM , Rating: 2
Give man a bit of knowledge and he thinks he knows it all.

But the facts are clear, we know so little that any model to predict the climate will be flawed, as shown by the so many short term modeling which have failed to come true. Long term modeling, any monkey can pick random attributes and reach an output, which cannot be proven thus it must be real, right?

The simple conclusion everyone needs to reach, is this:

Climate science is in its infancy. Meteorologists cannot even predict with precision the weather in a few days.. to assume they can predict the entire global climate years ahead is simply arrogance.

This is coming from a scientist myself. Too many in our field believe their understanding is whole, solid and unshakable. Yet time and time again, science itself reveals to us how little we truly know.

Science itself is being undermined by those to claim things as fact when they simply are not.

eu president?
By alu on 2/18/09, Rating: -1
RE: eu president?
By Marlin1975 on 2/18/09, Rating: -1
RE: eu president?
By LukFilm on 2/18/2009 8:18:58 AM , Rating: 2
The Czech Republic is for six months considered the head of the European Union, so I guess that's where the "EU President" notion comes from, but as stated above, there is no such position.

RE: eu president?
By AlexWade on 2/18/09, Rating: 0
RE: eu president?
By whiskerwill on 2/18/2009 8:41:57 AM , Rating: 5
Even the ultra-liberal Huffington Post calls him the EU President:

So does the Washington Post:

Even the British Press calls the position "EU President":

Keep living in your dream world.

RE: eu president?
By AlexWade on 2/18/2009 10:49:16 AM , Rating: 1
I was not disputing the article, nor the author. I was not debating over titles. I was making a point that both sides of the debate cherry-pick whatever fits their ideal. However, and I didn't say this, my experience has shown that the pro-climate change crowd are the worst offenders in the regard.

I was not taking a shot at Michael Asher. I basically stated I know the authors' tendencies. Authors plural. Whenever I see a pro-climate change article, I know it is Jason Mick. And so forth.

RE: eu president?
By Murloc on 2/18/2009 11:33:27 AM , Rating: 1
these are newspapers, right?
Journalists invent things that do not exists.
There is no UE president.

RE: eu president?
By masher2 on 2/18/2009 11:38:21 AM , Rating: 5
The President of the European Union Council is typically referred to as the "President of the EU". This is not a "journalist's invention", but simple commonplace usage.

RE: eu president?
By Marlin1975 on 2/18/09, Rating: -1
RE: eu president?
By omnicronx on 2/18/2009 12:25:40 PM , Rating: 4
Like I said before, asher does not let a little thing like facts get in his way.
Whatever you want to call it, he is the new figurehead, case closed. This has absolutely no baring on the facts presented in the article.

p.s I find the best way to discount the facts, is to focus your attention on something else.. *hint* *hint*..

RE: eu president?
By masher2 on 2/18/2009 12:44:00 PM , Rating: 2
Attempting to prove an argument with Wikipedia is risky business. On strictly technical terms, Barack Obama didn't win an election in November, either -- the electors could have gathered in D.C. and legally appointed Gary Coleman president, had they wished -- but almost everyone still speaks of the popular vote as "electing the president".

By the same token, there is indeed a "president of the EU", accoding to customary usage of the term.

RE: eu president?
By Apprentice777 on 2/18/2009 1:45:09 PM , Rating: 4
Hey Asher great article. (Even though I think it's really just reporting a factual event) It saddens me to see you being attacked personally. How sad it is for us when we start to attack people for having a different point of view.

I hope you’ll keep up the good work. I know you don’t need my help, but I enjoy your blogs and I hope you don’t ever let anyone intimidate you from speaking out on the subject. It’s refreshing to hear both sides of the issue.

RE: eu president?
By pliny on 2/20/2009 9:02:40 AM , Rating: 2
You're not reading these quotes properly. Neither Huff nor the WP call him the EU president. The presidency they refer to is that of the Czech republic, which holds on rotation for 6 months. Klaus' only connection is that he is the ceremonial president of Czech. What Huffpost actually says, quoting the Times, is:
The views of President Vaclav Klaus of the Czech Republic, 67, have left the government of Mirek Topolanek, his bitter opponent, determined to keep him as far away as possible from the EU presidency, which it took over from France yesterday.

And WP says, correctly:
The Czech Republic took over the European Union's six-month rotating presidency on New Year's Day amid substantial apprehension across the continent...
Vaclav Klaus, who holds the largely ceremonial presidency of the Czech Republic...

The Guardian is talking about a totally different position, as you can tell by:
Tony Blair launched his campaign to become the first fully-fledged President of the European Union yesterday...

The Guardian was writing a month ago - Klaus is not mentioned.

RE: eu president?
By SoCalBoomer on 2/23/2009 1:57:02 PM , Rating: 2
Dude - in your OWN post:

from the EU presidency , which it took over from France yesterday.


Tony Blair launched his campaign to become the first fully-fledged President of the European Union yesterday...

So on the one hand, you say there's no EU Presidency and yet the quotes YOU post use the very term. . .legitimately.

Internal consistency is needed.

So let's see - there's the President of the EU Parliament:

From the WP article:
For New EU President. . .

From the International Herald Tribune: Europe:
Now he has inherited the ideal pulpit to air his views: the EU presidency itself.

Whether the term is 100% accurate, it's pretty obvious that the position of President of the EU, President of the EU Council, President of the EU Parliament - whatever - has authority/gravitas/weight/political heft.

RE: eu president?
By pliny on 2/24/2009 11:12:44 PM , Rating: 2
No, from your own quotes, with altered emphasis:
from the EU presidency, which it took over from France yesterday.
Tony Blair launched his campaign to become the first fully-fledged President of the European Union yesterday...

Do either of these imply that Mr Havel (who is not "it") is the current president of the European Union?

In your other quotes the EU president referred to is the Czech republic.

RE: eu president?
By SoCalBoomer on 2/25/2009 1:05:58 PM , Rating: 2
You missed my point - that there IS a EU presidency of some type and that it is often referred to as being a person.

And you aren't reading the articles for what they're saying, you're reading them for what you want to hear.

RE: eu president?
By Marlin1975 on 2/18/09, Rating: -1
RE: eu president?
By Aloonatic on 2/18/2009 8:17:45 AM , Rating: 3
The "presidency" is moved around from member state to member state every 6 months or so but it isn't a permanent position, yet.

It's classic EU, saying that there isn't a real president as that would mean a federal EU "super" state that no one but the bureaucrats in Brussels wants, so they created this pretend position to get everyone used to the idea, which will probably be made permanent in a treaty (somewhere somewhere on page 2891, paragraph 21 subsection 31c, part II) that if voted against will be renamed and put up for a referendum again until they get the answer they want or they manage to pass a rule making referendums a "guide" to how to proceed and just do what they want anyway.

RE: eu president?
By Marlin1975 on 2/18/09, Rating: -1
RE: eu president?
By masher2 on 2/18/2009 11:33:35 AM , Rating: 3
> "Either way, will the talk be against the skepticals? "

Klaus is a well-known climate skeptic; he's even written a book on the subject.

Funny the anti-warmers can't even agree...
By Marlin1975 on 2/18/09, Rating: -1
By Aloonatic on 2/18/2009 8:29:17 AM , Rating: 2
Weren't most of the scientists grossly misquoted and such in that program, mush to their annoyance? Not sure about the specific guy that you referenced however.

There's a difference in saying that warming has occurred and that it has occurred explicitly because of man made Co2 etc though. It'd be easy to be misquoted as saying that the former existed, to appear as if you said the latter. Again, I'm not sure if that's what he said but it something that seems to happened from time to time.

As for funding, it's a sticky wicket to debate either way as many scientists say that they can't get grants unless their studies aims are to show that man made warming exists and then on the other "side" you get these petroleum firms funded studies as you point out.

The whole debate is a complete mess, usually with the extreme and often absurd claims on both sides making it into the media. I wish these damn scientists would sort themselves out and tell me what to think and believe. Thank god I live in New Labour Britain where my government is already do that for me on many issues.

RE: Funny the anti-warmers can't even agree...
By whiskerwill on 2/18/2009 8:45:30 AM , Rating: 4
Good job of spreading FUD. The film that was actually shown to outright lie was Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth:

"Al Gore's movie, An Inconvenient Truth, represents 'partisan political views' and must be treated as such by teachers in British schools, a British High Court judge has indicated.
" The British court was swayed by numerous factual inaccuracies portrayed in the movie . Among them:

-- The film claims global warming is responsible for the gradual retreat of the alpine glacier atop Africa's Mount Kilimanjaro. Scientists have conclusively demonstrated no such link exists.
-- The film presents graphs indicating that fluctuating carbon dioxide levels have always preceded and caused global temperature fluctuations. In fact, temperature changes have always preceded carbon dioxide changes.
-- The film suggests global warming caused Hurricane Katrina. Few hurricane experts believe this, and substantial scientific evidence indicates global warming is having no impact on hurricane frequency or intensity.
-- The film asserts global warming is causing Central Africa's Lake Chad to dry up. In fact, land use practices are causing the drying up of Lake Chad, and Central Africa is in an unusual and prolonged wet period.
-- The film asserts global warming is leading to polar bear deaths by drowning. Yet the only documented drowning deaths occurred due to a freak storm, and polar bear numbers are growing substantially.
-- The film claims global warming threatens to halt the Gulf Stream and initiate a new ice age. The vast majority of scientists who have studied the issue have determined such a scenario is implausible.
-- The film asserts global warming is causing the destruction of coral reefs through bleaching. Scientists have identified other causes for coral bleaching and have additionally noted bleaching is a natural process by which coral continually selects ideal symbiotic algae.
-- The film asserts Greenland is in danger of rapid ice melt that will raise sea levels by 20 feet or more. The scientific consensus is that any foreseeable Greenland ice melt will be gradual and will take centuries to substantially raise sea levels.
-- The film asserts the Antarctic ice shelf is melting. In fact, only a small portion of Antarctica is getting warmer and losing ice mass, while the vast majority of Antarctica is in a prolonged cold spell and is accumulating ice mass.
"Also highlighted in court arguments was Al Gore's admission in Grist Magazine that 'I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it [global warming] is.'
"As a result of the partisan political nature of Gore's film, school teachers will not be allowed to show the movie without telling their students the film is scientifically controversial

RE: Funny the anti-warmers can't even agree...
By danrien on 2/18/2009 8:55:52 AM , Rating: 2
All of those claims are made by the Heartland institute (FTA), which thus leads me to believe that they have their own bias. Never judge a judgment from somebody with a bias.

RE: Funny the anti-warmers can't even agree...
By danrien on 2/18/2009 8:57:02 AM , Rating: 2
Never judge a judgment from somebody with a bias.

Sorry, 8AM and no coffee.

Should be:

Never trust a judgment from somebody with a bias.

By Dreifort on 2/18/2009 9:54:35 AM , Rating: 5
or never trust a post from someone that hasn't had coffee

By kbehrens on 2/18/2009 10:42:54 PM , Rating: 3
Actually those "claims" were the official findings of the British Court System, after hearing expert testimony from hundreds of witnesses.

By dever on 2/18/2009 12:01:52 PM , Rating: 4
got his funding from the American Petroleum Institute
You're right to follow the money. It's always about money and power.

Now, check your amounts. Global Warming proponents receive billions per year. Scientists who depart from the government imposed consensus have gotten a few tens of thousands from a few corporations. They also get the privilege of having their life ruined by environmental zealots and any chance of future government funding abolished.

Now, look down at your shirt that says "question authority" and give it a try.

By porkpie on 2/18/2009 12:51:56 PM , Rating: 1
Willie Soon; Whom got his funding from the American Petroleum Institute.
7 years ago, the API gave Soon $5,000 to help fund one of his studies. Just this year alone, climate modellers like Hansen got a $140 million payout in the stimulus bill for spreading climate alarmism. That's on top of the billions governments and environmental groups have already given them. In the EU now, you can't even ask for a government research grant unless you implicitly accept manmade global warming.

"Global warming seen worse than predicted" - Reuters
By reader1 on 2/18/09, Rating: -1
By trooper11 on 2/18/2009 10:13:48 AM , Rating: 2
My problem with that is that if you cant trust those that speak out against global warming claims, then how can anyone trust claims by those for the global warming claims.

If one side is biased, both sides look biased to me. Look, even you say that humans 'may be' altering the climate. There isnt anything definitive one way or another, otherwise, it would be obvious and the debate woudl be over. Trying to figure out how climate works on such a huge scale as this seems to be nearly impossible. Maybe we can affect it significantly, maybe we are just too small compared to all the natural processes going on in the climate.

To me, if an ice age or warming trend were to be developing, there would be nothing we could do to significantly affect the outcome.

By rcc on 2/18/2009 3:57:43 PM , Rating: 3
- If the environmentalists are wrong, it's bad.
If the skeptics are wrong, it's worse.

That's pretty much the same line that organized religions have been using for centuries. Welcome to the new religion.

By onelittleindian on 2/18/2009 5:00:13 PM , Rating: 3
Until you actually look at that "evidence" and see its like the evidence that Moses parted the Red Sea.

By reader1 on 2/18/2009 11:34:59 PM , Rating: 2
The same can be said about the opposition's evidence.

By Steve1981 on 2/18/2009 4:46:25 PM , Rating: 2
It's Pascal's wager.

The race to the bottom at DailyTech
By lucasb on 2/18/09, Rating: -1
RE: The race to the bottom at DailyTech
By thepalinator on 2/18/2009 9:04:33 PM , Rating: 5
Nice try of argument from authority.
You mean something like saying over and over, "there is consensus" or "the science is finally settled"?

Honestly, if the best argument you can bring up to support your global warming argument is these sorts of insults, disinformation, and personal attacks, you've already lost the debate.

RE: The race to the bottom at DailyTech
By lucasb on 2/18/09, Rating: 0
By clovell on 2/19/2009 12:34:03 PM , Rating: 4
> If by debate you mean bringing over and over again discredited theories (solar cycle, it's cooling, warming is good, it happened before, etc), cherry-picked data, nitpicking datasets, ad hominem attacks against Mann, Gore (an idiot BTW but this isn't relevant to climate change), Hansen, NASA, the IPCC, liberals/progressives, claiming conspiracy theories (New World Order, marxism, pressure to publish pro-AGW papers to ensure funding, etc) and other nonsense then the debate is almost lost, at least in the USA, where scientific iliteracy is widespread. If denialists win the communication war, those of us in the rest of the (reality) world can only hope that the worst predictions turn out to be false.

If by communication, you mean intentionally manipulating raw data collected at the public's expense using 'adjustments' that you refuse to disclose, then maybe you're onto something. If you mean leaving forcing agents out of statistical models, such as negative feedback effects, urban heat island effects, etc., then maybe you're getting warmer. If you're also referring to the fact that none of the doomsday models have accurately predicted both past and future events - you get the idea.

The reason people here don't ascribe to AGW is because we have a higher degree of scientific literacy than most(this is a tech site). The fact that you've got to throw monickers such as 'denialist' and 'right-winger' about smacks of the Geocentric Dogma of the Middle Ages that ground the wheels of scientific progress to a standstill.

Let me be very clear with this - if you can't stand the heat of the debate over the data, then get out of the damned kitchen.

RE: The race to the bottom at DailyTech
By kbehrens on 2/18/2009 10:41:47 PM , Rating: 3
Present a eurosceptic as president of the EU (oh, the irony) with zero background on climate science
He seems to know a hell of a lot more than Al Gore does.

I bet Gore wins the "which one uses more electricity" contest though.

By TETRONG on 2/18/09, Rating: -1
RE: :)
By nct on 2/18/2009 2:00:59 PM , Rating: 5
Are you by chance the guy that writes the messages in fortune cookies?

"Death Is Very Likely The Single Best Invention Of Life" -- Steve Jobs

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki