Earlier this week,hundreds attended a Conference on Climate Change in New York. [Opening Statement] What was unusual about this event is the participants do not subscribe to the lefty view that the earth is warming, and humans have caused it, and it will lead to disaster for humanity if we can’t stop emitting Carbon Dioxide into the atmosphere.
Snow in Los Angeles
Here are a few accounts of the event:
For the last two days, March 2-4, I and about five hundred other people attended the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change, including some of the world’s leading authorities on climatology, meteorology, economics, energy, and other fields of knowledge.
It was an extraordinary event, held in New York and sponsored by the Heartland Institute, a Chicago-based think tank that has been among those leading the effort to educate and inform the public about the mountain of lies that have led them to believe that the Earth is experiencing a huge increase in heat, a “global warming”, that is allegedly the direct result of human activities, primarily from the use of energy that includes coal, natural gas, and oil.
The conference message is simplicity itself: There is no “consensus” on global warming. The science is not “settled.” Indeed, this conference marks a highpoint in the effort to rescue the planet from people who regard their fellow human beings as a cancer afflicting the Earth.
This hoax, generated out of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, actually included some IPCC members who have labored long and hard to dispute the IPCC reports on the basis of real science, not the spurious claims based largely on flawed and even deliberately false computer models.
Source: Alan Caruba, via Longstreet.
Advocacy groups and most environment reporters claim “the scientific debate is over” and only a “fringe” of scientists or policy experts do not believe global warming is a crisis. But framing the debate in terms of “believing” in global warming is incorrect. Claims that global warming is man-made and will be a crisis are complex arguments that depend on how many other questions are answered. For example:
* What does the Earth’s climate history tell us about the possible causes of the Modern Warming?
* How reliable are data showing the size and distribution of the Modern Warming?
* How much of the Modern Warming is natural and how much is man-made?
Until the debate over global warming was politicized in the 1990s, the scientific “consensus” was that the Modern Warming is moderate and natural. Books and recent literature reviews suggest this is still the consensus, even though it contradicts the alarmists’ views.
Other questions concern the reliability of predictions of future warming:
* How reliable are computer models that attempt to replicate the complex processes of the Earth’s climate?
* How reliable are forecasts of climate 10 years or 100 years in the future?
* How accurate are forecasts of human emissions 10 years or 100 years from now?
If most scientists don’t believe forecasts of future climate are reliable, the entire case for immediate action to “stop global warming” collapses like a house of cards. Yet survey data clearly show most scientists do not believe computer models are able to accurately predict future climate conditions.
Still more unanswered questions concern the consequences of moderate warming, whether adaptation rather than emissions mitigation is the best response to climate change, and whether it is even possible to reduce human emissions enough to affect the climate.
Obviously these are not small or trivial questions. Depending on the answers to even a few of these questions, the entire scientific or economic case for taking action to “stop global warming” collapses.
Source: Heartland Institute [Download Program PDF]
This video is from a member of Americans for Prosperity, and provides a good over view of the conference.
And, the sun is eerily quiet…perhaps foreboding cooler times ahead?