Free Markets, Free People

The Heartland Institute’s International Conference on Climate Change

I’m really looking forward to attending this event put on by my good friend Jim Lakely and the Heartland Institute.  I’ll be able to about the science that argues against the alarmist view of global warming from people I’ve been reading for years.  I hope to be able to interview some of them.  The theme this year is “Restoring the Scientific Method”, which is sorely needed among the purveyors of alarmism.  Anyway, here’s how the event shapes up:


Sen. James Inhofe, R-OK, among the most prominent critics of global warming alarmism in Congress, will kick off The Heartland Institute’s sixth International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC-6) with a breakfast keynote address at 8 a.m. June 30.

(If you can’t make it in person, Heartland will live-stream the entire conference. Tweet coverage: #ICCC6)

Inhofe will be joined at the Marriott Wardman Park in Washington, DC by dozens of state and federal legislators and climate scientists who dispute the claim that “the science is settled” on the causes, consequences, and policy implications of climate change.

Past climate conferences have taken place in New York City, Chicago, Washington DC, and Sydney, Australia and have attracted more than 2,000 participants from 20 countries. The proceedings have been covered by ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox News, the BBC, The New York Times, The Washington Post, Le Monde, and many other leading media outlets.

ICCC-6 will feature presentations by more than two dozen scientists, economists, and elected officials commenting on the latest research on the causes, consequences, and policy implications of climate change. Click here for an updated conference schedule. Our line-up of speakers includes:

  • Timothy Ball, Ph.D., environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. He was recently sued for libel by Michael Mann, a professor and prominent figure in the Climategate scandal.
  • Alan Carlin, Ph.D., former senior analyst and manager at the EPA. In March 2009 he authored a highly critical internal review of the EPA’s draft report on endangerment from greenhouse gases, which led him to become a whistle-blower.
  • Robert Carter, Hon. FRSNZ, research professor at James Cook University (Queensland, Australia), where he was head of the School of Earth Sciences between 1981 and 1999. He is author of Climate: The Counter Consensus.
  • Scott Denning, Ph.D., professor of atmospheric science at Colorado State University. Denning, who believes in man-caused global warming, spoke at ICCC-4 in 2010 and profusely thanked the organizers and attendees for a respectful, stimulating conference. (See this video.)
  • Christopher Horner, J.D., senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and author of Red Hot Lies: How Global Warming Alarmists Use Threats, Fraud and Deception to Keep You Misinformed.
  • Harrison Schmitt, Ph.D., former astronaut and U.S. Senator from New Mexico and the last man to set foot on the moon. Schmitt earned his Ph.D. in geology from Harvard University and is a member of Heartland’s Board of Directors.
  • S. Fred Singer, Ph.D., founder and president of the Science and Environmental Policy Project, is coauthor of Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years and Climate Change Reconsidered and professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia.
  • Roy W. Spencer, Ph.D., principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, where he directs a variety of climate research projects. He is the author of several books, including most recently, The Great Global Warming Blunder.
  • Anthony Watts, a 25-year broadcast meteorology veteran and currently chief meteorologist for KPAY-AM radio. He hosts the popular climate change blog and a Web site at devoted to photographing and documenting the quality of weather stations across the U.S.

Past ICCCs have featured presentations by members of Congress, the president of the Czech Republic, Vaclav Klaus, and scientists who view themselves as “skeptics” as well as “alarmists.”

The theme of ICCC-6, Restoring the Scientific Method, acknowledges the fact that claims of scientific certainty and predictions of climate catastrophes are based on post-normal science, which substitutes claims of consensus for the scientific method. This choice has had terrible consequences for science and society. Abandoning the scientific method led to the Climategate scandal and the errors and abuses of peer review by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

More information is available at the conference Web site.

Get Twitter updates of the conference, and tweet your own coverage, by following @HeartlandInst and using the hashtag #ICCC6.


As you might imagine, for the next few days, most of what I blog about will have to do with the subject that I’ve followed closely for years and is of extreme interest to me.   Any questions that you might have are welcome.  I’ll actually have two days to get them answered this time vs. the hour I had with Dr. Kissinger, so I should be able to put them too most of the players there.  I’ve talked with Horner before during an interview on WRKO.  I’ve read Singer and Spencer’s stuff for years and have also haunted Anthony Watts site at certain times to read or find explanations to the latest attempt by the alarmists on one subject or another.


Twitter: @McQandO


Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

17 Responses to The Heartland Institute’s International Conference on Climate Change

  • McQ: I’m a warmist in that I’m persuaded that the earth has warmed and humanity has contributed to that warming, though how much and how serious that is remain open questions IMO. I’m a skeptic in that I’m persuaded that current climate science is corrupt and skewed towards alarmism.

    * How wide a range of opinion is present at the Heartland conference?
    * It looks to me like the climate change movement has peaked. What comes next in politics and in science?

      One scholar who accepted the challenge, atmospheric scientist Scott Denning of Colorado State University, made a point to mention how well he and his views were received at ICCC-4 in Chicago last year and urged his colleagues to join him. Heartland’s YouTube page has a four-minute clip of Denning’s remarks here. Some excerpts:

      “I learned a lot here. … I actually feel that it’s really too bad that more of my colleagues from the scientific community didn’t attend this, and haven’t in the past. And I hope we can remedy that in the future. … We can learn quite a bit from each other. … I think the most important thing that we have in common is the following: that we think we need public policy that is based on facts, rather than facts that are based on a policy agenda.”

      The Center for American Progress press release has another error of fact. The organization’s Christina DiPasquale writes: “The Heartland Institute, a conservative group funded by Exxon Mobil and Charles Koch …”
      “This is a common and inaccurate charge of the left when mentioning The Heartland Institute,” Lakely said. “ExxonMobil has not contributed to Heartland since 2006 — and even then, the company’s gifts were modest. In addition, the Kochs have not sent money Heartland’s way for more than a decade. And neither ‘bogeyman’ of the left is funding this conference, nor has funded any of Heartland’s past conferences. None of the organizations Heartland listed as cosponsors contribute toward the cost of these events, either.”
      /end quote
      Actually, hux, the Earth is in a long term COOL phase (compared to history of MYA). As for humanity, it contributes to both warming and cooling, but at infinitesimal rates – on the order of 0.0003C up or down.
      Here’s a hint: CO2 forcing plateaus at around 180-240ppm. Humans produce about 3.5% of all CO2 in the atmosphere.
      Why would warming be bad, compared to cooling? It was quite a bit warmer in the Medieval times and significant;y warmer around New Testament times.

      • Sharpshooter: Yes, I’ve encountered most of what you have written.

        Here’s a hint: Addressing me as a junior who has read little and only from one side does not encourage me to take you seriously.

        • I address the statements you make and the questions you ask.
          Try asking adult caliber question and I’ll address them as such. Given your question and your statement (ignorance of human contribution), you demonstrate a schoolboy ignorance of the topic and underlying data, so I don’t take YOU seriously.

        • Let me address this. If you were a disinterested and objective investigator and encountered all of the global warming “Evidence” since the beginning, and the way in which it’s adherents mold their arguments, Then you would be forced to conclude that it was all a tremendous scare, meant to cajole millions of dollars from governments.

    • The thing is, unless you buy into the idea that human activity is driving catastrophic global warming, you are a “denier”. Many sceptics no doubt believe that the world has warmed from ’75 – ’98, and humans made some contribution.

      That said, AGW is going nowhere fast unless we see a few years that are very hot.

      • I’ll add in that it is clear the alarmists have jumped the shark and overstated their case. They have discredited science, much like the nutrition “science” fools who have made false calims with respect to meat, fat, eggs, etc., and who have claimed that just about everything causes cancer.

      • Smearing skeptics as “deniers,” which is used at all levels of the climate change movement, is a solid tip-off that we are dealing with political streetfighting, not science. I don’t think the climate folks realize the damage they do to their credibility when they stoop to this tactic.

        As you say, unless global temperatures start climbing sharply again, AGW will continue to lose traction outside of academia. Other than a few exceptions, the climate orthodoxy is behaving like the Obama administration — doubling down and claiming that the real problem is one of messaging.

  • Oh, and huxley?; Termites have much more impact on climate than humans do.

  • I can think of arguments to that effect myself. But so? That doesn’t mean that humans don’t have impact, and I don’t get the point of your snarky tone. The latter is something I don’t care for that I find in both sides of the debate.

    • What is impact? Global impact? Local impact?

      What are the relevent feedback loops? Positive or negative feedback? The AGW true believers argue for a positive feedback loop that will result in a tipping point where we will quickly see catastrophic results. This conflicts with historical information of past warm periods that appear to be warmer then now . . . and good times for the humans of the period.

      Almost everyone believes we have some local impact. In fact, that’s the basis for thinking that warming trends might be due (in part) to an island effect from development that corrupts data.

  • Globally we release several gigatonnes of CO2 yearly from burning fossil fuels. The global concentration of atmoshperic CO2 has increased 36% since pre-industrial times. It’s not a peculiar argument to see those numbers as linked, and given the Greenhouse Effect, a factor in the increase of global temperatures.

    Of course, the Earth’s climate system is complex to say the least, and CO2 is only one of many factors that affect temperature and weather.

    I am not arguing that this is a disaster. Catastrophic AGW proponents have waved their hands quite vigorously but just can’t seal the deal with science so they resort to tricks and machine politics.

    I would argue that drastically changing the global energy and economic infrastructure to curtail greenhouse gases will impose great human misery while doing little to reduce climate change. I’m also convinced that the political classes demanding action are exceedingly corrupt and incompetent. Even if catastrophic climate change were at stake, giving them more power would not help but make things worse.

    In the normal course of technological progress I believe we will move away from fossil fuels and everyone will be happier.

    • Above is a reply to Don @ 8:31 .

    • If we really do face a threat from CO2, then nuke power plants are the best answer today. Yet the push is towards silly tech, i.e., wind and solar, neither of which is ready for prime time (and they may never be ready).

      At this point, we have access to huge quantities of coal, natural gas and oil. They represent the best bang for the buck, and should last for well over 100 years. If indeed AGW proves to be a serious problem, then we should rethink that, but at this point that means moving towards nuke energy (and breeder reactors) and perhaps natural gas and electric cars.

      When the powers tht be are pushing wind and solar as a solution, vice nukes, that makes you think that perhaps they don’t consider this a serious problem.

      • Yep, yep, and yep.

        I am not a climate scientist and I’m willing, to an extent, to defer to their expertise within that domain, but when they talk about politics or energy policy they speak so lazily and stupidly IMO that I do wonder about the rest of their science.

        I suspect that the science behind the alarmism emerges after a cascade of 5-25% errors always in that direction.

        Their refusal to back nuclear power now, because it is the only non-carbon energy source that scales to massive 24/7 loads, proves their inability to lead on climate change as a serious risk.

        I truly don’t know what to make of their mindset. I wouldn’t say that they don’t consider it a serious problem, but there seems to be some sort of magical thinking at work — as with the debt crisis — that they can have it all with just a few magic tweaks.

      • If we really do face a threat from CO2, then nuke power plants are the best answer today. Yet the push is towards silly tech, i.e., wind and solar, neither of which is ready for prime time

        Which cause much more pollution than they purportedly eliminate.
        Reminds one of the newspaper recycling of a few years ago that produced massive pollution from the chemicals needed to wash out the paper and the resulting sludge from the residue.


  • Lightning Strikes Uganda School, Kills 19
    Most recent in spate of fatal electrical incidents.

    Op…Gorebal Climate Whatcamagoogie.

    Turtles Shut Down JFK Runway
    A hundred terrapins look for spots to lay eggs.

    Op…Gorebal Climate Whatcamagoogie.

    Amanda Knox Scores Legal Coup
    Panel rules some DNA evidence was contaminated.

    Yes.  You guessed right…Gorebal Climate Whatcamagoogie.
    There you go…dead-bang scientific evidence.