Friday, March 7, 2008

THE WEEK AHEAD: MARCH 10-14

Related: National Infrastructure and Public Works Accomplishments  

Next Tuesday, March 11 at 10:00am ET,  the EPW Committee will hold a hearing examining the President's Proposed Fiscal Year 2009 Budget for the Civil Works Program of the Army Corps of Engineers and the Implementation of the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 2007. Assistant Secretary of the Army, John Paul Woodley Jr., and the Chief of Engineers and Commanding General, Lieutenant General Robert L. Van Antwerp of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, will appear before the Committee.

 

Enactment of WRDA 07 was a major bi-partisan victory for the EPW Committee. The hearing on Tuesday will provide the EPW Committee the opportunity to focus on the implementation of last year’s bill. Also expect some conversation looking forward to WRDA 08 and the need to get back on a two year cycle.

 

 

As far as the President’s budget request for FY09, it doesn’t seem to matter which party is in the White House or which party controls Congress, Congress typically does more to acknowledge and address our water resources needs than does the executive branch. Look for plenty of question from both sides of the aisle on the need to increase the proposed budget.

 

 

As a fiscal conservative, Senator Inhofe strongly supports the overall goal of reigning in government spending, but as he has said several times in the past, he firmly believes that the two things the federal government should spend money on are defense and infrastructure.  It may not be as exciting or headline-grabbing as some other areas of government spending, but Senator Inhofe believes a robust and well-maintained national infrastructure system is what allows our economy to remain strong and continue to grow.

 

Read More:

Senator Inhofe Op/Ed in Support of WRDA in the Oklahoman

Senator Inhofe Discusses WRDA on the Glenn Beck Show Oklahoman Editorial Supporting WRDA

Tulsa World Editorial Supporting WRDATulsa World Columnist Praises Inhofe's Work on WRDA

Senator Inhofe: Leader in Appropriations Accountability (Paul Weyrich, Townhall.com, October 8, 2007)

The Week in Review: Senator Inhofe Takes to the Airwaves To Talk Eco-Terrorism, Global Warming

Related: Eco-Terrorism; Global Warming

Click Here to Listen to the Michael Regan Interview

Click Here to Listen to the Michael Savage Interview

Senator Inhofe took to the airwaves this week and discussed eco-terrorism and global warming alarmism with Michael Savage and Michael Reagan. Eco-terrorism was back in the news this week with the recent news out of Washington State. Through his position on the EPW Committee, Senator Inhofe conducted hearings on eco-terrorism and crafted bi-partisan legislation to provide law enforcement the tools they need to adequately combat such radical extremists’ dangerous tactics. The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act was drafted with technical assistance from counter-terror experts at the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. On November 27, 2006, President Bush signed into law Senator Inhofe’s legislation, S. 3880, which expands criminal prohibitions against the use of force, violence, and threats involving animal enterprises and increases penalties for violations of these crimes.

 

Background Information:  

In 2005 The Department of Justice and the Homeland Security both named Earth Liberation Front (ELF) and the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) the #1 domestic terror threat in the United States.  They estimated to have caused over $110 million in damages and over 1,100 acts of terrorism in the last decade. 

As Chairman of the EPW Committee, Senator Inhofe held hearings(May 18, 2005 and October 26, 2005) to examine the gaps in the criminal law in apprehending and prosecuting ELF and ALF members.

Both ELF and ALF are underground terrorist movements, considered “sister” organizations by the FBI, operating in a cellular structure, that by all accounts, have converging ideologies and common personnel. Thus, they are treated by law enforcement as one movement. 

The FBI agrees that although no one has been killed to date by ELF or ALF, it is only a matter of time until someone dies from their dangerous tactics of arson, like the one today in Washington.

ELF and ALF seek to unilaterally change environmental policy through committing acts of violence, arson, firebombs, timed detonations devises, in hopes of intimidating the general public into changing their behavior. 

Senator Inhofe is concerned that even with these most recent arsons, there still remains a culture and climate of above ground support for these the direct actions of these radical activists, ie. 2001 PETA donation to North American Earth Liberation Front.

 

It is common for the more mainstream groups, like PETA and Earth First, to serve as the de facto communication and training outlets for the Animal Liberation Front (“ALF”) and the Earth Liberation Front (“ELF”), using the 1st Amendment to shield the incendiary rhetoric.   

 

On November 27, 2006, President Bush signed into law Senator Inhofe’s legislation, S. 3880, the "Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act," which expands criminal prohibitions against the use of force, violence, and threats involving animal enterprises and increases penalties for violations of these crimes.

The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act:  

 

The AETA gives needed protection to scientists, medical researchers, ranchers, farmers, and any other industry involving animals by expanding current law to address violent tactics used by animal rights extremists to frighten law abiding citizens away from their work.

 

Prohibiting the animal rights extremists’ violent tactics will ensure that important animal enterprises, like biomedical industries, stay in California for example, rather than go to India or China.

 

The AETA gives law enforcement the tools they need to adequately combat radical animal rights extremists who commit violent acts against innocent people because they work with animals.

The AETA was introduced after the EPW Committee held two hearings on the issue.

The AETA has express first amendment protections.

 The AETA has a staggered penalty structure to meet varying levels of violent offenses.

The AETA carries a penalty of life imprisonment for the death of an individual resulting from animal rights extremist’s dangerous tactics.

RELATED:

Rocky Mountain News Editorial: Yes, They're Terrorists (May 29, 2007)

The New York Post: Green Goons & ‘Rights’ Loons

Seattle Post-Intelligencer: Editorial: Terrorism: Criminal Nature (January 19, 2006)

New York Post: Terror Road Show By Christopher Byron (October 31, 2005)

Big Board Caves In (Christopher Byron, New York Post, 9/19/05)

Debra J. Saunders: Target research (February 14, 2008)

Debra Saunders Podcast 2005

Wall Street Journal Editorial: Terrorists, by Any Name (01/25/06)

EPW FACT OF THE DAY: Heads in the Sand On Eco-terror Threats (January 9, 2006)

 

Senator Inhofe on Global Warming Alarmism:

With all of the alarmism these days about global warming, what concerns Senator Inhofe the most are the efforts underway here in Washington DC to impose measures to limit greenhouse gas emissions that would lower the quality of life and reduce economic well-being for future generations. These attempts come at a time when a growing number of international scientists are now on the record expressing dissent regarding the so-called “consensus” that mankind has created a “climate crisis.” A Senate report recently released from my EPW committee detailed over 400 prominent scientists who have recently dissented from the alarmist climate view.”

Nevertheless, in December 2007, the EPW Committee passed legislation – called the Lieberman-Warner America's Climate Security Act – that would set a cap on the amount of greenhouse gases that can be emitted in the United States.  Those who champion a “cap and trade” approach fail to realize the dire economic consequences from imposing such a program.  We are living in a time where energy demand is constantly growing while supply remains flat, and as a consequence, prices are rising rapidly.  If this bill were to be adopted, conservative estimates indicate that electricity prices alone would rise between 35 and 65 percent, and 1.2 to 2.3 million jobs would be lost by 2015. 

Read More:

Climate Bill Will Devastate American Families and Jobs (Inhofe Op-ed, Human Events, December 10, 2007)

Look Closer at Global Warming "Solutions" (Inhofe Op-ed, Roll Call, December 3, 2007)

Global Warming "Consensus" Continues To Melt Away (Inhofe Op-ed, Power Magazine, August 31, 2007)

NY Times Tierney, Revkin Preview Skeptics Conference Taking Place in New York City This Week

2008 Media Coverage Vs 2007 Media Coverage

New CBO Study Further Exposes Cap-and-Trade Flaws

Lieberman-Warner Climate Bill 'Running into Resistance'

NEW ANALYSIS: CARBON MANDATE WOULD HARM CONSUMERS, JOBS AND ECONOMY

CBO Warns that Cap-And-Trade Approach Could Create ‘Windfall' Profits & Harm Poor

Washington Times Editorial on Lieberman-Warner Bill - "Globaloney"

Lieberman-Warner will lead to ‘higher energy prices, lost jobs and reduced GDP'

Climate Bills Will 'Require a Wholesale Transformation of the Nation's Economy and Society'

What They Are Saying About Lieberman-Warner Climate Bill

Climate Bill Will Cost ‘Hundreds of Billions of Dollars' - Lieberman Concedes

SENATORS URGE ‘A THOROUGH REVIEW' OF NEW CLIMATE BILL 

INHOFE SLAMS NEW CAP-AND-TRADE BILL AS ALL ‘ECONOMIC PAIN FOR NO CLIMATE GAIN'

LIEBERMAN-WARNER CLIMATE BILL FAILS SENATE TEST

 

Watch: Heritage Foundation Discussion on Yucca Mountain; Inhofe Staffer Participates on Panel

Related: National Infrastructure and Public Works Accomplishments  

Watch the Heritage Foundation Event at www.hertiage.org

The Heritage Foundation hosted an event on Friday examining the issues regarding Yucca Mountain titled, Yucca Mountain and the Nuclear Renaissance: Assessing the Safety and Viability of a Vital National Asset.” Video of the event is now available at www.heritage.org.

Keynote remarks were made by Edward F. Sproat III, Director of the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management with the U.S. Department of Energy, and followed by a panel discussion including Annie Caputo, Professional Staff for Senator Inhofe on the Environment and Public Works Committee. The panel also included Mark Peters, Deputy to the Associate Laboratory Director for Energy Sciences and Engineering at the Argonne National Laboratory and Steven Kraft, Senior Director for Used Fuel Management with the Nuclear Energy Institute.

Caputo discussed that after 26 years and $11 billion dollars, Yucca Mountain remains over a decade from commencement of operations. She spoke about the frustration over these continuing delays and the anticipated development of a fleet of new reactors and how that has prompted questions about whether to give up on Yucca and look for other options, namely interim storage, reprocessing or some combination of the two.

These options, Caputo said, are fraught with challenges not unlike those facing Yucca Mountain: where to put it; how to pay for it; how long it would take; and how to ensure that you don’t merely start a new political battle on another front.  And, she said, after all that, you STILL need a repository.

For these reasons and many more, Caputo said Sen. Inhofe strongly believes that a safe repository can and should be developed at Yucca Mountain. As a result, Senator Inhofe, together with Senators John Barrasso (R-WY), Larry Craig (R-ID), Lamar Alexander (R-TN),   Kit Bond (R-MO),  Mike Crapo (R-ID) and Jim DeMint (R-SC), introduced the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 2008, a bill that reforms the licensing process for authorizing construction, operation, and closure of the Yucca Mountain repository.  Upon introduction, Senator Inhofe stated in remarks to the Senate:

 “I believe that a vibrant and growing nuclear energy industry is vital to the energy security of our nation and the health of our economy. I am concerned, however, that continuing delays in opening our nation’s repository at Yucca Mountain will hinder the resurgence of nuclear energy in the U.S.  The task before us therefore is to develop a repository that protects public health, public safety and the environment by providing a permanent solution for our nation’s nuclear waste.  It’s high time that we accomplish this task.  We’ve passed laws and resolutions to do it.  We’ve collected over $27 billion from electricity consumers to pay for it. And courts have affirmed that we have a legal obligation to do it. As the generation that has benefited from the use of nuclear energy and the resulting spent fuel, I believe it is incumbent upon us to manage spent fuel in a manner that is fair to current generations and generations to come.  I am introducing a bill today that will do just that.”

Further, since joining the EPW Committee in 1995, Senator Inhofe has worked closely with committee members to increase critical oversight of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). As a result of our vigilant oversight, the NRC has moved to a risk-based regulatory process that is more objective, efficient, and predictable. For the first time in over 30 years, utilities are planning to build new nuclear plants, and the NRC is far better prepared to process those applications because of these improvements.

Read more about Senator Inhofe work on nuclear issues:

September 27, 2007: Nuclear Power Use Must Be Expanded (The Hill)

June 27, 2007:  America’s Energy Future Needs To Be Stable, Diverse And Affordable The Hill (Roll Call)

January 25, 2007:  America, Needs A Stable, Diverse And Affordable Energy Supply (Human Events)

June 07, 2006: Expanding Nuclear Energy Is A Move We Must Commit To (The Hill)

TEN YEARS OVERDUE: January 31, 2008 Marks the 10th Anniversary of DOE's Deadline to Dispose Of Nuclear Waste

EPW Committee White Paper: Yucca Mountain: The Most Studied Real Estate on the Planet

Yucca Mountain Bill Introduced

2008 Media Coverage Vs 2007 Media Coverage

March 4, 2008

Here at the Inhofe EPW Press Blog we have been reading – with great interest, and to be honest, a little amusement – the media’s coverage of our blog post from last week. The blog post was simply a round-up of several articles/blog posts reporting on the news that temperatures this past winter have been lower in temperature. Yet this blog, with that title, was enough for the New York Times and Las Vegas Sun to use for a lead in a story and the Las Vegas paper to write an editorial.

From the tone of their pieces, we think they will be a little surprised to learn that we applaud and congratulate them on getting the story right: seasonal temperatures are no indicator of climate trends.

Of course, we wish they would have better understood our position. One only needs to look at last year’s media coverage of a warmer winter versus this year’s coverage to understand our point.  When newspapers were writing about a “warmer winter” in 2007, where was the New York Times and Las Vegas Sun slamming the use of warmer seasonal temperatures as proof of global warming?

Consider this round-up of articles from roughly the same time period last year: 

 

New York Times

And the Color of the Year Is ...

By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

December 22, 2006

I know that you should never generalize about global warming from your own weather, but as a longtime resident of Washington, D.C., it’s hard not to, considering that it’s been so balmy this winter season I’m half expecting the cherry blossoms to come out for Christmas. In fact, my wife was rummaging through her closet the other day and emerged to tell me she needed a whole new wardrobe — “a global warming wardrobe,” clothes that are summer weight but winter colors.  

 

ABC NEWS

Global Warming and Warm Weather: Connected? Scientists Say Current Patterns Fit Into Overall Predictions

By BILL BLAKEMORE

Jan. 6, 2007

It was expected to reach into the 70s today in New York City. Cherry blossoms were blooming in Washington, D.C. Is there a connection between the January heat wave that is sweeping the East Coast and man-made global warming?  Scientists say yes -- in this way: What they know for sure is the warm winter fits the pattern, exactly, that has long been predicted for manmade global warming of more and more frequent unseasonable warm spells.  

 

Washington Post

March in January! Or Is It Mayday? It's Nice Out There, But Global Warming Dampens the Fun

By Joel Achenbach Washington Post Staff Writer Sunday, January 7, 2007; Page D01            

Never has good weather felt so bad. Never have flowers inspired so much fear. Never has the warm caress of a sunbeam seemed so ominous. The weather is sublime, it's glorious, it's the end of the world. January is the new March. The daffodils are busting out everywhere. It's porch weather. Put on a T-shirt and shorts, fire up the grill, blast "Rastaman Vibration" into the back yard. Everyone out for volleyball! The normal high for this time of year is 43 degrees; yesterday's high at Reagan National was a record-breaking 73. And yet it's all a guilty pleasure. Weather is both a physical and a psychological phenomenon. Meteorology, meet eschatology. We've read the articles, we've seen the Gore movie, we've calculated our carbon footprint, and we're just not intellectually capable anymore of fully enjoying warm winter weather. Just ain't right. Ain't natural. Cherry blossoms during the NFL playoffs? Run for your lives.

 

USA TODAY

El Niño, greenhouse gases predicted to make 2007 hottest ever

By Raphael G. Satter, Associated Press Writer

LONDON — Deepening drought in Australia. Stronger typhoons in Asia. Floods in Latin America. British climate scientists predict that a resurgent El Niño climate trend combined with higher levels of greenhouse gases could touch off a fresh round of ecological disasters — and make 2007 the world's hottest year on record. "Even a moderate (El Niño) warming event is enough to push the global temperatures over the top," said Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research unit at the University of East Anglia. The warmest year on record was 1998, when the average global temperature was 1.2°F higher than the long-term average of 57°F. Though such a change appears small, incremental differences can, for example, add to the ferocity of storms by evaporating more steam off the ocean. 

 

Science Daily

Warm Winter Predicted For United States

Temperature forecast for US December 2007 to February 2008. (Credit: NOAA)

ScienceDaily (Oct. 11, 2007) — NOAA forecasters are calling for above-average temperatures over most of the country and a continuation of drier-than-average conditions across already drought-stricken parts of the Southwest and Southeast in its winter outlook for the United States, announced at the 2007-2008 Winter Fuels Outlook Conference in Washington, D.C October 9, 2007. “La Niña is here, with a weak-to-moderate event likely to persist through the winter,” said Michael Halpert, head of forecast operations and acting deputy director of NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center. “The big concern this winter may be the persistence of drought across large parts of the already parched South. And while December through February is likely to be another milder-than-average winter for much of the country, people should still expect some bouts of winter weather.”For the 2007-2008 U.S. winter, from December through February, NOAA seasonal forecasters predict…The U.S. winter outlook is produced by a team of scientists at the Climate Prediction Center in association with NOAA-funded partners. Scientists base this forecast on long-term climate trends and a variety of forecast tools from statistical techniques to extremely complex dynamical ocean-atmosphere coupled models and composites. Adapted from materials provided by National Oceanic And Atmospheric Administration. 

 

Note: I am sure there are several additional articles from 2007 that could be included above. If you know of one, please email me [ matthew_dempsey@epw.senate.gov ]a link to article and I will be sure to include on our blog.

### 

Climate Skeptics Reveal Horror Stories of Scientific Suppression (NYC Climate Conference Report)

Note: Marc Morano, Senator Inhofe's Communications Director on the Environment and Public Works Committee, attended the Conference and filed this report. 

New York, New York – Scientists skeptical of man-made climate fears meeting at the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change in New York City described the “absolute horror stories” about how some scientific journals have engaged in “outrageous and unethical behavior” in attempting to suppress them from publishing their work in peer-reviewed journals. The March 2-4 groundbreaking conference, which featured about 100 speakers with over 500 people attending, presented the report of a team of international scientists who formed a group to counter the UN IPCC.  [Note: The author of this report attended and participated in the conference.]

The event, which garnered significant international and U.S. media attention, featured many current and former UN IPCC scientists from around the world. (See: “Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate” and see climate declaration signed by the scientists at the conference here.)

The conference occurred just months after the release of a blockbuster U.S. Senate Minority Report featuring over 400 prominent scientists who recently disputed man-made global warming claims. (LINK) The more than 400 scientists featured in the report thoroughly debunk the assertions that "all scientists agree" about man-made global warming. But as New York Times environmental reporter Andrew Revkin noted on March 6, science is ultimately not a numbers game. "As we all know, climate science is not a numbers game (there are heaps of signed statements by folks with advanced degrees on all sides of this issue)," Revkin wrote. (LINK)

Furthermore, a Canadian survey of scientists released on March 6, 2008 offered even more evidence that the alleged ‘consensus’ is non-existent. A canvass of more than 51,000 scientists with the Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysicists of Alberta (APEGGA) found 68% of them disagree with the statement that ‘the debate on the scientific causes of recent climate change is settled.'" According to the survey, only 26% of scientists attributed warming to “human activity like burning fossil fuels.” APEGGA’s executive director Neil Windsor said, “We're not surprised at all. There is no clear consensus of scientists that we know of." (LINK)

'Unethical behavior'

During the conference, scientists revealed the lack of tolerance science journals and institutions have exhibited for skeptical climate views.

“We [fellow skeptical scientists] talked mostly of work and upcoming papers and went through the standard ritual of griping about journal editors and the ridiculous hoops we sometimes have to jump through to get papers published. But some of the guys had absolute horror stories of what happened to them when they tried getting papers published that explored non-‘consensus’ views. Really outrageous and unethical behavior on the parts of some editors. I was shocked,” wrote conference participant Dr. William M. Briggs, a climate statistician who serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review, on his blog on March 4. (LINK)

Prominent Hungarian Physicist Dr. Miklós Zágoni, a former global warming activist who recently reversed his views about man-made climate fears and is now a skeptic, presented scientific findings at the conference refuting rising CO2 fears. Zágoni’s scientific mentor Hungarian scientist, Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi, an atmospheric physicist, resigned from his post working with NASA because he was disgusted with the agency’s lack of scientific freedom. Miskolczi, who also presented his findings at the conference, said he wanted to publish his new research that significantly countered man-made global warming alarm, but he claims NASA refused to allow him.

“Unfortunately, my working relationship with my NASA supervisors eroded to a level that I am not able to tolerate.  My idea of the freedom of science cannot coexist with the recent NASA practice of handling new climate change related scientific results,” Miskolczi said according to a March 6 Daily Tech article. (LINK) [Note: Clarification from original posting. Miskolczi worked with NASA, not Zágoni.]

Meteorologist Joseph D'Aleo, the first Director of Meteorology at The Weather Channel and former chairman of the American Meteorological Society's (AMS) Committee on Weather Analysis and Forecasting, noted that many of his scientific colleagues did not attend the conference because they “feared their attendance might affect their employment.” D’Aleo described the fear of retribution many skeptics face as a “sad state of affairs.” But D’Aleo noted that he believes there is “very likely a silent majority of scientists in climatology, meteorology, and allied sciences who do not endorse what is said to be the ‘consensus’ position.”

Other scientists have echoed these claims. Atmospheric scientist Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, author of almost 70 peer-reviewed studies, asserted in December 2007 that skeptics have a much harder time publishing in peer-reviewed literature.

"Many of my colleagues with whom I spoke share these views and report on their inability to publish their skepticism in the scientific or public media," Paldor, who was not in attendance at the New York conference, wrote in December.  [Note: In February 2008, Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki publicly called for politicians skeptical of a man-made climate ‘crisis’ to be thrown “into jail because what they’re doing is a criminal act.” (LINK) - See also July 2007 comprehensive report detailing how skeptical scientists have faced threats and intimidation - LINK ]

‘Best conference I have attended in my 30 years in professional societies’  

Many prominent scientists participating and attending were very impressed by the New York City climate conference. Hurricane researcher and Meteorologist Stanley B. Goldenberg of NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) in Miami praised the Heartland Instituted sponsored conference.

“The fact is that this conference is evidence that there are numerous respected, established and in many cases world-renowned scientists who have done careful research in various areas of ‘climate change’ that sharply differ with the [UN] IPCC results,” Goldenberg told the New York Times. (LINK)

 

Meteorologist D’Aleo had nothing but praise for the conference. “It was the best climate conference I have attended in my 30 years in the professional societies. The two-day meeting featured over 100 excellent presentations made by scientists from Australia, Canada, England, France, Hungary, New Zealand, Poland, Russia, Sweden, and of course the United States,” D’Aleo wrote on his website www.IceCap.US on March 4. [Note: The oft repeated notion of “hundreds” or even “thousands” of scientists affiliated with the UN agreeing to a single “consensus” does not hold up to scrutiny. Out of all the scientists affiliated with the UN, only 52 scientists participated in UN IPCC Summary for Policymakers, which had to adhere to the wishes of the UN political leaders and delegates in a process described as more closely resembling a political party’s convention platform battle, not a scientific process. - LINK & LINK –Many current and former UN scientists disagree with the IPCC Summary for Policymakers and many  of them attended the skeptical climate conference in New York.  In addition, the so-called “consensus” statements by scientific groups like the National Academy of Sciences, the American Meteorological Society, and the American Geophysical Union are only voted on by two dozen or so governing board members with no direct vote cast by rank-and-file scientists - LINK ]

 

D’Aleo addressed the complaints of some mainstream media reporters who noted that the climate conference did not produce a focused scientific message, but instead posited multiple explanations of climate changes. “There was a variety of opinions as there should be in science and all were tolerated. There was no group think or stagnant thinking as we find at other so called Climate Conferences,” D’Aleo wrote.  [Note: Why would the media ever expect a uniform scientific message at a large climate conference? It appears that reporters need to be reminded that the UN IPCC (after all it is the InterGOVERNMENTAL Panel on Climate Change) is the unusual event, not the international climate conference in New York City this past week. It is true that the skeptical conference presented an array of scientific views, but reporters should not be surprised by this diversity. Instead, the question for reporters should be, Why do UN IPCC climate events have such conformity and a lack of dissent? Many reporters are so used to attending virtually scripted UN IPCC Summary for Policymakers meetings which reach the predetermined “consensus” that mankind is driving a climate crisis. (To read more about how the IPCC Summary for Policymakers has been tainted by politics, see LINK & LINK 

Media Coverage of Conference 

The climate conference garnered the attention of many media outlets including: The New York Times; BBC; Washington Post; ABC News; Associated Press; Reuters; China Post; CNSNews.com;  CNN; New York Sun; Fox News; Times of India; Czech’s Ceske Noviny;  Investor's Business Daily; Canada’s Financial Post; United Press International; WorldNetDaily.com;  and the Wall Street Journal. (Note: Some of the mainstream media coverage reached bottom quickly – See CNN’s Miles O’Brien accuses scientists at conference of being ‘Flat Earthers’ – LINK )

Some of the mainstream media coverage, including several articles in New York Times, presented fair coverage. See here, here and here. [Note: Despite many mainstream media outlets efforts to mock the gathering, it was a semi-victory for the conference that reporters likes Miles O’Brien of CNN and Bill Blakemore of ABC News even showed up For info on O’Brien’s past climate reporting, see here. For info on Blakemore's past climate reporting see here. ]  

The Business and Media Institute (BMI) also released their comprehensive study during the conference which reveals how the news media reports on global warming. The report, titled “Global Warming Censored” found that network TV news stifles debate, relies on “politicians, rock stars and men-on-the street for science’ reporting. (LINK) BMI also critiqued the news media coverage of the International Conference on Climate Change. (LINK) WorldNetDaily.com has a critique of the media coverage titled “Mainstream media's mockery.” (LINK) American Thinker weighed in with a very comprehensive report from the conference. (LINK) [Note: For a comprehensive sampling of the media coverage of the conference, see part two of this report here.]

 

Funding myths exposed

 

One of the most incisive articles about the conference came from John Tierney of the New York Times. Tierney exposed the erroneous notion that “industry” funding fuels climate skepticism. “Do the critics really think there’s more money and glory to be won by doubting global warming than by going along with the majority? I ask this question not because I doubt the integrity or competence of the researchers and environmental groups who are getting billions of dollars from government agencies, corporations, foundations and private donors concerned about climate change,” Tierney wrote on March 6. (LINK) [Note: An August 2007 report detailed how proponents of man-made global warming fears enjoy a monumental funding advantage over skeptical scientists. LINK ]

Tierney quoted Joseph Bast, Heartland’s president, stating: “Donations from energy companies have never amounted to more than 5 percent of our budget in any year, and there is no corporate sponsor underwriting any of this conference.”  Tierney also presented the case that so-called global warming “solutions” are money makers for many. “A cap-and-trade systems for curbing carbon emissions (the kind criticized at this week’s conference) is popular in Washington in no small part because of corporate lobbyists who see a chance to make money from the carbon credits,” he wrote. “And there’s lots of money to be doled out to researchers studying climate change and new energy technologies,” he added.     

Dissenters of climate fears growing in number 

The New York City conference of dissenting scientists comes after many declared 2007 the “tipping point” for climate alarmism and referred to it as the year man-made global warming fears “bit the dust" as an abundance of peer-reviewed studies countered rising CO2 fears. (LINK) Many of the scientists featured in the December 2007 U.S. Senate Minority Report of over 400 scientists attended the conference. (LINK) 

 

The skeptical scientists at the conference presented diverse views on climate change, but generally they rallied around several key points. 1) The Earth is currently well within natural climate variability. 2) Almost all climate fear is generated by unproven computer model predictions. 3) An abundance of peer-reviewed studies continue to debunk rising CO2 fears and, 4) "Consensus" has been manufactured for political, not scientific purposes.

 

In such nations as Germany, Brazil, the Netherlands, Russia, Argentina, New Zealand, Portugal, and France, groups of scientists have recently spoken out to oppose and debunk man-made climate fears. In addition, many scientists who are also progressive environmentalists believe climate fear promotion has "co-opted" and “hijacked” the green movement. (LINK)

 

Former Vice President Al Gore’s film An Inconvenient Truth and the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) reports have prompted many skeptical scientists to speak out and join the growing resistance.

 

"Al Gore brought me back to the battle and prompted me to do renewed research in the field of climatology. And because of all the misinformation that Gore and his army have been spreading about climate change I have decided that ‘real' climatologists should try to help the public understand the nature of the problem,” Climatologist Robert Durrenberger, past president of the American Association of State Climatologists, declared in May 2007.

 

Since the release of the December 20 Senate minority report detailing the hundreds of skeptics, a steady stream of scientists from around the world have continued to declare themselves dissenters of the alleged “climate crisis.” Just days before the international climate conference began, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, Dr. Joanna Simpson, declared she was “skeptical” of catastrophic man-made warming.

 

“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly,” Simpson, formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies, wrote in a public letter on February 27. Simpson was described by former Colorado State Climatologist Roger Pielke, Sr. as “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.” (LINK)

 

“The main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system. We only need to watch the weather forecasts,” Simpson explained. “But as a scientist I remain skeptical,” she added.

 

Number of Skeptical scientists continue to grow

 

Also last week, Geologist William F. McClenney, a California Licensed Professional Geologist and former Certified Environmental Auditor in Victoria, Australia, announced that he had reversed his views about man-made global warming. McClenney now says he has done “the math and realized that you just can’t get to global warming with CO2.” See:  February 28, 2008 full statement here. (Note: McClenney joins other scientists who recently converted from believer to skeptic of man-made climate fears. See - LINK)

 

Geologist Dr. Don Easterbrook, an emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University who has authored eight books and 150 journal publications, announced earlier this week that he was putting his “reputation on the line” by predicting global cooling. “The average of the four main temperature measuring methods is slightly cooler since 2002 (except for a brief el Niño interruption) and record breaking cooling this winter. The argument that this is too short a time period to be meaningful would be valid were it not for the fact that this cooling exactly fits the pattern of timing of warm/cool cycles over the past 400 years,” Easterbrook wrote on March 1, 2008. (LINK)

 

Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Art V. Douglas, the recently retired Chair of the Atmospheric Sciences Department at Creighton University in Omaha, Nebraska, and author of numerous papers for peer-reviewed publications, also publicly announced his dissent from man-made climate fears in February 2008. “Whatever the weather,” Douglas said, “it's not being caused by global warming.”  (LINK)

 

Atmospheric Physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh and a founding member of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry, also announced his skepticism on February 18, 2008. “Sorry folks, but we're not exactly buying into the Global Hysteria just yet. We know a great deal about atmospheric physics, and from the onset, many of the claims were just plain fishy,” Peden wrote. (LINK)

 

In January 2008, environmental scientist professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder and director of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, announced publicly that he considered CO2 related climate fears to be “dangerous nonsense.”  Domingos, who retired in 2006, has more than 150 published articles in the research fields of Thermodynamics, Numerical Methods in Fluid Mechanics and Meteorological Forecast. “There are measurable climate changes but there is also an enormous manipulation in reducing everything to CO2 and equivalents. The main gas producing the green house effect is water vapor. The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning,” Domingos said. (LINK)

 

Physics professor Dr. Frederick Wolf of Keene State College in New Hampshire, declared himself a dissenter of man-made climate fears in January 2008. Wolf has taught meteorology and climatology courses for the past 25 years and will be undertaking a sabbatical project on global warming. “Several things have contributed to my skepticism about global warming being due to human causes. We all know that the atmosphere is a very complicated system,” Wolf said. “I am impressed by the number of scientific colleagues who are naturally skeptical about the conclusion of human induced warming,” he added. (LINK)

 

 

 

Lamenting use of term ‘consensus’  

 

The number of scientists who are now publicly dissenting from Gore’s and the UN’s view of climate change has become so overwhelming that promoters of man-made climate fears now lament the use, or the “overuse of the term ‘consensus’ in the public discussion of global warming.” 

 

“I do think the scientific community, the progressive community, environmentalists and media are making a serious mistake by using the word ‘consensus’” to describe climate change impacts, wrote Joseph Romm of Climate Progress in a February 27, 2008 commentary in Salon.com. [Note: Despite the growing scientific dissent and the increasing number of peer-reviewed studies which debunk rising CO2 fears, Romm now advocates that the term “consensus” be dropped in favor of a stronger term to promote man-made climate fears.]

 

In addition, at least one scientist publicly pondered reconsidering his view of man-made climate fears after Senate report of 400 scientists was released in December. “It (the Senate 400 scientists report) got me thinking: I'm an environmental scientist, but I've never had time to review the ‘evidence’ for the anthropogenic causes of global warming,” wrote environmental scientist Professor Rami Zurayk of the American University in Beirut on December 27, 2007. (LINK)

 

“When I said, in my opening speech for the launch of UNEP's (United Nations Environment Program) Global Environment Outlook-4 in Beirut: ‘There is now irrevocable evidence that climate change is taking place...’ I was reading from a statement prepared by UNEP. Faith-based science it may be, but who has time to review all the evidence? I'll continue to act on the basis of anthropogenic climate change, but I really need to put some more time into this,” Zurayk wrote.

 

‘Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate’

 

The Heartland Institute’s International climate conference built on the momentum of growing number of skeptics as the conference showcased a new report by a team of international scientists who formed a group to counter the UN IPCC called the “Nongovernmental International Panel of Climate Change” (NIPCC). The skeptical scientist report was titled Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate.”

 

Key findings of the NIPCC’s climate findings:  

1) Most of climate change is caused by natural forces.

2) The human contribution is not significant.

3) Solar-activity changes are the main cause of climate change. 

Climate Scientist Dr. S. Fred Singer, former director the US Weather Satellite Service and past vice chairman of the U.S. National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmosphere, told the conference that the IPCC “chose to ignore these facts, because they conflicted with the conclusion that global warming is anthropogenic (man-made).

 

 # #  

 

‘Not a global crisis’

The International Climate Conference in New York also featured hundreds of climate experts from around the world, who issued a March 4 “Manhattan Declaration” on man-made global warming, stating in part:

1) “That there is no convincing evidence that CO2 emissions from modern industrial activity has in the past, is now, or will in the future cause catastrophic climate change.”  

2) “That attempts by governments to inflict taxes and costly regulations on industry and individual citizens with the aim of reducing emissions of CO2 will pointlessly curtail the prosperity of the West and progress of developing nations without affecting climate.”

3) “That human-caused climate change is not a global crisis.”  

The declaration resolved that “scientific questions should be evaluated solely by the scientific method.”

# #  

‘Warming Island’ not so new 

Former Virginia State Climatologist Dr. Patrick Michaels addressed the conference and debunked fears of unprecedented melting in Greenland. Michaels noted the media hype recently about the “discovery” of a “new” island in Greenland caused by melting glaciers dubbed “Warming Island.” (See April 2007 article titled: “An island made by global warming.” LINK)

 

But Michaels ridiculed the claim that the island was “new” by citing a 1957 book called “Arctic Riviera” by Swiss explorer Ernst Hofer which featured an illustration clearly depicting the same island in the early 1950s. Michaels noted that Greenland temperatures were as warm or warmer in the 1930s and 1940s than today’s temperatures. [See July 30, 2007 Report - Latest Scientific Studies Refute Fears of Greenland Melt – LINK]

 

# #

 

Sampling of key quotes from scientists participating in the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change:

 

Former UN Scientist Dr. Paul Reiter of the Pasteur Institute in Paris (who resigned from UN IPCC in protest): “As far as the science being ‘settled,’ I think that is an obscenity. The fact is the science is being distorted by people who are not scientists.”

 

UN IPCC scientist Vincent Gray of New Zealand: “This conference demonstrates that the [scientific] debate is not over. The climate is not being influenced by carbon dioxide.”

 

Canadian Climatologist Dr. Timothy Ball: “If we are facing [a crisis] at all, I think it is that we are preparing for warming when it is looking like we are cooling. We are preparing for the wrong thing.”

 

Climate researcher Dr. Craig Loehle, formerly of the Department of Energy Laboratories and currently with the National Council for Air and Stream Improvements, has published more than 100 peer-reviewed scientific papers: “The 2000-year [temperature] trend is not flat, so a warming period is not unprecedented. […] 1500-year [temperature] cycle as proposed by [Atmospheric physicist Fred] Singer and [Dennis] Avery is consistent with Loehle climate reconstruction. […] 1500-year cycle implies that recent warming is part of natural trend.”

 

Hurricane expert and Meteorologist Dr. William Gray: “There are lot’s of skeptics out there, all over the U.S. and the rest of the world. [Global warming] has been over-hyped tremendously; most of the climate change we have seen is largely natural. I think we are brainwashing our children terribly.” 

 

UK Astrophysicist Piers Corbyn: “There is no evidence that CO2 has ever driven or will ever drive world temperatures and climate change. The consequence of that is that worrying about CO2 is irrelevant. Our prediction is world temperatures will continue to decline until 2014 and probably continue to decline after that.”

 

Weather Channel founder and meteorologist John Coleman: “Serious scientists and serious students of global warming have concluded after a lot of effort that there is little basis for the thought that we are going to have catastrophic global warming.”

 

Dr. Benny Peiser of the Faculty of Science of Liverpool John Moores University in UK: “[Global warming cap-and-trade bills have] caused so much trouble in Europe. It’s not working, it’s never going to work. It won’t have any effect on the climate, but only that there will be more unemployed in Europe. If that helps the climate, perhaps that is a solution.”

 

Atmospheric physicist Ferenc Miskolczi, formerly with NASA’s Langley Research Center: “The runaway greenhouse effect is physically impossible. […] The observed global warming has nothing to do directly with the greenhouse effect; it must be related to changes in the total absorbed solar radiation or dissipated heat from other natural or anthropogenic sources of thermal energy.”

 

Meteorologist Art Horn: “There are thousands of scientists around the world who believe that this issue is not settled. The climate is not being influenced by carbon dioxide.”

 

German Meteorologist Dr. Gerd-Rainer Weber: “Most of the extremist views about climate change have little or no scientific basis. The rational basis for extremist views about global warming may be a desire to push for political action on global warming.”

 

Physics Professor Emeritus Dr. Howard Hayden of the University of Connecticut: “The fluctuations in Earth’s temperature are caused by astronomical phenomena. The combined effects of all ‘greenhouse gases,’ albedo changes, and other Earthly changes account for no more than about 3 degrees C of the changes during transitions between ice ages and interglacials.”

 

Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review: It is my belief that the strident and frequent claims of catastrophes caused by man-made global warming are stated with a degree of confidence not warranted by the data. […] Too many people are too confident about too many things. That was the simple message of the Heartland conference, and one that I hope sinks in.” (LINK)  

 

# # #

 

See Part Two of Climate Conference Report for Media Round Up:

 

Click Here To Continue Reading Part 2:  

 

Part Two: Round up of Media Coverage of 2008 International Conference on Climate Change:

 

 

 # # #

2008 International Conference on Climate Change - Round up of Media Coverage

[ Note: Click Here To Read Part One of the Reports on the International Conference on Climate Change - See: Climate Skeptics Reveal ‘Horror Stories’ of Scientific Suppression; NYC Climate Conference Further Debunks ‘Consensus’ Claims ]

New York, New York – Scientists skeptical of man-made climate fears meeting at the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change in New York City described the “absolute horror stories” about how some scientific journals have engaged in “outrageous and unethical behavior” in attempting to suppress them from publishing their work in peer-reviewed journals. The March 2-4 groundbreaking conference, which featured about 100 speakers with over 500 people attending, presented the report of a team of international scientists who formed a group to counter the UN IPCC. 

Media Coverage of Conference 

The climate conference garnered the attention of many media outlets including: The New York Times; BBC; Washington Post; ABC News; Associated Press; Reuters; China Post; CNSNews.com;  CNN; New York Sun; Fox News; Times of India; Czech’s Ceske Noviny;  Investor's Business Daily; Canada’s Financial Post; United Press International; WorldNetDaily.com;  and the Wall Street Journal. (Note: Some of the mainstream media coverage reached bottom quickly – See CNN’s Miles O’Brien accuses scientists at conference of being ‘Flat Earthers’ – LINK )

Some of the mainstream media coverage, including several articles in New York Times, presented fair coverage. See here, here and here. [Note: Despite many mainstream media outlets efforts to mock the gathering, it was a semi-victory for the conference that reporters likes Miles O’Brien of CNN and Bill Blakemore of ABC News even showed up For info on O’Brien’s past climate reporting, see here. For info on Blakemore's past climate reporting see here. ]  

The Business and Media Institute (BMI) also released their comprehensive study during the conference which reveals how the news media reports on global warming. The report, titled “Global Warming Censored” found that network TV news stifles debate, relies on “politicians, rock stars and men-on-the street for science’ reporting. (LINK) BMI also critiqued the news media coverage of the International Conference on Climate Change. (LINK) WorldNetDaily.com has a critique of the media coverage titled “Mainstream media's mockery.” (LINK) American Thinker weighed in with a very comprehensive report from the conference. (LINK)

Funding myths exposed

 

One of the most incisive articles about the conference came from John Tierney of the New York Times. Tierney exposed the erroneous notion that “industry” funding fuels climate skepticism. “Do the critics really think there’s more money and glory to be won by doubting global warming than by going along with the majority? I ask this question not because I doubt the integrity or competence of the researchers and environmental groups who are getting billions of dollars from government agencies, corporations, foundations and private donors concerned about climate change,” Tierney wrote on March 6. (LINK)

[ Note: Click Here To Read Part One of the Reports on the International Conference on Climate Change: See: Climate Skeptics Reveal ‘Horror Stories’ of Scientific Suppression; NYC Climate Conference Further Debunks ‘Consensus’ Claims ]

Sampling of News Coverage of Climate Conference

Round Up

Talk show host Glenn Beck interviews climate researcher Lord Christopher Monckton, the Viscount Monckton of Brenchley:  Excerpt: “What happened is that I looked at Al Gore's movie with mounting horror and I identified three dozen scientific errors in it. So I had a weather mate of mine who takes an interest in these matters and also had the money to pay for a court case and I said I thought this film was rubbish. Two weeks later he rang up and said he wanted to do something to fight back against this tide of unscientific freedom-destroying nonsense, which is what global warming is really all about. And so I said, well, the best thing is that you dish your review, a rather peculiar kind of court case in the high court in London in front of custard faced judges.

 

Hurricane Forecaster William Gray Predicts Global Cooling in 10 Years

Excerpt: “We should begin to see cooling coming on,” Gray said. “I’m willing to make a big financial bet on it. In 10 years, I expect the globe to be somewhat cooler than it is now, because this ocean effect will dominate over the human-induced CO2 effect and I believe the solar effect and the land-use effect. I think this is likely bigger.” Gray, 79, wasn’t sure if he’d be around to see his prediction come true. “I may not be around by that time,” Gray said. “But, I’ve asked some of my students to put dandelions on my grave if that happens.” Gray criticized NASA scientist and global warming alarmist James Hansen, calling him “the most egregious abuser” of data. According to Gray, Hansen’s alarmism is exaggerated because the models he uses to predict the increase in global warming count on too much water vapor in the atmosphere. 


Stossel: 'Socialist Media -- Maybe They Will Just Never Get It' 

 

Talk Show host Glenn Beck interviews Weather Channel Founder and meteorologist John Coleman:

Excerpt: I'm asking the question that if Al Gore knows that CO2 forcing, that is, carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from our fossil fuels, is not causing global warming, isn't he committing financial fraud when he sells carbon credits to people to offset their use of fossil fuels and putting carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? I've asked the question and believe me, a lot of people were really interested in that question.

 

Climatologist’s New Study Finds Lower CO2 Impact on Atmosphere - Reason Blog:

Excerpt: In fact, using satellite data combined with a small model, [Climatologist Dr. Roy] Spencer finds that changes in cloudiness appear to drive changes in temperature. If this is so, Spencer suggests, this means that models have fundamentally mixed up cause and effect. He reported that his study had been peer-reviewed by the two of the climatologists on whose work the IPCC relied for estimating climate sensitivity. "Both came back and said 'you're right,'" claimed Spencer.  If Spencer's results are confirmed—and this is a huge if—it would mean that the climate is far less sensitive to perturbation by carbon dioxide than the models suggest. Spencer says that if he is right about climate sensitivity that would imply that the average temperature of the planet might rise by +0.5 degrees centigrade by the end of this century due to the effects of rising carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere.  (LINK)

 

CNN: Climate Conference Attendees are Like Flat Earthers 

Excerpt: On Monday, climate alarmist Miles O'Brien of CNN actually had the gall to imply that speakers and attendees of this conference are Flat Earthers. I kid you not. During Monday evening's "Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees," O'Brien concluded his videotaped report concerning this conference (video available here at end of blog post): Even the Flat Earth Society didn't fold its tent in 1493. How disgraceful.

 

Heartland Institute’s Joseph Bast's Opening Speech at International Conference on Climate Change

Excerpt: The alarmists in the global warming debate have had their say – over and over again, in every newspaper in the country practically every day and in countless news reports and documentary films. They have dominated the media’s coverage of this issue. They have swayed the views of many people. Some of them have even grown very rich in the process, and others still hope to. But they have lost the debate. Winners don’t exaggerate. Winners don’t lie. Winners don’t appeal to fear or resort to ad hominem attacks. As George Will also wrote, “people only insist that a debate stop when they are afraid of what might be learned if it continues.” We invited Al Gore to speak to us tonight, and even agreed to pay his $200,000 honoraria. He refused. We invited some of the well-known scientists associated with the alarmist camp, and they refused.

 

AP: Czech president rouses climate skeptics at conference where some worry about global cooling
Excerpt: A lot of the people at this climate conference — headlined by the self-described "politically incorrect" Czech president — wanted to talk about global cooling. More than 500 people from 23 countries, including some 100 scientists, attended a three-day climate conference that ended Tuesday in New York and was organized by Chicago-based Heartland Institute. "Some of the scientists here believe we are entering into a cooling period, and that's just based on well-known solar cycles," said Heartland's president, Joseph Bast.

 

Global Warming Schemes Will Curb Freedom, Czech President Says
Excerpt: Centralized planners with "megalomaniac ambitions" are now working to restrain democratic development and economic activity under the guise of environmentalism, said Vaclav Klaus, president of the Czech Republic.

 

Natural Forces, Not Man, Causing Global Warming, Scientist Says
Excerpt: "The science is settled in the sense that we have evidence that most of the climate change taking place today is caused by natural forces and not by human activity," Singer said during his luncheon address at the conservative Heartland Institute. As was previously reported by the Cybercast News Service, Singer is a long-time critic of the "alarmist" view of global warming.

 

Washington Post: Conference of skeptics says humans have little to do with climate change
Excerpt: When Christopher Monckton, who served as a special adviser to former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, ponders the political push to curb greenhouse gases linked to climate change, he thinks of King Canute. According to Monckton, Canute - the Viking who ruled England along with much of Scandinavia nearly 1,000 years ago - took his courtiers to the ocean’s edge one day, set down his throne and ordered the tide not to come in. The tide, of course, came in, and the king got wet. The lesson? The king taught his advisers humility, Monckton said, by showing them that even he, a king, could not control nature. In the same way, he said, modern-day politicians should not fool themselves into thinking that humanity is having a major effect on climate.

Report #3 from the Global Warming Conference in New York City

Excerpt: Dr. Klaus was followed by Dr. William Gray, one of the country's preeminent hurricane forecasters and a pioneer in tropical meteorological research. Gray described what he called the huge errors in the treatment of water vapor by computer models used to forecast future weather conditions and pointed to evidence showing the warming predicted by the models was not occurring at the altitudes and latitudes predicted by the models.

 

NY Times: On the Dot: More Population and Climate Questions

Excerpt: Climate Not a Crisis: The International Conference on Climate Change, sponsored by the Heartland Institute, wrapped up Tuesday. Very different assessments of its sessions are here (Reason), here (John Tierney) and here (DeSmogBlog). The assemblage proposed a Manhattan Declaration: 1) That current plans to restrict anthropogenic CO2 emissions are a dangerous misallocation of intellectual capital and resources that should be dedicated to solving humanity’s real and serious problems. 2) That there is no convincing evidence that CO2 emissions from modern industrial activity has in the past, is now, or will in the future cause catastrophic climate change. 3) That attempts by governments to inflict taxes and costly regulations on industry and individual citizens with the aim of reducing emissions of CO2 will pointlessly curtail the prosperity of the West and progress of developing nations without affecting climate. 4) That adaptation as needed is massively more cost-effective than any attempted mitigation and that a focus on such mitigation will divert the attention and resources of governments away from addressing the real problems of their peoples.  5) That human-caused climate change is not a global crisis.

NY Times: Lessons from the Skeptics’ Conference
Excerpt: Yesterday I asked you to analyze a report presented at the Heartland Institute’s conference of global-warming skeptics. A lot of readers had the same reaction I did after I read the report and attended the conference yesterday: There are some interesting points here, but who knows? The skeptics point to some genuine discrepancies between the climate models and what’s actually happened; they’re probably right in criticizing the United Nations’ I.P.C.C. for not paying enough attention to the impact of solar variations on the Earth’s climate. But climate is so complicated, and cuts across so many scientific disciplines, that it’s impossible to know which discrepancies or which variables are really important. Considering how many false alarms have been raised previously by scientists (the “population crisis,” the “energy crisis,” the “cancer epidemic” from synthetic chemicals), I wouldn’t be surprised if the predictions of global warming turn out to be wrong or greatly exaggerated. Scientists are prone to herd thinking — informational cascades and this danger is particularly acute when they have to rely on so many people outside their field to assess a topic as large as climate change. So I’m glad to see contrarians raising awkward questions and pointing out weaknesses in predictions made with computer models. As S. Fred Singer, the editor of the skeptics’ report, said at the conference yesterday: “Models are very nice, but they’re not reality and they’re not evidence.”


NY Times: Global-Warming Payola?

Excerpt: Do the critics really think there’s more money and glory to be won by doubting global warming than by going along with the majority? I ask this question not because I doubt the integrity or competence of the researchers and environmental groups who are getting billions of dollars from government agencies, corporations, foundations and private donors concerned about climate change. If I write about prominent climate scientists like James Hansen of NASA, I don’t feel obliged to note how much research money they get — or how much extra money is going to their field because of the concerns they’ve raised about climate change. I don’t dismiss Al Gore’s warnings just because his campaign against global warming has been so good for his career. I don’t obsess about show much gets per lecture or what he does with the money. At RealClimate , the blog that touts its devotion to sober scientific analysis, the Heartland Institute was written off as “a front group for the fossil fuel industry,” the same them that was picked up by some commenters on this blog. […]A cap-and-trade systems for curbing carbon emissions (the kind criticized at this week’s conference) is popular in Washington in no small part because of corporate lobbyists who see a chance to make money from the carbon credits. There’s money to be made in developing alternative energy — even when it’s not so green, like the ethanol industry that has been collecting subsidies for decades. There’s money to be made by cultivating a green image. And there’s lots of money to be doled out to researchers studying climate change and new energy technologies. [...] But more important, how long do we have to keep talking about money? Should I be doing more to focus the debate on substance by screening out the comments from readers who’d rather discuss finances than debate ideas?

 

The Media Destruction Machine at Work (Alan Caruba)

Excerpt: Since the early 1980s it has published some of the most astonishingly idiotic articles about it global warming including the claim that the North Pole was melting. The latest in a line of Times reporters on the subject is Andrew C. Revkin. He began his March 4 article, “Cool View of Science at Meeting on Warming”, by writing that, “Several hundred people sat in a fifth-floor ballroom at the Marriott Marquis Hotel in Times Square on Monday eating pasta and trying hard to prove that they had unraveled the established science showing that humans are warming the world in potentially disruptive ways.” This is not journalism. This is opinion. It belongs on the opinion pages, not in the news section. Moreover, the suggestion that the speakers and attendees were “trying hard” suggests that it took anything more than a review of actual climate data to dispute the claim that the Earth has warmed dramatically and is likely to warm more. Even Meteorology 101 students know that the Earth has warmed barely one degree Fahrenheit since the end of the last mini-ice age in 1850. This is a quite natural warming and hardly attributable to human factors. Thereafter Revkin larded his report with the kind of qualifiers intended to discredit anyone named. The famed climatologist, Patrick J. Michaels, was identified as having “a paid position at the antiregulatory Cato Institute…” Presumably, everyone attending the conference had a paid position of some sort or they could have ill-afforded to be there.

 

Planet Gore: Skeptics gather, alarmists squirm  

Excerpt: A single year or weather event is newsworthy and meaningful . . . unless it’s the wrong kind. Individual research papers warrant coverage . . . and what coverage! . . . but only when their results are alarmist. Otherwise, they’re just one paper. We have learned that three years is a pattern . . . unless it is on the cooling side of the ledger. We know that ten years is conclusive . . . unless it’s the past ten years, when no warming is evident. Unseasonably warm weather is clear evidence of global warming, exceptional cold is merely an anomaly — or better yet, further proof of climate disruption. Warming temperatures — over whatever period the press chooses — and retreating glaciers — whatever the season — are sure signs of “global warming.” Cooling temperatures and advancing glaciers signify nothing. The alarmists and their press proxies are also quick to point to funding and financial interests . . . if you disagree with their agenda. Meanwhile, absolutely no one on the skeptics’ side of the argument has earned as much money as Al Gore and his tiresome advisor James Hansen have off of their high-profile climate alarmism.

 

WorldNetDaily.com: “Mainstream media's mockery.”

Excerpt: To the New York Times' Andrew Revkin, it was a "quirky conference" of people "driven mainly by libertarian passions or a nonconformist streak." In a companion article Revkin highlighted a claim that the conference was "a harmful distraction" from the agenda of the climate-change mob. […]Straightforward reporting in daily newspapers, including an article in the New York Sun, unfortunately was rare. 

 

Video: Glenn Beck Interviews Geologist Dr. Bob Carter and Harvard Astrophysicist Willie Soon

 

Video: Glenn Beck Interviews Czech President Vaclav Klaus

 

Video: Glenn Beck Interviews Meteorologist Anthony Watts

 

NY Climate Conference: Journey to the Center of Warming Sanity (American Thinker)

Excerpt: There were a total of 32 discussions between the opening shredding of temperature records and biased recording mechanisms offered by Prof. Robert Balling and Ross McKitrick and the closing session's critique of media bias by ABC News correspondent John Stossel. Of those, 11 were purely devoted to science and another 8 studied impacts, which were often scientifically inclusive. 

 

Global Warming Schemes Fueled by 'Megalomaniac Ambitions,' Czech President Says

  

# #

 

Part One of Reports on the International Conference on Climate Change: See: Climate Skeptics Reveal ‘Horror Stories’ of Scientific Suppression; NYC Climate Conference Further Debunks ‘Consensus’ Claims ]

 

Related Links:  

 

Senate Minority Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007  

 

Senate Minority Report Debunks Polar Bear Extinction Fears

 

Breakdown Of  Key Points Debunking Cilmate Fears

 

Earth's 'Fever' Breaks: Global COOLING Currently Under Way

 

Hypocrisy exposed: Comparison of Media's Coverage of a Warm Winter vs. Cold Winter

 

Analysis of how Hollywood Is Promoting Climate Fears to Kids

 

 Analysis of Costly "Solutions" to Global Warming

 

Over 100 Prominent Scientists Warn UN Against 'Futile' Climate Control Efforts

 

Skeptical Scientists Urge World To ‘Have the Courage to Do Nothing' At UN Conference

 

NEW SENATE CAP-AND-TRADE BILL CALLED ALL ‘ECONOMIC PAIN FOR NO CLIMATE GAIN'

 

Debunking The So-Called 'Consensus' On Global Warming

 

Scientists Counter AP Article Promoting Computer Model Climate Fears

 

New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears

 

Newsweek's Climate Editorial Screed Violates Basic Standards of Journalism

 

Newsweek Editor Calls Mag's Global Warming 'Deniers' Article 'Highly Contrived'

 

Latest Scientific Studies Refute Fears of Greenland Melt

 

EPA to Probe E-mail Threatening to ‘Destroy' Career of Climate Skeptic

 

Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics

 

Senator Inhofe declares climate momentum shifting away from Gore (The Politico op ed)

 

Scientific Smackdown: Skeptics Voted The Clear Winners Against Global Warming Believers in Heated NYC Debate

 

Global Warming on Mars & Cosmic Ray Research Are Shattering Media Driven "Consensus'

 

Global Warming: The Momentum has Shifted to Climate Skeptics

 

Prominent French Scientist Reverses Belief in Global Warming - Now a Skeptic

 

Top Israeli Astrophysicist Recants His Belief in Manmade Global Warming - Now Says Sun Biggest Factor in Warming

 

Warming On Jupiter, Mars, Pluto, Neptune's Moon & Earth Linked to Increased Solar Activity, Scientists Say

 

Panel of Broadcast Meteorologists Reject Man-Made Global Warming Fears- Claim 95% of Weathermen Skeptical

 

MIT Climate Scientist Calls Fears of Global Warming 'Silly' - Equates Concerns to ‘Little Kids' Attempting to "Scare Each Other"

 

Weather Channel TV Host Goes 'Political'- Stars in Global Warming Film Accusing U.S. Government of ‘Criminal Neglect'

 

Weather Channel Climate Expert Calls for Decertifying Global Warming Skeptics

 

ABC-TV Meteorologist: I Don't Know A Single Weatherman Who Believes 'Man-Made Global Warming Hype'

 

The Weather Channel Climate Expert Refuses to Retract Call for Decertification for Global Warming Skeptics

 

New UN Children's Book Promotes Global Warming Fears to Kids (11-13-2006)

 

Senator Inhofe Announces Public Release Of "Skeptic's Guide To Debunking Global Warming"

 

# # #