Come to fabulous Las Vegas FOR COMPLETE DETAILS to meet leading scientists from around the world who question whether “man-made See the back page for information on global warming” will be harmful to plants, registration for the conference, as well as a animals, or human welfare. Learn from top schedule of events. economists and policy experts about the Can’t make it to Vegas? Watch the Live real costs and futility of trying to stop global Stream! Every minute of the conference will warming. be streamed live at the conference website. Meet the leaders of think tanks and Visit Heartland.org starting at 6:30 p.m. PDT grassroots organizations who are speaking on Monday, July 7 and come back the next out against global warming alarmism. two days for the latest presentations on the science and policy of . Don’t just wonder about global warming… understand it! Visit Heartland.org.

A Special Report Prepared By Advocacy Department. 2 THURSDAY • JUNE 26 • 2014 9TH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON CLIMATE CHANGE ofCreation Cornwall Alliance fortheStewardship Competitive EnterpriseInstitute Committee forAConstructive Tomorrow Colderside.com andGlobalChange Center fortheStudyofCarbon Dioxide Center fortheDefenseofFreeEnterprise Center forIndustrialProgress Broken HintsMedia Ayn RandInstitute Australian Taxpayers’ Alliance CONFERENCECO-SPONSORS heartland.org The HeartlandInstitute President Joseph L.Bast Sincerely, debate ofthecentury. and yourfamilyenableyoutoparticipateinthemostimportantpublicpolicy Please joinusinLasVegas forICCC-9!Itwillbeanunforgettableexperience you watching thelive-streamofallpresentationsatheartland.org. Nearly 1,000peopleareexpectedtoattendthisyear’s conference,makingitthelargestyet.Thousands morewillbe understanding. organizations (listedbelow)willhaverepresentativesonhandtodescribewhattheyaredoing toadvancepublic scientists, economists,andotherexpertswillsharewhattheyknowaboutthiscomplextopic.Thirtycosponsoring The NinthInternationalConferenceonClimateChangeisforpeoplewhowanttounderstandglobalwarming.Sixty than talking pointinsupportofyourpoliticalconvictions.Simplybelieving to betrueorcanproveistrue.Intheglobalwarmingdebate,seeingwhatyoubelieveadvanceyourcareeradda Politicians, journalists,andevenacademicsoftenareguiltyofbelievinginwhattheyhopeistrue,notknow atmospheric carbondioxideandmodestwarmingexceedthecosts. claimed, futurewarming(ifitoccursatall)willbelessthanisoftenforecast,andthebenefitsofhigherlevels Here iswhat“globalwarmingskeptics”havediscovered:Thatthehumanimpactonclimatesmallerthanoften .018 degreesCby2100. will cost$50billionayearanddestroysome250,000jobswhilereducingfuturewarmingbyanundetectable thousands ofscientistswhoknowbetter. Economistsrejectthepresident’s planstoo,tellingustheproposedregulations The president’s claims,cribbedfromtalkingpointsprovidedbyradicalenvironmentaladvocacygroups,arerejected pollution.” the EnvironmentalProtectionAgency(EPA) toimplementnewregulationsaimedatlimitingwhathecalls“carbon Obama, perhapstodeflectattentionfromthemanyscandalscirclinghisadministration,ishypingissueandordering Global warming(or“climatechange”)isthemostcontentiousandconsequentialissueofourera.PresidentBarack understanding it. A Special Report Prepared By The Washington Times Advocacy Department. Advocacy Times Washington The By Prepared Report A Special Leadership Institute It’s Tomorrow -TheFilm International ClimateScience Coalition Illinois CoalAssociation Hubbard Broadcasting The HeritageFoundation George C.MarshallInstitute FreedomFest EPICC Institute Energy MakesAmericaGreat,Inc. Earth FreeInstitute Don’t Tread onMyBusinessFoundation in man-madeglobalwarmingiscertainlyeasier forEnergyandEnvironment Virginia ScientistsandEngineers To KillanError Stairway Press Sovereignty International Science andEnvironmentalPolicyProject Power forUSA Media ResearchCenter Liberty FoundationofAmerica Liberty CoinService 9TH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON CLIMATE CHANGE THURSDAY • JUNE 26 • 2014 3 Atmospheric is not a pollutant. It is a non-toxic, non-irritating, and natural component of the atmosphere. The human impact on climate is very modest, much less than the impact of natural cycles. Carbon dioxide has not and will not cause weather to become more extreme, polar ice and sea ice to melt, or sea level rise to accelerate. These were all false alarms. There is little or no risk of increasing food insecurity due to global warming or rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. Farmers and others who depend on rural livelihoods for income are benefitting from rising agricultural productivity around the world. The benefits of modest global warming exceed the likely costs.     ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ NIPCC scientists conclude: Physical www.nipccreport.org. www.climatechangereconsidered.org The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) is a project of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide the Study of Carbon Dioxide on Climate Change (NIPCC) is a project of the Center for International Panel Nongovernmental The . The and Project (SEPP), the Science and Environmental Policy and Global Change, Buy them now or read them for free online at (March Biological Impacts (March 2014), NIPCC

Human Welfare, Energy, and Policies (forthcoming summer Energy, Human Welfare,

Three comprehensive and authoritative reports refuting the United Nations’ IPCC. THE GLOBAL WARMING CRISIS IS OVER IS CRISIS WARMING GLOBAL THE The Climate Change Reconsidered series is produced by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), an international network of independent scientists with no financial stake in the debate. Their new three-volume report totals more than 2,500 pages, together citing more than studies. 7,000 peer-reviewed They find rising temperatures and atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are causing “no net harm to the global environment or to human health and often finds the opposite: net benefits to plants, including important food crops, and to animals and human health.” and 2014) – directly counter the alarmist claims of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Science (September 2013), The three volumes of Climate Change Reconsidered II – 4 THURSDAY • JUNE 26 • 2014 9TH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON CLIMATE CHANGE common-sense objective: the EPA’s regulations should should regulations EPA’s the objective: a common-sense has bill This Act. Reform Science Secret the called legislation government good simple, approved week this Committee Science House the process, regulatory public tojustifythisrule. the from hidden science uses EPA the troubling, even more And gain. no and pain all is rule this measures, limit CO limit thousands fewerjobs. of hundreds to lead and growth economic stifle tions regula- These EPA. the through regulations gas house green- impose to excuse an as change climate about claims alarmist uses President The science. actual the by supported not are – intense and frequent more ing becom- hurricanes and droughts, floods, like – events weather extreme about claims administration’s Obama a “denier.” is agenda regulatory administration’s Obama the tions ques- who anyone and closed, is case the over, is debate the claims wrongly McCarthy Gina Administrator To help shine sunlight on the EPA’s non-transparent non-transparent EPA’s the on sunlight shine help To The EPA recently announced its latest regulation to regulation latest its announced recently EPA The the that concerns raised have experts Academic across the nation with his pen and phone. The first across thenationwithhispen andphone.Thefirst sweeping strategytoaddress greenhouse gases announced hisClimateAction Plan,outlininga mate changeagendathrough regulation. tion, hehascontinuedtopursue hisaggressivecli- granting thepresidentthesepowersthroughlegisla- of manmadeclimatechange.DespiteCongressnot cost itwouldinflictontheeconomy,allfortheory because ofthe$300billionto$400annual house gases.Congresshasdefeatedtheseproposals that wouldhaveallowedEPAtoregulategreen- defeat variousformsofcap-and-tradelegislation regulate greenhousegasesundertheCleanAirAct. and issuedastunningrebuketoEPA’sefforts Agency v.UnitedStatesEnvironmental Protection (UARG) Court decisionin clear directionfromCongress.Monday’sSupreme dented efforttoexpanditsregulatorypowerswithout It was a year ago this week that President Obama It wasayearagothisweekthat PresidentObama I haveledtheeffortformorethantenyearsto 2 emissions from existing power plants. By all By plants. power existing from emissions reprimanded theagencyforignoringlaw Utility Air Regulatory Group Utility AirRegulatoryGroup W By LamarSmith rtcin gny (EPA) Agency Protection Environmental da. agen- partisan ist, alarm- an not science, by driven are findings that sure make to need The CaseforOpenEPA Science U By JimInhofe to Obama’s ClimateChangeAgenda Supreme CourtDeliversBlow engaged inanunprece- (EPA) hasbeen Protection Agency Environmental ae hne we change, mate cli- assessing hen Obama, the nder President A Special Report Prepared By The Washington Times Advocacy Department. Advocacy Times Washington The By Prepared Report A Special tiations was treated as unacceptable.” The bias is there is bias The unacceptable.” as treated was tiations nego- multilateral in positions and interests their with inconsistent considered was that text “any wrote, He integrity. scientific compromise that interest” of flicts con- “irreconcilable generating as process this criti- cized recently IPCC, the for author lead a as served around theworld,whogobbleitup. writers headline and newspapers to information biased provides and assessment scientific actual the of ahead disseminated is document The Makers.” Policy by “Summary a to amounts really This Makers.” Policy for “Summary so-called a develop they when cians politi- international to defer IPCC the for science ing more ofthelivesAmericanpeople. control to excuse an Administration Obama the give to designed appear House White the and IPCC the both by reports released Recently politicized. highly become have findings scientific disseminating with charged ously determinedgovernmentpolicies. previ- for cover provide and panic create to designed reports climate complicated behind hidden are these like Facts 2050. year the by Celsius degree one of tenth one- than less be would temperature global on impact ultimate the immediately, emissions dioxide carbon all stopped U.S. the if even that found assumptions (IPCC) Change Climate on Panel used Intergovernmental that analysis One temperature. global on impact discernable no have but hard families and be basedonpublicdatanotsecretscience. quences forpursuingunpopular policies. term-limited outofoffice,hewill notfaceanyconse- he firstranforpresidentin2008, andnowthatheis in theUnitedStates. 2000 tolevels300percenthigher thantheyarehere price ofretailGermanelectricityhasdoubledsince The resulthasbeenclear:higherenergyprices. nation’s electricityfromrenewablesourcesby2020. agenda withamandatetogenerate35percentofthe been implementinganaggressivealternative-energy this pathleads.Sinceabout2000,Germanyhas resources. nation torelymoreandonexpensiverenewable the EnvironmentalGreenDreambyrequiringour regulations toforcetheUnitedStatesliveout has embarkedonaplantousegreenhousegas pollution onlyateachindividualpowerplant,EPA says clearlythattheagencyisallowedtoregulate existing fleetofpowerplants.Althoughthestatute proposed greenhousegasregulationsforthenation’s evidence EPAisstandingonthinice. the lawanddiscontinueitsunbridledrulemakingis the Court’sinsistencethatEPAfollowletterof Court decisiondidnotdirectlyaddresstheserules, existing powerplants.AlthoughMonday’sSupreme two majorregulationsundertheplantargetnewand r Rbr Sais f avr Uiest, who University, Harvard of Stavins Robert Dr. underly- the on working scientists the Significantly, bodies scientific foremost our that unfortunate It’s workers hit will regulations climate EPA’s The This iswhatthepresidenthas wantedtodosince We needonlytolookGermanyseewhere This isparticularlystrikingwiththerecently ness. American economyfrombeing regulatedoutofbusi- step, andwecannotrelentinourquesttosavethe us tostayvigilant.Thefightwillcontinueatevery is changeinWashington,itwillbeimperativefor writes thelaws,notpresident.Butuntilthere Constitutional limitationsonhisauthority.Congress Supreme Courtfinallyrecognizedandspoketothe tion—is astounding.Itisencouragingthatthe illegal immigra- Bay ortoopenthefloodgatesof the fivemostdangerousterroristsatGuantanamo on somanyissues—suchasthedecisiontorelease The leveloflawlessnesswithwhichhehasgoverned Court’s decision,butthisshouldcomeasnosurprise. EPA’s greenhousegasregulationsforpowerplants. that authorityanddoessoinwaysmayupend Court decision,thisweek’sdecisionseverelylimits regulatory powerinresponsetoa2007Supreme was designedtodo.AlthoughEPAclaimshave late greenhousegases.Itsimplyisnotwhatthelaw that CongressnevergaveEPAtheauthoritytoregu- san support.Inlightofthis,itmustberemembered Act Amendments,whichpassedwithbroadbiparti- mittee. U.S. SenateEnvironmentand PublicWorksCom- Jim Inhofe,aRepublican,is aseniormemberofthe Committee onScience,SpaceandTechnology. House the of chairman is and House U.S. the in District 21st Texas’s represents Republican, a Smith, Lamar debate. Actuallythedebatehasonlyjustbegun. no is there says President The them. on regulations unnecessary costly, impose then and Americans scare slowing down. of signs no shows China And gases. greenhouse of ter emit- largest world’s the China, of those by dwarfed are emissions global to contributions U.S. 2012.” and 2008 between 9% around by declined … use energy gie, o eape ta “.. CO “U.S. that example, for ognized, rec- Assessment Climate National House’s White The emissions. in reductions dramatic achieved has U.S. climate policyoptionstheU.S.andworldconsiders. which determine should facts The science. correct cally results. study’s the misrepresented has President The ing. warm- the of most cause humans said few very agree, would I and change, climate to contribute humans Panel onClimateChange. Intergovernmental Nations’ United the for author lead a from came claim President’s the discredit to analysis been has claim this However, activity. human by driven ily primar- is warming global believe scientists of cent for alltosee. The presidentisgoingtoignoretheSupreme I wasanoriginalcosponsorofthe1990CleanAir h Oaa diitain hud tp rig to trying stop should administration Obama The The IPCC and White House reports acknowledge the the acknowledge reports House White and IPCC The politi- than rather science, good on focus should We think may surveyed scientists of majority the While h Peiet n hs dios fe cam 7 per- 97 claim often advisors his and President The hruhy debunked thoroughly I fc, h ms recent most the fact, In . 2 msin from emissions THURSDAY • JUNE 26 • 2014

9TH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON CLIMATE CHANGE 5 ------Science et al. published in Science In 2013, a strident global warming alarmist and global warming alarmist and In 2013, a strident Do I need to point out again that counting ab Do I need to point debunked No surprise, this study was quickly scien Rigorous international surveys of climate Surveys of meteorologists repeatedly find a ma Of the various petitions circulated for signa So who should you believe? President Obama trust The real moral of the story is this: Don’t what 97 percent of climate scientists do. That’s believe global warming is a serious problem or if or if serious problem warming is a believe global basis to be the sufficiently established science is policy. for public So It’s John Cook Says Cook claimed a review he per blogger named John - & Education. Legates et al. reviewed the same pa percent of pers and found “only 41 papers – 0.3 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 ex all 11,944 formed, with help from some of his friends, of the from some of his friends, of the formed, with help papers published from abstracts of peer-reviewed percent of those that stat revealed 97 1991 to 2011 global warming sup ed a position on man-made His findings were his own alarmist view. ported Letters. published in Environmental Research report again stracts is not a valid methodology? Or questions that many of the scientists whose work et al. ig- the consensus have protested that Cook nored or misrepresented their work? by a paper by Legates – had pressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent or quantita been found to endorse the standard tive hypothesis.” The Counter-Evidence Dennis Bray tists conducted by German scientists scientists and Hans von Storch have found most issues such disagree with the consensus on key computer as the reliability of climate data and key climate models. Most say they do not believe precipita processes such as cloud formation and predict future tion are sufficiently understood to climate changes. survey con A jority oppose the alleged consensus. of American Meteorological Society ducted by the its members in 2012, for example, found only 39.5 percent of those responding said they believe man- made global warming is dangerous. tures by scientists on the global warming issue, the one that has garnered by far the most signa tures – more than 31,000 names – says “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, atmo cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s climate.” sphere and disruption of the Earth’s Believe? You Who Do college apparently believe a couple of and NASA If you’ve made students and an alarmist blogger. I hope you have some it this far into this essay, doubts about their “research.” a scientific consensus on anyone who says there’s “believe” in global warming global warming. Don’t what you think others believe. Look because that’s under the hood and figure it out yourself. Joseph L. Bast is president of The Heartland Institute. ------ar century.” century.” th coauthored coauthored EOS the world’s most prestigious science science most prestigious the world’s Proceedings of Acad the National Nature, Once again, the author did not ask if the writers Once again, the author did not ask if the writers This study, too, has been debunked. First, the First, the been debunked. has too, study, This solar Second, the college student did not survey Third, the “97 percent” figure represents the R. In 2010, another college student, William Anderegg actually found was 97 to 98 What Love Problem number three: In 2008, medical re Problem number consen find a “scientific So no, Oreskes didn’t student, In 2008, a University of Illinois college The views of 200 researchers out of the hundreds The views of 200 researchers out of the hundreds of thousands of earth scientists who have contrib uted to the climate science debate is not evidence it is evidence of editorial of consensus. More likely, bias, documented by Park et al. in the Nature ticle cited earlier. with her thesis advisor, Peter Doran, she claimed Peter Doran, she claimed with her thesis advisor, that global “97 percent of climate scientists agree” the 1800s temperatures have risen since before contributing and that humans are a significant factor. wrong questions. Most scientists the survey asked warming who are skeptical of catastrophic global The survey would answer “yes” to both questions. is large was silent on whether the human impact enough to constitute a problem. physi scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, all scien cists, meteorologists, and astronomers, causes of tists most likely to be aware of natural climate change. views of only 79 of the 3,146 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise and said they published more than 50 percent of their papers on climate change. recent peer-reviewed Seventy-nine scientists do not constitute a con- sensus. So Anderegg Says It’s Love William percent of Anderegg, claimed to find “97–98 Love climate researchers most actively publishing in ACC [anthropogenic the field support the tenets of climate change] outlined by the Intergovernmen tal Panel on Climate Change.” His findings were published in emies of Sciences. percent of the 200 most prolific writers on climate change believe “anthropogenic greenhouse gases of the ‘unequivo have been responsible for ‘most’ average global tem of the Earth’s warming cal’ perature half of the 20 over the second papers often contain claims that aren’t substanti that aren’t contain claims papers often according to research papers. (This is ated in the 6, 2014 is- by Park et al. reported in the February sue of is flawed. methodology journal.) So Oreskes’ Schulte used searcher Klaus-Martin same da the terms as Oreskes to examine tabase and search 2004 to February 2007 and papers published from endorsed the “consensus” and found fewer than half 31 Schulte found so explicitly. only 7 percent did of the sample) that explicitly or papers (6 percent find Schulte’s rejected the “consensus.” implicitly journal. in a peer-reviewed ings were published sus.” Not even close. So Doran and Zimmerman Say It’s a two- Maggie Kendall Zimmerman, conducted question online survey for her master’s the degree in an article in year later, A sis.

------A Special Report Prepared By The Washington Times Advocacy Department. President Obama Obama President recently tweeted, “@ recently tweeted, BarackObama: Ninety- sci seven percent of entists agree: #climat man- echange is real, made and dangerous.” Environmental groups and their hallelujah the mainstream choir in claim media repeat the By Joseph L. Bast By Joseph magazine published an opinion magazine published an opinion

The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel Intergovernmental Panel The United Nations’ In 2004, Science So the debate is over, right? No, not hardly. So the debate is over, climate The fiction that most scientists believe 62 re Assessment Report, only For the Fourth Five is a far cry from 2,500 and is not evidence Problem number one: Oreskes lacked the scien Problem number two: The abstracts of academic The United Nations Says So The United Nations Says So to speak on on Climate Change (IPCC) claims when it says behalf of more than 2,500 scientists problem. man-made global warming is a serious or reviewed But few of those scientists wrote about of at research having to do with the key question Naomi Oreskes Says So endlessly. Even NASA says on its Web site, some says on its Web Even NASA endlessly. of “Ninety-seven percent what more cautiously, climate scientists agree that climate-warming likely due to trends over the past century are very human activities.” can be change is “man-made and dangerous” traced to a handful of surveys and abstract-count debunked ing exercises that have been repeatedly Yet research. and contradicted by more reliable activists. the myth lives on in the minds of liberal this once and for all. settle So let’s increase tribution: How much of the temperature in the twenti and other climate changes observed greenhouse eth century was caused by man-made gas emissions? searchers were responsible for reviewing the chap ter that attributed climate change to man-made greenhouse emissions. Fifty-five of those had asso ciations with environmental advocacy groups. Of the seven two disagreed with impartial reviewers, conclusion. That leaves only five credible IPCC’s scientific reviewers who unequivocally endorsed conclusion. IPCC’s of consensus. essay by a little-known science historian named essay by a little-known science historian named Naomi Oreskes. Oreskes claimed to have exam

ined abstracts from 928 articles published in sci- entific journals from 1993 and 2003, abstracts she found by searching an online database. She con- cluded 75 percent of the abstracts either implicitly or explicitly supported the alarmist view while none directly dissented. tific training to accurately categorize the abstracts she read, so scores of scientists quickly reported their own papers opposing the “consensus” were left out or misinterpreted. More than 1,300 such articles now appear in an online bibliography at populartechnology.net. What 97 Percent of Climate Scientists Do Scientists of Climate Percent 97 What 6 THURSDAY • JUNE 26 • 2014 9TH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON CLIMATE CHANGE change, considerthis. behind thedebateoverglobalwarmingandclimate By TimBall a politicalagenda. to theclimatedeception—theuseofscaresfor public canbetterunderstand.Iamahigh-profilethreat fied, andbecauseIcanexplainthescienceinaway ing about.TheattacksarecomingbecauseIamquali claim Iamunqualifiedanddon’t knowwhatIamtalk governmental PanelonClimateChange(IPCC)who by twoleadingmembersoftheUnitedNations’ Inter continue topublishpeer-reviewed material. the climatologyhalfofauniversity-leveltextbook,and years, publishedmanypeer-reviewed articles,authored dian Air Force.Itaughtuniversityclimatecoursesfor25 and weatherforecastingduringnineyearsintheCana versity ofLondon,England,andIstudiedmeteorology Klaus-Eckart Puls: scientists havebeenfooled.Considerthiscommentby scientists wouldbesosubjectiveandpolitical.Even a smallgroupcouldinfluenceandfooltheworld,orthat derstand thecurrentstateofscience;theycan’t believe was notreadyforit. A majority(80percent)don’t un ate CorruptionofClimateSciencebecausethepublic Climate ChangeDebateinthe‘Fight’Stage I haveaPh.D.inhistoricalclimatologyfromtheUni If youwanttounderstandwhatreallyhasbeen I waitedafewyearstopublishmybookTheDeliber Yet Iamconstantlyunderattack,includinglawsuits without firstcheckingit. as ascientistImadepresentationsoftheirscience measurements. To thisdayIstillfeelshamethat not evensupportedbyanyscientificfactsand were tellinguswassheernonsenseand that muchofwhattheIPCCandmedia but thenIbecameoutragedwhendiscovered and data—firstIstartedwithasenseofdoubt told us.OnedayIstartedcheckingthefacts Ten yearsagoIsimplyparrotedwhattheIPCC

------A Special Report Prepared By The Washington Times Advocacy Department. Advocacy Times Washington The By Prepared Report A Special deception. they wanttoknowthemotiveforthiseffortatmass ception andhowitwasachieved,butmostimportant ferent. Theywanttoknowwhoorchestratedthede truth now, butthatalsomeansthequestionsaredif climate changehysteria: the importanceofidentifyingmotivesbehind at CSU’s Departmentof Atmospheric Sciences,notes ty (CSU)andheadoftheTropical MeteorologyProject sor ofatmosphericscienceatColoradoStateUniversi ergy Makes America Great,Inc the pasttwodecadesprovedthemwrong: of the facts deception goingwhen keep the in orderto mate alarmistshavechangedthetermsofdebate A reviewbyWilliam M.“Bill”Gray, emeritusprofes I believescientistsandthepublicarereadyfor A reviewbyMaritaNoon,executivedirectorof been deceivedbysofewatgreatacost.” paraphrases Churchill,“Neverhavesomany to interpretthedatathandoesTim Ball.He scandal morecloselyorhasabetterbackground nobody hasfollowedthisevolvingglobalwarming cabal ofglobalwarmingpropagandists.Probably have beenperpetratedbyasmallandorganized information ofthevastchicaneryandliesthat gives muchbackgroundandbehind-the-scenes force discussionoftheglobalwarmingtopic.It This bookisaremarkablefact-filledtour-de- that claimstheglobeiswarmingbecauseof has beenpushedforthepastseveraldecades is inquestiontheglobalwarmingagendathat Congress, deniesclimatechange.However, what comment isaccurate.Noscientist,andnoonein always happen.”Beingliteral,Obama’s cheese change hashappened,ishappeningandwill change. Infact,hedoes.Heposits:“Climate It isnotthatBalldoesn’t believeinclimate Of ClimateScience The DeliberateCorruption Dr Tim Ball,PhD www.drtimball.com The MustThe Read Now Book Available onKindle And Amazon.com Special Special Thanks to: The Frontier Centre for Public Policy (FCPP) why thescience wasdistorted forpurposes. political convoluted of morass Dr. gibberish? explores Ball how and progressive left. How science into waslegitimate twisted a brokers to the advance theagenda of climate science misuse of by dishonest Dr. Tim exposes themalicious Ball ., notesthewaycli http://www.fcpp.org/ En------you, thentheyridiculefight Winnipeg, Manitoba,Canada. former climatologyprofessorattheUniversityof Tim Ball,Ph.D.,isanenvironmentalconsultantand on. They didn’t succeed,andnowthefightisdefinitely dentials tobrowbeattheoppositionintosubmission. the world?Theevidenceshowstheyusedscientificcre could asmallgroupofpeopleliterallydeceivemost swers. Whodiditandwhy?Howwasdone? an journalistic approachtoprovide takes a My book and theyareaskingquestionsraisingconcerns. edge. Peoplesensethereissomethingwrongwithit, effectively exploitedpeople’s fearandlackofknowl to know.” Thecreatorsoftheglobalwarmingdeception tion is,“Ihadmysuspicions,butIdidn’t knowenough and Ibelievewe’reinthe“fight”stage. mate debate,ormoreaccuratelythelackof you win.”I’veexperiencedallphasessofarinthecli Mahatma Gandhireportedlysaid,“Firsttheyignore A frequentcommentafterImakeapublicpresenta to wherewearenow.” some tookdifferentapproachesthatbroughtus rational personembracesthoseconcepts,but resources isfundamentalandself-evident.Every nest andmustlivewithinthelimitsofglobal 1960s. Theideathatweshouldn’t despoilour and gainedacceptanceinwesternsocietythe was anecessaryparadigmshiftthattookshape environmentalism. Hesays:“Environmentalism Nor isheagainsttheenvironment,oreven they’ve changedthetermtoclimatechange. mean human-caused.Duetolackof“warming,” warming alarmistsuse“climatechange,”they human causedescalationofCO2.Whenglobal - - - - - 9TH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON CLIMATE CHANGE THURSDAY • JUNE 26 • 2014 7

Subscribe at nde.washingtontimes.com That’s less than 11¢ a day! a day! than 11¢ less That’s features only available to NDE subscribers.

The Washington Times’ groundbreaking news andNow get The Washington

Sign up today! A one-year subscription is just $39.99. $39.99. is just subscription A one-year Sign up today! The Washington Times’ staffwritten by The Washington plus exclusive columns and long on your tablet or smartphone with the best articles and op-eds new National Digital Edition. The “living newspaper” is updated all daynew National Digital Edition. The “living newspaper”

conservative commentary your mobile device of choice with our right on No MoreNo Waiting! 8 THURSDAY • JUNE 26 • 2014 9TH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON CLIMATE CHANGE CC9 s otd y h Hatad nttt, te ol’ ms poiet hn tn pooig kpiim bu mnmd climate man-made about skepticism promoting tank think prominent most world’s “the Institute, Heartland tion, visitourWeb siteatheartland.orgorcall312/377-4000. The by change” (The Economist). Our mission is to hosted discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems. For more informa- is ICCC-9 To registerfortheevent,or [email protected]. Can’t makeittoVegas? Watch the WTHTELV STREAM LIVE THE WATCH EXHIBITINGANDSPONSORSHIP REGISTRATION Questions? Call312/377-4000 at [email protected] at only$150!ContactTaylor Smith and askforMs.McElrathor at the conference website. Visit at theconferencewebsite.Visit Exhibiting andsponsorship Heartland.org starting at 6:30 p.m. Heartland.org startingat6:30p.m. Live Stream! Every minute of the Live Stream!Everyminuteofthe information aboutpromotional information abouttheprogram, opportunities andprices. opportunities areavailablestarting PDT onMonday, July7andcome reach her via email at reach herviaemailat policy ofclimatechange. presentations onthescienceand back thenexttwodaysforlatest climateconference.heartland.org. conference will be streamed live conference willbestreamedlive speakers, andmore,visit IDEAS THAT EMPOWERPEOPLE A Special Report Prepared By The Washington Times Advocacy Department. Advocacy Times Washington The By Prepared Report A Special ClimateChange International Perspectiveson andAdaptation Climate Change,HumanHealth, ColdWinters theCryosphere,andRecent All ThingsCold—IceAgeConditions, TheBlogosphere Communicating ClimateChange: Costs andBenefitsofRenewableEnergy Solar ScienceandClimate Panels George Christensen ,Ph.D.,andHon. Lunch SpeakersandAwards The RightClimateStuff Who BenefitsfromAlarmism? NIPCC versusIPCC:PhysicalScience ScienceFacts Combating ClimateMythswith ofCarbon Carbon Taxes andtheSocialCost Climate ChangeandtheHydrosphere Panels Patrick Moore,Ph.D.,andJohnColeman Breakfast SpeakersandAwards TUESDAY, JULY 8 Rep. DanaRohrabacher)andAwards Keynote Speakers(JoeBastardiandU.S. 6 p.m.Reception,Dinner, Opening 5 p.m.RegistrationOpens MONDAY, JULY 7 SCHEDULE 3:45 p.m.Conferenceadjourns Global Warming asaSocial Movement The GlobalWarming Debate inAustralia Looking Ahead:FutureClimates Panels James M.Inhofebyvideo Christopher MoncktonandU.S.Sen. Lunch SpeakersandAwards New EstimatesofClimateSensitivity ReliabilityofClimateScience Peer Review, Herding,andthe NIPCC versusIPCC:BiologicalImpacts Dangerous? IsGlobalWarming Rapid and How ReliableAreTemperature Records? Weather andClimateChange HumanWellbeing Climate Change,Water, and Panels Roy Spencer, Ph.D.,andJayLehr, Ph.D. Breakfast SpeakersandAwards WEDNESDAY, JULY 9