DOCSLIB.ORG

Speakers at the 2009 International Conference on Climate Change

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Speakers at the 2009 International Conference on Climate Change 12/10/2015 The Heartland Institute - Confirmed Speakers at the 2009 International Conference on Climate Change speakers last updated: March 5, 2009 The complete program for the 2009 International Conference on Climate Change, including cosponsor information and brief biographies of all speakers, can be downloaded in Adobe's PDF format here. More than 70 of the world’s elite scientists, economists and others specializing in climate issues will confront the subject of global warming at the second annual International Conference on Climate Change March 8­10, 2009 in New York City. They will call attention to new research that contradicts claims that Earth’s moderate warming during the twentieth century primarily was man­made and has reached crisis proportions. Headliners among the 70­plus presenters will be: American astronaut Dr. Jack Schmitt—the last living man to walk on the moon. William Gray, Colorado State University, leading researcher into tropical weather patterns. Richard Lindzen, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, one of the world’s leading experts in dynamic meteorology, especially planetary waves. Stephen McIntyre, primary author of Climate Audit, a blog devoted to the analysis and discussion of climate data. He is a devastating critic of the temperature record of the past 1,000 years, particularly the work of Michael E. Mann, creator of the infamous “hockey stick” graph. That graph­­thoroughly discredited in scientific circles­­supposedly proved that mankind is responsible for a sharp increase in earth temperatures. Arthur Robinson, curator of a global warming petition signed by more than 32,000 American scientists, including more than 10,000 with doctorate degrees, rejecting the alarmist assertion that global warming has put the Earth in crisis and is caused primarily by mankind. Willie Soon, Harvard­Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. Roy Spencer, University of Alabama at Huntsville, principal research scientist and team leader on NASA’s Aqua satellite. Subscribe to a podcast of speakers previewing their remarks at the conference! Confirmed speakers at the Second International Conference on Climate Change Syun Akasofu University of Alaska Fairbanks J. Scott Armstrong University of Pennsylvania Dennis Avery Hudson Institute Joseph L. Bast The Heartland Institute Robert Bradley https://web.archive.org/web/20090709224504/http://www.heartland.org/events/NewYork09/speakers.html 1/4 12/10/2015 The Heartland Institute - Confirmed Speakers at the 2009 International Conference on Climate Change Institute for Energy Research Yaron Brook Ayn Rand Institute Bob Carter James Cook University (Australia) Frank Clemente Penn State University John Coleman KUSI­TV, San Diego William Cotton Colorado State University Preview of remarks: http://www.heartland.org/multimedia/podcasts/newyork09/03Cotton.html Joe D’Aleo International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project David Douglass University of Rochester Terry Dunleavy International Climate Science Coalition Myron Ebell Competitive Enterprise Institute Christopher Essex University of Western Ontario Preview of remarks: http://www.heartland.org/multimedia/podcasts/newyork09/04Essex.html Robert Ferguson Science and Public Policy Institute Michelle Foss University of Texas, Center for Energy Economics William Gray Colorado State University Fred Goldberg Royal School of Technology (Sweden) Laurence Gould University of Hartford Kenneth P. Green American Enterprise Institute Kesten Green Monash University Chris Horner Competitive Enterprise Institute Preview of remarks: http://www.heartland.org/multimedia/podcasts/newyork09/02Horner.html Howard Hayden University of Connecticut Craig Idso Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change Roy Innis Congress of Racial Equality Sam Kazman Competitive Enterprise Institute Richard Keen University of Colorado William Kininmonth Former head of the Australian National Climate Center David Legates University of Delaware Jay Lehr The Heartland Institute https://web.archive.org/web/20090709224504/http://www.heartland.org/events/NewYork09/speakers.html 2/4 12/10/2015 The Heartland Institute - Confirmed Speakers at the 2009 International Conference on Climate Change Marlo Lewis Competitive Enterprise Institute Richard Lindzen Massachusetts Institute of Technology Keith Lockitch Ayn Rand Institute Craig Loehle National Council for Air and Stream Improvement Anthony Lupo University of Missouri Steve McIntyre University of Toronto Ross McKitrick University of Guelph (Canada) Patrick Michaels University of Virginia Christopher Monckton Science and Public Policy Institute Preview of remarks: http://www.heartland.org/multimedia/podcasts/newyork09/01Monckton.html Kevin Murphy University of Chicago Joanne Nova Author, The Skeptics Handbook Jim O’Brien Florida State University Tim Patterson Carleton University (Canada) Benny Peiser Liverpool John Moores University (United Kingdom) Paul Reiter Pasteur Institute (France) Arthur Robinson Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine Harrison "Jack" Schmitt Astronaut Joel Schwartz American Enterprise Institute S. Fred Singer Science and Environmental Policy Project Fred Smith Competitive Enterprise Institute Lawrence Solomon National Post (Canada) Willie Soon Harvard­Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics Roy Spencer University of Alabama in Huntsville Hon. John Sununu Former Governor ­ New Hampshire George Taylor Oregon State University James M. Taylor The Heartland Institute Brian Valentine U.S. Department of Energy https://web.archive.org/web/20090709224504/http://www.heartland.org/events/NewYork09/speakers.html 3/4 12/10/2015 The Heartland Institute - Confirmed Speakers at the 2009 International Conference on Climate Change Jan Veizer University of Ottawa (Canada) Anthony Watts SurfaceStations.org Make plans now to attend the Fourth International Conference on Climate Change in Chicago on May 16­18, 2010. https://web.archive.org/web/20090709224504/http://www.heartland.org/events/NewYork09/speakers.html 4/4.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Andrew Montford's the Hockey Stick Illusion Is One of the Best Science
    Andrew Montford‘s The Hockey Stick Illusion is one of the best science books in years. It exposes in delicious detail, datum by datum, how a great scientific mistake of immense political weight was perpetrated, defended and camouflaged by a scientific establishment that should now be red with shame. It is a book about principal components, data mining and confidence intervals—subjects that have never before been made thrilling. It is the biography of a graph. I can remember when I first paid attention to the ―hockey stick‖ graph at a conference in Cambridge. The temperature line trundled along with little change for centuries, then shot through the roof in the 20th century, like the blade of an ice-hockey stick. I had become somewhat of a sceptic about the science of climate change, but here was emphatic proof that the world was much warmer today; and warming much faster than at any time in a thousand years. I resolved to shed my doubts. I assumed that since it had been published in Nature—the Canterbury Cathedral of scientific literature—it was true. I was not the only one who was impressed. The graph appeared six times in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)‘s third report in 2001. It was on display as a backdrop at the press conference to launch that report. James Lovelock pinned it to his wall. Al Gore used it in his film (though describing it as something else and with the Y axis upside down). Its author shot to scientific stardom. ―It is hard to overestimate how influential this study has been,‖ said the BBC.
    [Show full text]
  • A General Theory of Climate Denial Peter J
    A General Theory of Climate Denial Peter J. Jacques A General Theory of Climate Denial • Peter J. Jacques There is now a well-recognized right-wing counter-movement challenging the trend, attribution, impact, and civic implications of orthodox climate change science. Where do the body and spirit of this counter-movement come from? Here I will reºect on some conspicuous questions. First, why have academics, the media, and the counter-movement itself had difªculty naming the counter- movement? Second, why reject the premise of global environmental change at all? Finally, what is the result of the apparent binary choice between the ac- knowledgment of the orthodoxy and its rejection? A General Theory of Denial I will argue that climate denial is an appropriate label consistent with Lang’s “General Theory of Historical Denial.”1 Currently, there is disagreement whether climate “skeptic,” “contrarian,” and “denier” are representative terms.2 I have used the word “skeptic,” but I admit here and elsewhere that it is inappro- priate,3 because the skepticism in environmental skepticism is asymmetrical. As skeptics cast doubt on ecological science, they have an abiding faith in industrial science and technology, free enterprise, and those great institutions of Western Enlightenment.4 Further, skeptics rightfully argue that skepticism is a funda- mental sentiment of rigorous science. Ecological cynicism is then positioned as scientiªc without drawing attention to the asymmetry. Lahsen has successfully used the word “contrarian” to denote the most outspoken leaders of climate rejection, particularly credentialed physicists and climate scientists such as Frederick Seitz, Robert Jastrow, William Nierenberg, Willie Soon, and Sallie Balliunas.
    [Show full text]
  • Richard J. Reed 1922–2008
    Richard J. Reed 1922–2008 A Biographical Memoir by John M. Wallace ©2015 National Academy of Sciences. Any opinions expressed in this memoir are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Academy of Sciences. RICHARD JOHN REED June 18, 1922–February 4, 2008 Elected to the NAS, 1978 Richard John Reed, known to his friends as Dick Reed, was trained as a synoptic meteorologist of the “old school.” He derived aesthetic enjoyment from depicting weather patterns and was exhilarated by the competitive aspect of weather prediction. He practiced weather fore- casting when it was still an art and he was good at it. Upon learning of Reed’s death, his long time friend, Richard Goody remarked, “There is a sense in which Dick’s passing marks the end of an era in American meteorology.” Reed also helped to usher in a new era: he was among the leaders in the late-20th-century revolution that trans- formed weather forecasting from an art into a science. Along the way, Reed surveyed, contemplated, and wrote By John M. Wallace about the wonders of the atmosphere: the long range transport of stratospheric ozone; a remarkable quasi-bi- ennial periodicity in stratospheric winds; sudden warmings of the stratospheric polar cap region; atmospheric tides; clear air turbulence; tropical waves and their embedded deep cumulus convection; severe local wind storms; cyclones over the polar regions; rapidly deepening extratropical cyclones; and bogus sightings of flying saucers. Reflecting back on his diverse array of research interests many years later, Reed reflected, “I was like a kid in a candy shop.” Colleagues and former students fondly recall his high energy level, his boundless curiosity, and his expressive and contagious enthusiasm.
    [Show full text]
  • In the News -- Jan. 29, 2007
    District likely to ask for extension to meet standard BY STACEY SHEPARD, Californian staff writer Bakersfield Californian, Monday, Jan. 29, 2007 Valley air regulators will likely ask for a delay in meeting a federal air standard today. That's when the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District will release its latest draft plan for cleaning up ozone, the main ingredient in smog. The current deadline for reducing ozone to levels mandated by the federal government is 2013. "We really have a problem here that no one else in the country has to face," said Brenda Turner, a spokeswoman for the district. Ozone is created when nitrogen oxides -- emitted from vehicle tailpipes, factories and construction equipment -- react with sunlight. Increased ozone is known to aggravate lung disorders. Ozone tends to become trapped here because of the valley's shape, stagnant air and hot temperatures. To make the 2013 deadline, the valley must cut emissions by nearly 70 percent. To do that, the last version of the cleanup plan, released by the district in October, estimated it would take 7.5 billion in taxpayer dollars to fund incentive programs. Even if money weren't an issue, the district doesn't believe the technology is available yet to make the needed reductions by 2013, Turner said. That's why more time seems to be the only alternative. Potentially, the deadline could be extended out by 10 years to 2023. Doing so would drop the price to fund incentive programs to about $2 billion or less, air district officials have said. The state Air Resources Board decides whether to grant an extension.
    [Show full text]
  • (November 12, 2011) Brought to You by SEPP ( the Science and Environmental Policy Project
    The Week That Was: 2011-11-12 (November 12, 2011) Brought to You by SEPP (www.SEPP.org) The Science and Environmental Policy Project ################################################### Climate Change Reconsidered: 2011 Interim Report S. Fred Singer, Craig Idso, Robert M. Carter – August 29, 2011 Published by Heartland Institute Summary: http://www.nipccreport.org/reports/2011/pdf/FrontMatter.pdf Chapter Review and Full Report http://www.nipccreport.org/reports/2011/2011report.html ################################################### Quote of the Week: “We do not believe any group of men adequate enough or wise enough to operate without scrutiny or without criticism. We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it, that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. We know that in secrecy error undetected will flourish and subvert.” J. Robert Oppenheimer. ################################################### Number of the Week: 20,000 ################################################### THIS WEEK: By Ken Haapala, Executive Vice President, Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) Trust but Verify: The above quote from Robert Oppenheimer highlights a desperately needed attitude in today’s society – including among academics and scientists. It is always too easy to go along and not question even when questions arise. Investigative reporting, such as Donna Laframboise’s exposé of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), needed to be done years ago. Often presidents of universities are chosen more for the business acumen than other qualities. They may treat certain programs as profit centers and may prefer to ignore issues arising within these programs. This week, the President of Penn State University was fired for failure to properly supervise one highly successful program, its football program.
    [Show full text]
  • President Trump's Campaign to Erase the Social Cost of Carbon
    Hidden Costs: President Trump’s Campaign to Erase the Social Cost of Carbon By Alison Cassady April 19, 2017 On March 28, 2017, President Donald Trump signed an executive order that attempts to upend critical components of President Barack Obama’s Climate Action Plan.1 The sweeping executive order directs his Cabinet officials to review and potentially rescind several climate-related rules, including the Clean Power Plan, or CPP—which set the first-ever carbon pollution standards for power plants—and two rules establishing methane pollution limits for oil and gas drilling facilities. The order also ends a morato- rium on coal leasing on public lands, among other policy changes.2 Media coverage focused primarily on these significant rule reversals. But the executive order also rescinds what the chief economist of President Obama’s Council of Economic Advisors called the “the most important figure you’ve never heard of”—the social cost of carbon, or SCC.3 The SCC reflects the marginal economic cost of adding one ton of carbon pollution to the atmosphere or, conversely, the economic benefit of removing one ton. President Obama established an interagency working group to develop the SCC so that federal agencies had a sound basis from which to quantify the benefits of policies to cut carbon pollution and justify those policies relative to their costs. The SCC is currently set at $39 per metric ton in 2007 dollars. Because the SCC plays a key role in validating federal climate policies, fossil fuel interests and their allies in conservative think tanks—many of whom served on the Trump admin- istration’s transition team—have been pushing to eliminate or lower the SCC value.4 The executive order rescinds the current SCC and provides agencies with direction that could result in a SCC value that approaches zero.
    [Show full text]
  • Full Transcript of Inaugural AARST Science Policy Forum, New York Hilton, Friday 20 November 1998, 7–9 Pm
    social epistemology, 2000, vol. 14, nos. 2}3, 131–180 A public debate on the science of global warming: is there su¶ cient evidence which proves we should limit greenhouse gas emissions because of climate change? Full transcript of inaugural AARST Science Policy Forum, New York Hilton, Friday 20 November 1998, 7–9 pm. JAMES E. HANSEN (aµ rmative) PATRICK J. MICHAELS (negative) 1. Moderator’s introductory remarks Dr Gordon R. Mitchell : … You know, it’s been said that rhetoric of science is nothing more than a bunch of covert neo-Aristotelians blowing hot air. Tonight, we plan to test that hypothesis when AARST hosts a public debate about global warming. Before the evening’s arguments cool o¶ , it is our hope that some of the heat and the light produced by this debate will start to melt away a few of the doubts that the rhetoric of science enterprise is a rare ed and detached scholarly project, of little relevance to con- temporary science policy discussions … But before I lay out tonight’s debate format and introduce the participants, I want to talk brie y about the origins of this event. At last year’s AARST preconference gathering in Chicago, Michael Hyde and Steve Fuller issued a charge to those gathered in the audience. This charge basically involved a call for relevance, a plea for ‘measurable outcomes ’ and ‘public engagement ’ in rhetoric of science scholarship. This call to action resonated deeply with my own political commitments, because I believe that privileged members of the academy shoulder a double-sided obligation.
    [Show full text]
  • Energy Environment
    Energy and Environment FREE to PROSPER A Pro-Growth Agenda for the 117th Congress Energy and Environment REJECT THE GREEN NEW DEAL AND SIMILAR CENTRAL PLANNING SCHEMES The Green New Deal (GND), a nonbinding resolution introduced by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) in February 2019, calls for “a new national, social, industrial, and economic mobilization on a scale not seen since World War II and the New Deal era.” The GND envisions a massive expansion of federal spending and regulation to decarbonize the economy while guaranteeing health care, affordable housing, higher education, job training, family-sustaining wages, and retirement security for all. The costs required to achieve that end point are unsustainably large, vastly exceed benefits, and are not scientifically justified. Congress should: ◆ Reject the Green New Deal and similar central-planning schemes. The GND would impose unsustainable costs on the U.S. energy sector, inflate energy prices, depress gross domestic product (GDP) growth, and impoverish American households. A March 2019 study by American Enterprise Institute economist Benjamin Zycher estimates that “meeting 100 percent of the power demand in the United States through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources” would cost $490.5 84 Free to Prosper: A Pro-Growth Agenda for the 117th Congress billion per year, or $3,845 per household. Factoring in the budget cost of the social spending programs required to sustain the pro-GND coalition in Congress and the deadweight loss of the associated tax hikes, Zycher estimates the total annual cost of the GND would be nearly $9 trillion.
    [Show full text]
  • Greenp Eace.Org /Kochindustries
    greenpeace.org/kochindustries Greenpeace is an independent campaigning organization that acts to expose global environmental problems and achieve solutions that are essential to a green and peaceful future. Published March 2010 by Greenpeace USA 702 H Street NW Suite 300 Washington, DC 20001 Tel/ 202.462.1177 Fax/ 202.462.4507 Printed on 100% PCW recycled paper book design by andrew fournier page 2 Table of Contents: Executive Summary pg. 6–8 Case Studies: How does Koch Industries Influence the Climate Debate? pg. 9–13 1. The Koch-funded “ClimateGate” Echo Chamber 2. Polar Bear Junk Science 3. The “Spanish Study” on Green Jobs 4. The “Danish Study” on Wind Power 5. Koch Organizations Instrumental in Dissemination of ACCF/NAM Claims What is Koch Industries? pg. 14–16 Company History and Background Record of Environmental Crimes and Violations The Koch Brothers pg. 17–18 Koch Climate Opposition Funding pg. 19–20 The Koch Web Sources of Data for Koch Foundation Grants The Foundations Claude R. Lambe Foundation Charles G. Koch Foundation David H. Koch Foundation Koch Foundations and Climate Denial pg. 21–28 Lobbying and Political Spending pg. 29–32 Federal Direct Lobbying Koch PAC Family and Individual Political Contributions Key Individuals in the Koch Web pg. 33 Sources pg. 34–43 Endnotes page 3 © illustration by Andrew Fournier/Greenpeace Mercatus Center Fraser Institute Americans for Prosperity Institute for Energy Research Institute for Humane Studies Frontiers of Freedom National Center for Policy Analysis Heritage Foundation American
    [Show full text]
  • A Prediction Market for Climate Outcomes
    Florida State University College of Law Scholarship Repository Scholarly Publications 2011 A Prediction Market for Climate Outcomes Shi-Ling Hsu Florida State University College of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.law.fsu.edu/articles Part of the Environmental Law Commons, Law and Politics Commons, Natural Resources Law Commons, and the Oil, Gas, and Mineral Law Commons Recommended Citation Shi-Ling Hsu, A Prediction Market for Climate Outcomes, 83 U. COLO. L. REV. 179 (2011), Available at: https://ir.law.fsu.edu/articles/497 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Scholarly Publications by an authorized administrator of Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. A PREDICTION MARKET FOR CLIMATE OUTCOMES * SHI-LING HSU This Article proposes a way of introducing some organization and tractability in climate science, generating more widely credible evaluations of climate science, and imposing some discipline on the processing and interpretation of climate information. I propose a two-part policy instrument consisting of (1) a carbon tax that is indexed to a “basket” of climate outcomes, and (2) a cap-and- trade system of emissions permits that can be redeemed in the future in lieu of paying the carbon tax. The amount of the carbon tax in this proposal (per ton of CO2) would be set each year on the basis of some objective, non-manipulable climate indices, such as temperature and mean sea level, and also on the number of certain climate events, such as flood events or droughts, that occurred in the previous year (or some moving average of previous years).
    [Show full text]
  • The Disclosure of Climate Data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia
    House of Commons Science and Technology Committee The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia Eighth Report of Session 2009–10 Volume II Oral and written evidence Ordered by The House of Commons to be printed 24 March 2010 HC 387-II Published on 31 March 2010 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £0.00 The Science and Technology Committee The Science and Technology Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration and policy of the Government Office for Science. Under arrangements agreed by the House on 25 June 2009 the Science and Technology Committee was established on 1 October 2009 with the same membership and Chairman as the former Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Committee and its proceedings were deemed to have been in respect of the Science and Technology Committee. Current membership Mr Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)(Chair) Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham) Mr Tim Boswell (Conservative, Daventry) Mr Ian Cawsey (Labour, Brigg & Goole) Mrs Nadine Dorries (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire) Dr Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West & Abingdon) Dr Brian Iddon (Labour, Bolton South East) Mr Gordon Marsden (Labour, Blackpool South) Dr Doug Naysmith (Labour, Bristol North West) Dr Bob Spink (Independent, Castle Point) Ian Stewart (Labour, Eccles) Graham Stringer (Labour, Manchester, Blackley) Dr Desmond Turner (Labour, Brighton Kemptown) Mr Rob Wilson (Conservative, Reading East) Powers The Committee is one of the departmental Select Committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No.152.
    [Show full text]
  • Volume 3: Process Issues Raised by Petitioners
    EPA’s Response to the Petitions to Reconsider the Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act Volume 3: Process Issues Raised by Petitioners U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Atmospheric Programs Climate Change Division Washington, D.C. 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 3.0 Process Issues Raised by Petitioners............................................................................................5 3.1 Approaches and Processes Used to Develop the Scientific Support for the Findings............................................................................................................................5 3.1.1 Overview..............................................................................................................5 3.1.2 Issues Regarding Consideration of the CRU E-mails..........................................6 3.1.3 Assessment of Issues Raised in Public Comments and Re-Raised in Petitions for Reconsideration...............................................................................7 3.1.4 Summary............................................................................................................19 3.2 Response to Claims That the Assessments by the USGCRP and NRC Are Not Separate and Independent Assessments.........................................................................20 3.2.1 Overview............................................................................................................20 3.2.2 EPA’s Response to Petitioners’
    [Show full text]