DOCSLIB.ORG

Conference Sessions and Schedule

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Conference Sessions and Schedule NINTH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON CLIMATE CHANGE CONFERENCE SESSIONS AND SCHEDULE MONDAY, JULY 7 5:00 p.m. Registration Opens 5:00 – 7:00 p.m. Reception in Exhibit Hall 6:30 – 9:30 p.m. Opening Dinner and Awards Welcome Joseph Bast, president, The Heartland Institute James M. Taylor, senior fellow, The Heartland Institute KEYNOTE Joe Bastardi KEYNOTE U.S. Rep. Dana Rohrabacher AWARD Frederick Seitz Memorial Award AWARD Courage in Defense of Science Award ENTERTAINMENT James Delingpole Kilez More, Austrian Rap Artist TUESDAY, JULY 8 7:00 a.m. Registration Opens 7:00 – 9:30 a.m. Breakfast Speakers and Awards KEYNOTE Patrick Moore, Ph.D. KEYNOTE John Coleman AWARD Speaks Truth To Power Award AWARD Outstanding Spokesperson on Faith, Science, and Stewardship Award 9:30 – 10:00 a.m. Break 10:00 – 11:00 a.m. Panel 1. Climate Change and the Hydrosphere MODERATOR James Delingpole SPEAKERS William Kininmonth, Ph.D. William Gray, Ph.D. Roy Spencer, Ph.D. 10:00 – 11:00 a.m. Panel 2. Carbon Taxes and the Social Cost of Carbon MODERATOR James Johnston SPEAKERS Ken Haapala Marlo Lewis, Ph.D. David Kreutzer, Ph.D. 10:00 – 11:00 a.m. Panel 3. Combating Climate Myths with Science Facts MODERATOR Norman Rogers SPEAKERS Tom Harris James M. Taylor, J.D. Anthony Watts 11:00 – 11:30 a.m. Refreshments in the Exhibit Hall 11:30 a.m. – 12:30 p.m. Panel 4. NIPCC versus IPCC: Physical Science MODERATOR Craig Idso, Ph.D. SPEAKERS Willie Soon, Ph.D. S. Fred Singer, Ph.D. Robert M. Carter, Ph.D. 4 CLIMATECONFERENCE.HEARTLAND.ORG FINAL PROGRAM CONFERENCE SESSIONS AND SCHEDULE TUESDAY, JULY 8 11:30 a.m.- 12:30 p.m. Panel 5. Who Benefits from Alarmism? MODERATOR James Johnston SPEAKERS Ron Arnold Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, Ph.D. Larry Bell 11:30 a.m.- 12:30 p.m. Panel 6. The Right Climate Stuff MODERATOR Leighton Steward SPEAKERS Thomas Wysmuller Hal Doiron, Ph.D. Walter Cunningham 12:30 – 12:45 p.m. Break 12:45 – 2:30 p.m. Lunch Speakers and Awards KEYNOTE Patrick Michaels, Ph.D. KEYNOTE Hon. George Christensen VIDEO Craig Rucker CFACT Video AWARD Excellence in Climate Science Communications Award AWARD Climate Science Whistleblower Award 2:30 – 2:45 p.m. Break 2:45 – 3:45 p.m. Panel 7. Solar Science and Climate MODERATOR Jay Lehr, Ph.D. SPEAKERS Sebastian Lüning, Ph.D. Habibullo Abdussamatov, Dr. Sci. Willie Soon, Ph.D. 2:45 – 3:45 p.m. Panel 8. Costs and Benefits of Renewable Energy MODERATOR Tiffany Roberts SPEAKERS Howard Hayden, Ph.D. Steve Goreham Marita Noon 2:45 – 3:45 p.m. Panel 9. Communicating Climate Change: The Blogosphere MODERATOR Craig Rucker SPEAKERS Marc Morano Tony Heller (Steve Goddard) Russell Cook 3:45 – 4:15 p.m. Refreshments in the Exhibit Hall 4:15 – 5:15 p.m. Panel 10. All Things Cold – Ice Age Conditions, the Cryosphere, and Recent Cold Winters MODERATOR Craig Idso, Ph.D. SPEAKERS Howard Hayden, Ph.D. Joseph D’Aleo Fred Goldberg, Ph.D. CLIMATECONFERENCE.HEARTLAND.ORG 5 NINTH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON CLIMATE CHANGE CONFERENCE SESSIONS AND SCHEDULE TUESDAY, JULY 8 4:15 – 5:15 p.m. Panel 11. Climate Change, Human Health, and Adaptation MODERATOR Samuel T. Karnick SPEAKERS Craig Loehle, Ph.D. John Dale Dunn, M.D. Myron Ebell 4:15 – 5:15 p.m. Panel 12. International Perspectives on Climate Change MODERATOR Madhav Khandekar, Ph.D. SPEAKERS Lord Christopher Monckton Hon. Barry Brill Sebastian Lüning, Ph.D. Dinner on your own WEDNESDAY, JULY 9 7:00 a.m. Registration Opens 7:00 – 9:00 a.m. Breakfast Speakers and Awards KEYNOTE Roy Spencer, Ph.D. KEYNOTE Jay Lehr, Ph.D. AWARD Voice of Reason Award AWARD Outstanding Evangelical Climate Scientist Award 9:30 – 10:00 a.m. Break 10:00 – 11:00 a.m. Panel 13. Climate Change, Water, and Human Wellbeing MODERATOR John Dale Dunn, M.D., J.D. SPEAKERS Jennifer Marohasy, Ph.D. Nils-Axel Mörner, Ph.D. S. Fred Singer, Ph.D. 10:00 – 11:00 a.m. Panel 14. Weather and Climate Change MODERATOR Paul Driessen, J.D. SPEAKERS Madhav Khandekar, Ph.D. Joe Bastardi Stanley Goldenberg 10:00 – 11:00 a.m. Panel 15. How Reliable Are Temperature Records? Is Global Warming Rapid and Dangerous? MODERATOR Norman Rogers SPEAKERS Anthony Watts Richard Keen, Ph.D. Larry Gould, Ph.D. 11:00 – 11:30 a.m. Break 6 CLIMATECONFERENCE.HEARTLAND.ORG FINAL PROGRAM CONFERENCE SESSIONS AND SCHEDULE WEDNESDAY, JULY 9 11:30 a.m. – 12:30 p.m. Panel 16. NIPCC versus IPCC: Biological Impacts MODERATOR Craig Rucker SPEAKERS Craig Loehle, Ph.D. Craig Idso, Ph.D. 11:30 a.m. – 12:30 p.m. Panel 17. Peer Review, Herding, and the Reliability of Climate Science MODERATOR Tom Harris SPEAKERS Patrick Michaels, Ph.D. Tim Ball, Ph.D. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, Ph.D. 11:30 a.m. – 12:30 p.m. Panel 18. New Estimates of Climate Sensitivity MODERATOR Myron Ebell SPEAKERS Robert Armstrong Anthony Lupo, Ph.D. Olavi Kärner, Ph.D. 12:30 – 12:45 p.m. Break 12:45 – 2:30 p.m. Lunch Speakers and Awards KEYNOTE Christopher Monckton KEYNOTE U.S. Sen. James Inhofe by video VIDEO Trailer of the movie Blue AWARD Surprise Award AWARD Lifetime Achievement in Climate Science Award 2:30 – 2:45 p.m. Break 2:45 – 3:45 p.m. Panel 19. Looking Ahead: Future Climates MODERATOR Marlo Lewis, Ph.D. SPEAKERS Don Easterbrook, Ph.D. Willis Eschenbach Terrence Flower, Ph.D. 2:45 – 3:45 p.m. Panel 20. The Global Warming Debate in Australia MODERATOR Robert Carter, Ph.D. SPEAKERS Hon. George Christensen Jennifer Marohasy, Ph.D. William Kininmonth, Ph.D. 2:45 – 3:45 p.m. Panel 21. Global Warming as a Social Movement MODERATOR Minnesota State Rep. Pat Garofalo SPEAKERS E. Calvin Beisner, Ph.D. Paul Driessen, J.D. Peter Ferrara, J.D. 3:45 p.m. Adjourn CLIMATECONFERENCE.HEARTLAND.ORG 7.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Force-Of-Nature-Global-Warming
    Environmental–Maniac–Activists rely upon lies, fear–mongering, misconceptions, coercion, threats, deceptions, terror, and paranoid conspiracies. They concoct fraudulent and non–existent alarmist issues such as the so–called global warming as well as the alleged threat of pest control products ! These Enviro–Basterds cannot be trusted ! ARE STUDENTS LEARNING ABOUT THE CORRUPTION OF CLIMATE SCIENCE ? May 20 th , 2010 Tim Ball Canada Free Press BIASED INFORMATION CONTINUES The mainstream media actively promoted global warming, then effectively ig- nored evidence of CORRUPT CLIMATE SCIENCE , and essentially ignored the whitewash investigations of the activities of members of the Climatic Research Unit ( CRU ) and members of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ( IPCC ). They promoted Al Gore ’s movie « An Inconvenient Truth », yet ignored the evidence of MAJOR SCIENTIFIC ERRORS . They quickly condemned Martin Durkin ’s documentary « The Great Global Warming Swindle » because of one small error on a graph. Durkin withheld the DVD until the error was corrected. Al Gore ’s movie is still shown UNCORRECTED in most schools, although a United Kingdom court ordered the government to have teachers advise students of the BIAS AND ERRORS . It appears little has changed in the schools. Some teachers are giving both sides of the story, but they appear to be the exception. But why would a teacher change or be willing to present both sides ? Governments continue to push the arguments based on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ( IPCC ) research. They were COMPLICIT in the WHITE- WASH investigations, and need the tax and control Cap and Trade provides. Most of the change in the schools comes from students who do some investiga- tion, often triggered by YouTube videos.
    [Show full text]
  • February 15, 2020) Brought to You by SEPP ( the Science and Environmental Policy Project
    The Week That Was: 2020-02-15 (February 15, 2020) Brought to You by SEPP (www.SEPP.org) The Science and Environmental Policy Project Quote of the Week: “"Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore, be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean everything or nothing at pleasure." — Thomas Jefferson (1823) Number of the Week: January 1736 THIS WEEK: By Ken Haapala, President, Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) Future Emissions Down, Climate Sensitivity Up? Writing in American Thinker, Anthony Watts draws attention to a surprising article in one of the climate establishment’s journals, Nature. In that article by Zeke Hausfather and Glen Peters, the authors point out that great increases in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are unlikely to take place in the 21st century. Thus, the world will not warm as much as claimed using the standard modeling assumptions common to the global climate models used by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The authors propose that the IPCC modelers moderate their extreme emissions scenario, their storyline. The unlikely possibility of the extreme increase in CO2 emissions has been addressed by many sceptics, such as Judith Curry and Roy Spencer, and in the Reports of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC). Further, the comprehensive physical evidence of warming of the atmosphere, where the greenhouse effect occurs, does not show a dangerous warming as CO2 is increasing. The scenarios used are secondary to the main issue, the sensitivity of temperatures in the earth’s atmosphere to increasing CO2.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Global Climate Change
    1 U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Global Climate Change. https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/arctic-sea-ice/ 2 Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) First Assessment Report 1990, s 224. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/climate-change-the-ipcc-1990-and-1992-assessments/ 3 U.S. department of Energy, Projecting the Climatic Effects of Increasing Carbon Dioxide, December 1985, s 152. https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/5885458 4 Understanding Climate Change, A program for Action, National Academy of Sciences 1975, s. 148, https://ia801806.us.archive.org/7/items/understandingcli00unit/understandingcli00unit.pdf 5 Graf från Tony Heller, https://realclimatescience.com/2019/03/nasa-tampering-with-reykjavik-raw- temperature-data/. Aktuella temperaturdata för Reykjavik från NASA (justerade): https://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/stdata_show_v4.cgi?id=IC000004030&dt=1&ds=14 6 Ole Humlum, www.climate4you.com. Datakälla: HadCRUT4, Hadley Climate Research Unit, University of East Anglia. 7 Multisensor Analyzed Sea Ice Extent (MASIE) från National Ice Center (NIC) och Sea Ice Index (SII) från National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) tillhörande National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). https://www.climatedepot.com/2019/10/02/2019-arctic-ice-demise-deferred- again/ 8 Pan-Arctic Ice Ocean Modeling and Assimilation System (PIOMAS) vid Polar Science Center. https://psc.apl.washington.edu/research/projects/arctic-sea-ice-volume-anomaly/ 9 United States Geological Survey. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Glacierbaymap.gif 10 Jim Steele. https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=270&v=UaZb0r4G_Gc 11 Jim Steele. https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=270&v=UaZb0r4G_Gc 12 Polarportal.
    [Show full text]
  • RANGE Magazine-Winter 2013-Climate Fraud
    WI13 10.16 to QG_RANGE template.q 10/16/12 11:26 AM Page 62 Climate Fraud & the Decline of America The more that research shows mankind is not causing most global warming, the more shrill the warming alarmists become. Worse, our public schools are teaching our kids that man-caused warming is an absolute fact. By Michael S. Coffman, Ph.D. sk any school-aged child if man is caus- What Does Research Show? that drives the man-caused global-warming ing global warming and he or she will Past articles in RANGE have discussed the theory. Is it correct? Not so much! It turns Atell you with absolute certainty that “Yes alleged role of CO2 in man-caused global out that there are huge errors introduced in we are, and we must stop it!” After all, public- warming. The warming theory is not based the ground temperature data. For instance, school students have been barraged for more on CO2 and other greenhouse gases that the historic standard used for thermometer than two decades with false information that directly cause the warming. Instead, CO2 site location is around 100 feet from the man-caused CO2 is a dangerous pollutant causes cumulonimbus cloud formation nearest obstacle that may affect temperature that is causing earth-destroying global (thunderstorms) in the tropics, which puts and wind flow, and the site must be sur- warming. more moisture and high-elevation cirrus rounded by grass or natural soil. However, Rare is the teacher who has done the sim- clouds in the tropical upper troposphere and good site location is very rare today.
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Engineering Newsletter 16 June 2014
    ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING NEWSLETTER 16 JUNE 2014 This week's edition includes: If you need older URLs contact George at [email protected]. Please Note: This newsletter contains articles that offer differing points of view regarding climate change, energy and other environmental issues. Any opinions expressed in this publication are the responses of the readers alone and do not represent the positions of the Environmental Engineering Division or the ASME. George Holliday This week's edition includes: 1. ENVIRONMENT A U.S. SUPREME COURT HOLDS STATUTE OF REPOSE IS NOT PREEMPTED BY CERCLA FEDERALLY REQUIRED COMMENCEMENT DATE On June 9, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 7-2 decision that a North Carolina statute of repose is not preempted by the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA). CTS Corp. v. Waldburger et al., No. 13-399 (June 9, 2014). The North Carolina statute of repose requires that tort lawsuits must be brought within 10 years after the defendant’s last culpable act. The Supreme Court, reversing the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, distinguished statutes of repose from statutes of limitations, which are preempted by CERCLA in certain circumstances. CERCLA preempts state statutes of limitations to the extent that they conflict with CERCLA’s approach that the limitations period begins to run only when the plaintiff discovers, or reasonably should have discovered, that the harm was caused by the contaminant. The Supreme Court distinguished the objective of a statute of repose—to provide finality to defendants after a legislatively-determined period of time following the culpable conduct—with the objective of a statute of limitations—to encourage plaintiffs to bring lawsuits in a timely manner.
    [Show full text]
  • Tim Ball Has an Extensive Science
    Number 52 WITH TIM BALL, HISTORICAL CLIMATOLOGIST Tim Ball has an extensive science background in climatology, especially experience in water resources and areas of sustainable development, pollution prevention, environmental regulations and the impact of government policy on business and economics. He is a regular contributing writer for Country Guide magazine and a researcher/author of numerous papers on climate, long range weather patterns, impacts of climate change on sustainable agriculture, ecosystems, historical climatology, air quality, untapped energy resources, silting and flooding problems. After a long academic career at the University of Winnipeg, he moved to Victoria in 1996. He has a B.A. from the University of Winnipeg, an M.A. from the University of Manitoba and a PH.D. (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England. He was interviewed before his speech to the Frontier Centre for Public Policy in Winnipeg on Friday, November 5, 2004. Frontier Centre: We are all familiar with the modern they are now growing. So, yes, it would have a devastating theory that the world’s climate is getting warmer. Is it? effect. The main reason, of course, is that Canada is right at the northern limits of agriculture. Tim Ball: Yes, it warmed from 1680 up to 1940, but since 1940 it’s been cooling down. The evidence for warming is FC: If, as you fear, we are in a cycle of cooling, how because of distorted records. The satellite data, for catastrophic might the economic consequences be for example, shows cooling. us? FC: Could you summarize the evidence that suggests TB: I don’t like to look at things in terms of catastrophes, the world is cooling slightly, not warming up? that is the thing the global warming people are playing.
    [Show full text]
  • Timothy F. Ball
    Tags: Friends Of Science, Friends of Science, Natural Resource Stewardship Project, Nrsp, NRSP, Tim Ball, tim ball, timothy f ball, tom harris Timothy F. Ball Ball and the oil industry Ball is listed as a "consultant" of a Calgary-based global warming skeptic organization called the "Friends of Science" (FOS). Ball is also listed as an "Executive" for a Canadian group called the "Natural Resource Stewardship Project," (NRSP) a lobby organization that refuses to disclose its funding sources. DeSmog recently uncovered information showing that two of the founding directors of the NRSP are lobbyists for the energy sector. Ball and the oil industry In a January 28, 2007 article in the Toronto Star, the President of the Friends of Science admitted that about one-third of the funding for the FOS is provided by the oil industry. In an August 2006 Globe and Mail feature, FOS was exposed as being funded in part by the oil and gas sector and hiding this fact. According to the Globe and Mail, the oil industry money was funnelled through the Calgary Foundation charity to the University of Calgary and then put into an education trust for the FOS. Ball inflates credentials Ball and the organizations he is affiliated with have repeatedly made the claim that he is the "first Canadian PhD in climatology." Even further, Ball once claimed he was "one of the first climatology PhD's in the world." As many people have pointed out, there have been many PhD's in the field prior to Ball. Ball and the NRSP Ball is listed as an "Executive" for a Canadian group called the "Natural Resource Stewardship Project," (NRSP) a lobby organization that refuses to disclose its funding sources.
    [Show full text]
  • UNSOLICITED ADVICE Eugene Martin My First Week of Graduate School, Back at the University of Florida, Was This Last Part Sometimes Requires an Intervention
    Issue 71 September 2010 A NEWSLETTER OF THE ROCKEFELLER UNIVERSITY COMMUNITY UNSOLICITED ADVICE Eugene Martin My first week of graduate school, back at the University of Florida, was This last part sometimes requires an intervention. a lab course focused on molecular and protein analysis techniques. The fact that you’re getting a doctorate in Biology makes friends When I asked the professor why we were doing these techniques, he and relatives ask you about their health issues. Even after explaining basically said, “Over the last few years we’ve realized that a lot of you the difference between ap h.d. and an m.d they will still assume you’re [first year students] are terrible at them.” Let there be no mistake, after being trained as an m.d. That said, I urge you not to diagnose the mala- that first week of graduate school I was still pretty terrible at these tech- dies of your friends and relatives. It’s fun when you’re correct, but it is niques, but I also learned my first lesson of graduate school—I wasn’t so easy to be wrong. And then it’s a knock on your credibility and it supposed to know how to do science yet. It’s nice to be reminded that puts people at risk. Secondly, when people have incurable diseases, it graduate school is a place to admit what you don’t know, be it a tech- is tempting to tell them about the potential science has for that disease. nique, concept, or fact, and then to try to fill If you choose to do this, do so with caution.
    [Show full text]
  • Climate Change Deniers
    Climate science deniers’ credibility tested davidsuzuki.org/story/climate-science-deniers-credibility-tested We base our arguments about environmental issues on sound research and evidence. Sometimes people challenge us — which is often positive, as informed debate leads to greater knowledge. But many challenges come from people with suspect motives. In comments, letters and opinion articles, people spread nonsense from the likes of Ezra Levant, Tim Ball, Tom Harris and Patrick Moore. “David Suzuki owns an island with an oil company!” they write, among other absurdities — usually personal attacks that have nothing to do with the article under discussion. That tidbit is one of Levant’s many false and misleading statements. Several people bought land on the island to protect it from development, including a couple whose family ran a small household heating-oil distribution company in the 1950s and ’60s. Beyond containing logical fallacies and personal attacks, the arguments aren’t credible. That’s clear from a legal case against Tim Ball, a retired University of Winnipeg geography professor with connections to anti-climate-science organizations like the misnamed, industry-funded Friends of Science and the defunct Natural Resources Stewardship Project. Canadian climate scientist and now B.C. Green Party leader Andrew Weaver sued Ball in 2011 for an article on the Canada Free Press website (since removed). A B.C. Supreme Court judge recently dismissed the suit, but for a strange reason. “While the Article is derogatory of Dr. Weaver, it is not defamatory, in that the impugned words do not genuinely threaten Dr. Weaver’s reputation in the minds of reasonably thoughtful and informed readers,” Justice Ronald Skolrood wrote.
    [Show full text]
  • Greenpeace Letter to Chales Koch
    702 H Street, NW, Suite 300, Washington, DC 20001 Tel: 202-462-1177 • Fax: 202-462-4507 Mr. Charles Koch Chairman and CEO, Koch Industries P.O. Box 2256 Wichita, KS 67201-2256 Dear Mr. Koch, As you know, one of your grant recipients – Dr. Richard Muller of University of California Berkeley – recently published an op-ed in the New York Times about his “total turnaround” from climate skepticism based on the results of his latest study. The Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation granted at least $150,000 to Dr. Muller’s Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) study. Dr. Muller’s results are consistent with decades of scientific evidence, fully convincing him that global warming is happening and “humans are almost entirely the cause.” 1 Based on Dr. Muller’s evidence and the views of virtually all climate scientists, I am writing to inquire about the influence of these findings on your previously expressed skepticism about climate change. Dr. Muller explained in a recent Greenpeace Radio interview that he spoke directly with you about the BEST project and your personal interest in his analysis: “I did talk to Charles Koch. He emphasized from the beginning that he was concerned about valid issues in the science. He wanted us to straighten out those issues. He didn’t know what answer we would get. He just wanted it to be put on a solid, firm foundation. That’s what we’ve done.” 2 For years, you and your brother, David Koch, have directly provided over $61 million to organizations that deny science and cast doubt on global climate change, in addition to millions more in hidden funding through your “Knowledge and Progress Fund.” This includes support for the Heartland Institute, which is currently supporting a project run by the retired TV weatherman Anthony Watts in attempts to discredit the results of the BEST study.
    [Show full text]
  • Expressing Solar IEEE SCV-PV – Feb 11, 2015
    Expressing Solar IEEE SCV-PV – Feb 11, 2015 Doug McKenzie [email protected] Who’s Doug*? LightsOnSolar.com NorCalSolar.org SunWork.org *Also: career coach at AspirationalCoaching.com 2/11/2015 Expressing Solar - Doug McKenzie - Lights On Solar 2 Tonight • Climate Change • Solar Growth • Communicating Climate & Solar • Call to Action 2/11/2015 Expressing Solar - Doug McKenzie - Lights On Solar 3 Climate Change RCP* 2.6, 4.5, 6.0, 8.5 RCP 8.5: 8°F ≈ 4.4° C RCP 6.0: 5°F ≈ 2.8°C RCP 4.5: 4.3°F ≈ 2.4°C 3.6°F = 2° C *RCP = IPCC AR5 (2014) Representative Concentration Pathways: eg: 8.5 watts/m2 chg in radiative forcing. Graphs are from the US National Climate Assessment, May 2014, Full Report, pg 755 2/11/2015 Expressing Solar - Doug McKenzie - Lights On Solar 4 Climate Change • Is happening now • Will get worse, probably a lot worse. IPCC AR5 Summary for Policymakers (2014): Without additional mitigation efforts … warming by the end of the 21st century will lead to high to very high risk of severe, widespread, and irreversible impacts globally. In most scenarios without additional mitigation efforts , warming is more likely than not to exceed 4°C above pre-industrial levels by 2100. The risks associated with temperatures at or above 4°C include substantial species extinction, global and regional food insecurity, consequential constraints on common human activities, and limited potential for adaptation in some cases. • May get outrageously worse – If trillions of tons of methane hydrates and permafrost melt 2/11/2015 Expressing Solar - Doug
    [Show full text]
  • Reliable Science: Overcoming Public Doubts in the Climate Change Debate
    William & Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review Volume 37 (2012-2013) Issue 1 Article 6 November 2012 Reliable Science: Overcoming Public Doubts in the Climate Change Debate Michelle S. Simon William Pentland Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmelpr Part of the Environmental Law Commons Repository Citation Michelle S. Simon and William Pentland, Reliable Science: Overcoming Public Doubts in the Climate Change Debate, 37 Wm. & Mary Envtl. L. & Pol'y Rev. 219 (2012), https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmelpr/vol37/iss1/6 Copyright c 2012 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmelpr RELIABLE SCIENCE: OVERCOMING PUBLIC DOUBTS IN THE CLIMATE CHANGE DEBATE MICHELLE S. SIMON* & WILLIAM PENTLAND** INTRODUCTION ........................................... 219 I. THE DEBATE ABOUT CLIMATE SCIENCE: WHAT IT IS AND WHY IT EXISTS ..................................... 224 A. Uncertainties of the Science .................... 226 B. Judgments and Assumptions in the Analysis ...... 227 C. The Framing of the Issue ...................... 229 II. THE IPCC—WHAT IT IS AND WHY IT HAS NOT BEEN SUCCESSFUL ....................................... 232 A. What IPCC Is ............................... 232 B. Why the IPCC’s Assessments Have Not Been Effective Within the United States ............... 234 III. DAUBERT AND ITS PROGENY: A MODEL FOR EXAMINING SCIENCE .......................................... 237 A. History of the Legal Standard for the Admissibility of Evidence ................................. 237 B. Parallels Between the Issues Presented by the Frye Test and the IPCC’s Approach .................. 241 IV. A NEW FRAMEWORK FOR REVIEWING IPCC ASSESSMENTS ... 248 A. The Agency Structure and Role ................. 249 B. Applying the Framework to a Climate Change Model .....................................
    [Show full text]