Climate change conference

The Heartland Institute is keeping up its campaign on climate change. Following their 2nd conference earlier this year in New York (sponsored by the ALS), they are now hosting a 3rd conference in Washington DC on 2 June. The ALS will again sponsor the event and will be represented there by ALS board member Tim Andrews. If you are in the area and would like to go, please e-mail me. 


Please note that the ALS does not necessarily endorse all the ideas expressed at the conference. Given the diversity of opinions in the heterodox camp, it would be impossible to agree with everything.

34 thoughts on “Climate change conference

  1. I’ve got a comment!
    If you have all followed my suggestion, and regularly read The Australian, you would have seen Ian Pilmer’s column.
    For those benighted souls that missed it, he talks about climate change. Specifically, he raised one very interesting point. In studies of the past, we find evidence of an 800 year lag between the atmosphere heating up, and the release of carbon into the atmosphere. The Mediaeval Warming period was about 800 years ago- so extra carbon in the air could be the result of whatever natural process released it in previous ages!
    I hadn’t thought of that, but it’s a valid objection.

  2. John:

    You realize this will send Lambert crazy and thermo nuclear as well lol.

    Bird and Lambert at either end of the spectrum. Two lunatics you have to contend with :-).

  3. Nicholas – the lag has been discussed to death. I do think it is interesting but it hasn’t previously discouraged the AGW proponents so I doubt it is going to suddenly start doing so now.

  4. The ALS will again sponsor the event …

    I’d be interested to know what this means?

  5. The online flier for this Conference states:

    “The real science and economics of climate change support the view that global warming is not a crisis and that immediate action to reduce emissions is not necessary. This is, in fact, the emerging consensus view of scientists outside the IPCC and most economists outside environmental advocacy groups”. (my bold).

    It is a bit ambiguous but the suggestion is that a significant body of work is emerging in science and economics outside the IPCC that AGW is not a threat.

    That suggestion seems false. The overwhelming majority view around the world – Europe, the US even countries like China – in scientific/economic establishments supports the IPPC view even though they are often separate from it. For example the influential Stern and Garnaut reviews endorse it.

    I am not saying the majority have it right because they are the majority but they are the majority. Of course I do support concern over AGW.

    It is also interesting that a proposed scientific/economic ‘debate’ is initiated with such a political statement.

  6. The reference to “real science” is also odd. I may be sceptical about the AGW theory but I don’t think we should be dismissive.

  7. From the latest Journal of Economic Perspectives.

    Only 14 estimates of the total damage cost of climate change have been published, a research effort that is in sharp contrast to the urgency of the public debate and the proposed expenditure on greenhouse gas emission reduction.

  8. It’s important to distinguish between the view that (1) AGW is not happening; and (2) AGW is not a serious crisis. While few scientists take the first position, the second position I think is quite common.

    Stern & Garnaut are not representative of the economics profession. Indeed, Stern was well outside the orthodox approach. An economic “denialist” or “delusionist” if you will.

    [JC — fostering a positive friendly atmosphere on the blog requires that we treat everybody (including hc) with a bit of respect. By all means disagree with the ideas, but lets stick on topic and avoid the personal references.]

  9. I wouldn’t say there is any level of agreement on any definitive science stating that the ‘A’ has a role in the ‘GW’. And I wouldn’t say there is any level of agreement on any definitive science which explains the nature of the ‘GW’. Most of the noise comes from non-scientists.

  10. JohnH

    Harold is using the well worn lambert method of “debate”, which is to nit pick some irrelevant point.

    He brings up Garnaut and Stern. Neither of those two jokers are scientists. Garnaut’s report was the equivalent of a train wreck while Stern couldn’t even apply a proper discount rate.

    Let’s recall that Harry believes cow farts have a material effect on the climate. However he thinks burps aren’t as bad. Lord almighty, this is what we’re dealing with.

    I highly recommend the first Heartland conference : Richard Lindzen really hit the ball out of the ball park.

  11. “Let’s recall that Harry believes cow farts have a material effect on the climate. However he thinks burps aren’t as bad. Lord almighty, this is what we are dealing with”.

    I have never said or written this. [beep]. I have said that agricultural emissions are a significant fraction of GGEs and I have pointed out that inefficient, ruminant digestive systems release much methane – most of which is belched out.

  12. JC – I don’t see what your complaint is. Are you disputing that agriculture is a signficant source of CO2e emissions?

  13. I guess significant depends on what we’re talking about. Agriculture GGEs are certainly quite significant in New Zealand, where they make up over a third of their emissions. Much less in most other countries.

    But then it must be remembered that the methane level in the atmosphere seems to have stabilized, so this might not be much of a concern anyway.

    There is a common misconception that the agricultural GGEs come predominantly cow farts. My understanding is the same as hc, that it is belching. But that’s just trivia.

    [Once again I had to delete some posts. Once again I will ask nicely that people only write what they would say in person around a polite dinner table with their mum there. It is possible to discuss issues without things turning nasty. And yes JC… that includes copying previous nasty comments from other people.]

  14. This is an example of why I would argue divergent views such as the Heartland Institute are good. This guy ahs shown why the temperature reconstuction by a peer reviewed work is wrong.


    With the exception of the RegEM verification, all of the verification statistics listed above were performed exactly (split reconstruction) or analogously (restricted 15 predictor reconstruction) by Steig in the Nature paper. In all cases, our reconstruction shows significantly more skill than the Steig reconstruction. So if these are the metrics by which we are to judge this type of reconstruction, ours is objectively superior.

    As before, I would qualify this by saying that not all of the errors and uncertainties have been quantified yet, so I’m not comfortable putting a ton of stock into any of these reconstructions. However, I am perfectly comfortable saying that Steig’s reconstruction is not a faithful representation of Antarctic temperatures over the past 50 years and that ours is closer to the mark.

    By the way, Steig has been an authority on Arctic warming.

  15. So the argument is about whether it’s farts or belches from animals that comprises the agricultural GGEs?


    My guess is someone will come up with the most life-boat-esque complaint to this so this technology gets banned.

    Probably more to do with their ego and banking on mitigation so much. It would actually hurt their feelings someone came up with a productivity boosting technology that is clean and green and needs no subsidies.

  17. Terje, I had heard about the lag, but hadn’t realised you could apply it to recent history. An oversight on my part.

  18. Yep, Sinc it’s the burps not the farts.

    I guess it all depends which way the wind is blowing.

  19. The ALS will be joined in Washington by Senator Fielding. Maybe you should pass around some LSD and have a group hug.

  20. Terje, I agree, in general, but maybe in this case some LSD would straighten out minds. Afterwards a prayer meeting.

  21. So Harry, you’re not against biochar?

    A loaded, but pertinent question with more substance than your spiteful mischaracterisation of a Family First Senator.

  22. You should always encourage everyone to pray!
    1) It will keep them off the streets.
    2) It will create group harmony.
    3) Prayer is a way of directing telekinesis, of which we all have small amounts, so many people praying are more likely to affect people and things.

  23. Nicholas – telekinises is dangereous. All the best magicians will tell you that you should never try it at home. Likewise too much group harmony will lead to communism and then mass starvation. You are messing with powers you don’t understand. Try chewing bubble gum instead. 😉

  24. TerjeP, they’re at a conference, not home, so that’s alright. It’s true that Communism is a danger, but don’t you want them off the streets? And do you really want just the Government to meddle with powers that nobody understands? Don’t we get to play with it as well, please?
    Oh, we’re supposed to CHEW Bubble Gum! I’ve been grinding them into powders and sniffing them! I see where I went wrong! I just assumed, with all these anti-sugar campaigns, that they wouldn’t be sold to be eaten! So you’re supposed to feel bloated, not high. Damn!!

  25. The ALS will be joined in Washington by Senator Fielding. Maybe you should pass around some LSD and have a group hug.

    As a prospective Greens party supporter and future doctor’s wife, harry of course wouldn’t like Fielding.

  26. Harry – it looks like your attempt at spite was like being flogged with a warm lettuce.

    Stick to being nice, you’re actually pretty good at that.

  27. The debate is over! We now know what is causing the warmer weather. Michael Kile, writing in the June Quadrant, gives enough data to conclusively prove, beyond any doubt, that the Aztecs were right.(“The Aztec Solution”)
    Lack of human sacrifices is making the Sun very angry.
    Read the article, you scoffers and doubters! If you keep scoffing, we might help you to pay your debt to society by making you the first offering.

  28. Nicholas, you clearly are not familiar with the true explanation. Allow me to preach it to you, brother.

    Global warmng exists, and it is caused by the lack of pirates, which makes the Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM) angry. This is carefully explained here. If you don’t believe me, Google “International Talk Like A Pirate Day” – a feeble attempt to propitiate the FSM.

    The evidence is irrefutable. Not only has the globe warmed since the heyday of piracy in the 18th century, but it has even stopped warming in the last three years due to the sterling efforts of the Somalis. Of course, scientists – foul heretics all – will pronounce that this is just statistical noise on top of a warming trend, but we enlightened ones know better.

    May you all be touched by His noodly appendage.

  29. Dear Derrida, that cannot be true, because copyright piracy is growing exponentially, and has been around for a while.

  30. Pingback: Jay Lehr from the Heartland institute is touring Australia « Tim Robinson

Comments are closed.