2008 International Conference on Climate Change

Read time: 2 mins

As we reported earlier today on DeSmogBlog, the Heartland Institute is organizing the “2008 International Conference on Climate Change,” for those few left who cling to the notion that somehow the international science community has gotten it wrong on the causes and realities of global warming.

Call them “skeptics,” “deniers,” or whatever you want, this conference is a last ditch attempt to draw media attention to a message that has long passed its expiry date.

Heck, even George W. Bush no longer denies the scientific realities of climate change.

Over the next week, DeSmogBlog will research the individuals listed as “confirmed speakers” for the conference and provide a succinct briefing note on each.

If you would like to find out when we have added new entries, subscribe to our RSS feed.

Most of the individuals are well-known to us already and below you will find links to their entries in our research database. We will update the list as we pull information from our files and complete new briefing notes.

Will Alexander

David Archibald (coming soon)

Scott Armstrong 

Dennis Avery (coming soon)

Tim Ball

Robert Balling (coming soon)

Bob Carter

Paul Chesser (coming soon)

Roy Cordato (coming soon)

Joseph D'Aleo (coming soon)

Michael Fox (coming soon)

Fred Goldberg (coming soon)

Vincent Gray

Chris Horner (coming soon)

Andrei Illariano (coming soon)

David Legates (coming soon)

Jay Lehr (coming soon)

Brian Leyland (coming soon)

Mathew Manweller (coming soon)

Ross McKitrick

Owen McShane (coming soon)

Patrick Michaels

Steven Milloy (coming soon)

Christopher Monckton (coming soon)

Jim O'Brien (coming soon)

Tim Patterson

Benny Peiser

Paul Reiter

Arthur Robinson

Joel Schwartz

S. Fred Singer

Willie Soon (coming soon)

Roy Spencer (coming soon)

George Taylor

Jerry Taylor (coming soon)

Anthony Watts (coming soon)

Get DeSmog News and Alerts


You mean that the great scientist and intellectual giant George W. Bush has endorsed AGW? Good heavens, what a blind fool I’ve been to “deny” the revealed truth. How could I have been so wrong? Take me Lord, for now I know that End Times truly are upon us, and I’ve been born again.

I think I’ve fallen down the rabbit hole …

Elsewhere on the conference site there is talk about how other conferences on climate change, by which I assume they mean legitimate scientific conferences, are “lavishly financed by government agencies or liberal foundations.” Seems to me we have discussed the issue of defining AGW in right/left terms before. Not very productive, long term.

And then there is this gem: Until the debate over global warming was politicized in the 1990s, the scientific “consensus” was that the Modern Warming is moderate and natural [that’s not the way I remember it]. Books and recent literature reviews [does that include Michael Crichton’s “scholarly” work?] suggest this is still the consensus, even though it contradicts the alarmists’ views. The trouble is that they refer to works published by the popular press, not the scientific journals where the data and research results are piling up to a critical mass. What, I wonder, is the angle of repose for indisputable evidence? Any minute now a great weight of data is going to start to slide and they run a serious risk of being buried.

My favourite bit, though, is this little thing: one of their “unanswered questions” is “whether it is even possible to reduce human emissions enough to affect the climate.” There it is, embedded in their denial – an admission that it might not be possible to make the necessary changes. I invite others to pick up this line of thought and run with it.

Fern Mackenzie

“President Bush announced today that the United States has agreed with other industrialized nations that stabilization of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions should be achieved as soon as possible…

The President said: “I asked my EPA Administrator, Bill Reilly, and my Science Advisor, Allan Bromley, to continue the leadership role which the U.S. has performed since the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was formed in 1988.” http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=17765

Strategically similar statements: We gave Saddam a choice to disarm and he refused, so we had to remove him from power. http://www.consortiumnews.com/2008/012808.html

Right. Read: to lay down his non-existent WMD.

And to continue the leadership role which the U.S. has performed since the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was formed in 1988. Saints preserve us!!! Do they really think we are that stupid?

Unfortunately the sad truth is that a lot of voters simply aren’t paying very close attention. The administration gets away with this kind of double-speak on a routine basis.

I look forward to following this “conference” – it should be good for a laugh.

Fern Mackenzie

Femack: I think you seriously conflated two different Bush’s, and two different versions of the the Republican party, somewhat akin to Dr. Jekyl and Mr. Hyde with regard to science…

Please go read the URL I mentioned.

In 1988/1989, climate change was *not* a heavily-politicized issue, and the IPCC was formed and supported with the encouragement of 2 Republican Administrations in a row.

It is well worth reading Chris Mooney’s fine “The Republican War on Science”, on page 48 of which he summarizes:
“Today, scientists largely remember the first President Bush as a friend.”

Sorry. I’m always mixing those two up. Dubya is definitely a different case altogether. I was being flip and didn’t really think it through. As it happens, I have read Chris Mooney’s The Republican War on Science, as well as Storm World. Both are excellent.

I will certainly check out the link you recommended. My recollections of what I heard about AGW during the late ’80s are that it was neither “moderate” nor “natural”. It also seemed that world governments were ready to take it seriously and collaborate on a plan. Oh what a difference a decade makes!

Fern Mackenzie

Sorry to John and Fern (and others?). I believe my comment and url may have led folks astray.

“Over the next week, DeSmogBlog will research the individuals listed as “confirmed speakers” for the conference and provide a succinct briefing note on each.”

Which is your way of saying that you will continue to do what you always do: mount your predictable feeble ad hominem attacks on the individuals themselves, rather than try to undermine their stated positions.

One can only conclude that your own position is so intellectually bankrupt, that your only recourse are ad hominem attacks. And you talk about “a last ditch attempt”? Most amusing.

If this conference is as “last ditch”, as you would have us believe, it doesn’t speak highly of your own ideological position, that you can’t even tolerate an opposing viewpoint.

But, please, do continue your amateur McCarthy insvestigations. It looks good on you.

… that your own position is so intellectually bankrupt, that your only recourse are ad hominem attacks.”

Is this an attempt at irony?

Just for the record, though, when we call, say, S. Fred Singer a lying scoundrel, who takes money from tobacco and oil companies - from the purveyors or DDT and CFCs - and then defends their causes, without troubling to conduct or allude to a shred of scientific evidence, that isn't an “ad hominem” attack; it's a statement of fact, easily confirmed by anyone with an internet connection.

So, our point is that Singer, et al, are on the take and that their credibility is therefore suspect - and we have provided reams of factual information in the past and on the Denier Database to document that position. You respond to that argument by ignoring the evidence and calling us amateur McCarthyites.

As I said: irony, surely. 

You can only undermine a position if there really is a position to take. Attacking science, research, lines of evidence is not a position.

Just ask any Biologist who has ever debated a creationist.

These people aren’t willing to do the hard work that science involves and have nothing to show for their ‘positions.’

Debating creationism vs Darwinism with a religious philosopher. My head is still spinning!!!!

Fern Mackenzie

Another conference that isn’t getting as much publicity, but may be an interesting, less conventional approach to dealing with the question of climate change is taking place in Barcelona in March. It’s called the Global Dialogues. It’s the first in a series of disucssions not only about climate change, but about geopolitics, design and business as well, which, if we’re getting serious about climate change, are subjects that all need to be addressed because climate change will certainly affect them. You can find more info about it at http://blog.globaldialogues.eu/ or the official web site http://artcenter.edu/dialogues

Whoopee! Another politically charged, expense paid piss-up for the parasitic elite at a popular tourist destination Let’s see, Bali, Hawaii, Barcelona — now, “where should we have our next fun excursion?” As usual, skeptics (especially scientists)will be excluded or summarily ejected.

In fact, this sort of conference tends to be generated by business people who have recognized that the impact of AGW can’t be ignored, and that they had better deal with it or go under. Far from being “politically charged”, these folks are driven by the bottom line, and they are taking action.

Fern Mackenzie

I agree, big business loves AGW, just like they love a host of other regulatory actions that raise the barriers to entry for competition and drive out smaller competitors. The only reason that businesses jump on board with AGW as you suggest is once they have been beaten into accepting that some type of additional regulation is “inevitable”, they get involved to try to manipulate the process so that they can at least survive. The large companies with the most political pull join willingly because they understand that their smaller competition cannot suffer additional regulation. Like any other POLITICAL process, writing regulations has nothing to do with the science of AGW and there will be winners and losers… The winners are the big companies with the most political pull.