JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Archives

Livestream: Heartland International Climate Conference

These are always great events

Watch it live. Starting at 9:30am EST USA time (11:30 pm Sydney, 9:30pm Perth, 2:30pm London, 6:30 LA.)

climateconference.heartland.org/

Schedule below:

Thursday, June 11

8:00 AM EST – Opening Breakfast Keynote with Sen. James Inhofe
9:30 AM EST – Panel 1: Climate Science with Willie Soon, Ph.D., David Legates, Ph.D., and Patrick Michaels, Ph.D.
10:50 AM EST – Panel 3: Energy Realities with Mark Mills, Kathleen Hartnett White, and Howard Hayden
12:45 PM EST – Lunch Keynote with U.S. Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas)
2:15 PM EST – Panel 5: Climate Program Impacts with Cornelis van Kooten, Ph.D., Wolfgang Müller, and Paul Driessen
3:45 PM EST – Panel 7: Climate Policy and National Security with Capt. Donald K. “Deke” Forbes (USN, ret.), Jay Lehr, Ph.D., and James Taylor
6:30 PM EST – Dinner Keynote with William Happer, Ph.D.

Friday, June 12

8:00 AM EST – Breakfast Keynote with Mark Steyn
9:30 AM EST – Panel 9: Climate Change Reconsidered II: Human Welfare, Energy, and Policies with S. Fred Singer, Ph.D., Craig Idso, Ph.D., Christopher Monckton, and Bob Carter, Ph.D.
10:50 AM EST – Panel 11: Attacks on Scientists and the Corruption of Science with Bob Carter, Ph.D, William Briggs, Tim Ball, and Christopher Monckton
12:45 PM EST – Keynote Lunch with [to be announced]
2:15 PM EST – Panel 13: The Right Climate Stuff with Walter Cunningham, Tom Wysmuller, and Hal Doiron

Schedule:

Thursday, June 11

9:30 AM EST – Panel 2: Climate Science and Accurate Data with Anthony Watts, Roy Spencer, Ph.D., and J. Scott Armstrong, Ph.D.
10:50 AM EST – Panel 4: Energy Policy with Marlo Lewis, Jay Lehr, Ph.D., and Isaac Orr
2:15 PM EST – Panel 6: Economic Policy with Benjamin Zycher, Tiffany Roberts, and David Kreutzer
3:45 PM EST – Panel 8: Human Health and Welfare with James Enstrom, Ph.D., Stanley Young, Ph.D., and Charles Battig, M.D.

Friday, June 12

9:30 AM EST – Panel 10: Climate Policy Impacts with State Sen. Carlyle Begay (D-Arizona), Alan Moran, and Amanda Maxham
10:50 AM EST – Panel 12: Effective Climate Science Communication with Tom Harris, John Coleman, and Michael Bastasch
2:15 AM EST – Panel 14: Action Items for Policymakers with Marc Morano, Bette Grande, and Myron Ebell

Let us know your favourite.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 8.9/10 (31 votes cast)
Livestream: Heartland International Climate Conference, 8.9 out of 10 based on 31 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/ophheja

56 comments to Livestream: Heartland International Climate Conference

  • #

    Well, I won’t be there, so they’re already missing the boat on the scientific bottom line–that there is no valid climate science, and no competent climate scientists. “97%(TM)” of the climate debate–on the science side, that is (actually, “97%” of the public “debate” is political lies on the part of the alarmists)–is really only about weather, i.e., local and transient processes in the atmosphere, that are merely speculated, without any factual evidence, to have an effect on the global mean surface temperature (when there is indeed definitive evidence against such wrong-headed speculation). To put it bluntly, the stable Standard Atmosphere rules, and that is the end of it for this generation–and the last, and the one before that as well–of failed “climate scientists”. It is in times like these, of general incompetence and dogmatic posturing among men, that I imagine the gods look down, shake their heads in something approaching infinite wisdom, and silently agree among themselves: “What fools these mortals be.”

    2219

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      Hey Harry, why not, I’ll have a go.

      Step 1, the supposition:

      For, supposing that both atmospheres do so absorb, and are solely warmed by, the same fraction (f),

      Step 2, derive the equation for the temperature ratio using the same symbol f in both planets.

      Step 3, Circular logic:

      Since the two atmospheres DO, factually, absorb the same fraction of the solar radiation incident upon them

      The final equation is independent of ‘f’ only because you used the same symbol in both the Earth and Venus equations, and that was due to your “supposing” they were the same value. The conclusion was smuggled into the definition of the problem. You cannot then describe the same statement as both a supposition and a fact, as that’s at least confusing simply from a communication standpoint and at worst is self-contradictory.

      Instead of forcing their equivalence, derive the equation keeping f_e and f_v separate:

      f_e * S_0 = sigma * T_e ^ 4

      f_v * S_0 / A^2 = sigma * T_v ^ 4

      T_v = (f_v * S_0 / (A^2 * sigma) ) ^ 1/4

      T_e = (f_e * S_0 / sigma) ^ 1/4

      T_v / T_e = [ f_v^1/4 * S_0^1/4 / ((A^2)^1/4 * sigma^1/4) ] / [ f_e^1/4 * S_0^1/4 / sigma^1/4 ]

       
      T_v / T_e = f_v^1/4 * S_0^1/4 * sigma^1/4
                  -------------------------------
                  f_e^1/4 * S_0^1/4 * (A^2)^1/4 * sigma^1/4

       
      T_v / T_e = f_v^1/4
                  --------------------
                  f_e^1/4 * (A^2)^1/4

       
                  [ f_v ]^1/4   [  1  ]^1/4
      T_v / T_e = [ --- ]     * [ --- ]
                  [ f_e ]       [ A^2 ]

      The temperature ratio is affected by the quartic root of the ratios of f, which should be determined by observation not by supposition.
      The absorbed fraction of insolation, f, is also called the absorptivity, also equal to 1.0 – the Bond albedo.
      From published sources of Bond Albedo, [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bond_albedo#Examples ]
      the values of f are therefore f_e = 0.7 and f_v = 0.1
      So the real answers differs from your answer by a factor of: (f_v/f_e)^1/4 = 0.615

      T_v / T_e = 0.615 * 1/sqrt(93/67.25) = 0.523

      Temperature in Venus atmosphere at 1000mb according to your no-greenhouse line of reasoning should be 287K * 0.523 = 150K which is much colder than the measured value of 338. That does not prove there is a greenhouse effect, but it shows your argument does not work when the fraction of insolation that is not available for heating is considered.

      Due to the high shortwave reflectivity of clouds on Venus and the fact the vast majority of insolation is shortwave, the atmosphere’s absorbed fraction on Venus will be much lower for most of the atmosphere than on Earth, even without any surface IR re-emission involved.

      Whilst the above is not a model of how venus’ atmosphere really works, it should be enough to send you back to the drawing board. However it has not been enough in the two prior occasions that other visitors have pointed out the above error, so I doubt it will be enough this time around. This is principally because you continue to insist:

      the two atmospheres must DIRECTLY absorb the SAME FRACTION of the incident solar radiation.

      …despite there being no empirical evidence this is the case and Venus’ enormous brightness difference being sufficient reason alone to conclude it is false.

      You state again that Venus should receive…

      1.91 times the power per unit area received by the Earth — the direct evidence presented here is that its atmosphere does, in fact, get that amount of power, remarkably closely.”

      However you are confusing a failed model (your formula) for “direct evidence”. Direct evidence is observation, not calculations based on a carefully chosen subset of all the factors known from numerous experiments and everyday engineering.

      Thankfully there is one comment where you explain in perfectly clear terms how you have fooled yourself:

      …we know Venus receives, on average, 1.9 times the power per unit area that Earth receives, simply from their relative distances from the Sun, as my article discussed. What is truly remarkable is, a good portion of that power is reflected back into space by Venus’s thick cloud cover (which makes the planet particularly bright to Earth observers), yet the Venus atmosphere is still heated by 1.9 times the power that heats the Earth atmosphere, as the temperature data shows. Thus we know that the visible portion of the Sun’s radiation is not what heats the two atmospheres (because Venus doesn’t take in 1.9 times as much visible light as the Earth, it takes in substantially less). Both atmospheres do, however, absorb infrared, and the comparison I have made shows they both must absorb the same portion of the incident infrared from the Sun, thus preserving the 1.9 power ratio calculated from their distances from the Sun. Furthermore, they must absorb this portion directly, not after absorption and emission from the surface, since the surfaces of Earth and Venus are likewise very different (deep ocean vs. solid crust) and would take up different fractions of the infrared, which again would spoil the 1.9 power ratio that is in fact indicated by the Venus/Earth temperature comparison.

      Conservation of energy is almost mentioned, but not obeyed. Your argument’s InfraRed excuse assumes the absorptivity/emissivity spectrum is equally high in IR bands for both planets atmospheres and equally low in SW for both planets. If they differed in SW albedo then one would be absorbing more SW fraction and would have a higher f, but you did assume they were the same. The differing compositions of the atmospheres will ensure they have different absorptivity throughout IR and their vastly different SW albedos ensure the spectrum is quite different in SW too. Even if IR were the only warming source, they won’t have the same IR albedo. On top of this difference the enormous pressure broadening near the base of Venus atmosphere will increase its continuum absorption to allow some shortwave absorption too. Whatever is reflected at high altitude is not available for absorption at lower altitude and so the Bond albedo does affect how much the atmosphere is directly heated across the spectrum.

      It’s also interesting your main priority in this reasoning is not to discover the truth but to avoid “spoiling” the 1.9 power ratio. It makes a good story so I can understand reluctance to give up the rhetorical source of your Internet fame. Things certainly looked rocky when you discovered your formula was 7 degrees off for Titan, so who knows how much it would have been off if you’d taken reflectivity into consideration.

      That highly revealing paragraph also shows this Venus argument hangs on a battle of probabilities of unlikely co-incidences.
      You say “the comparison I have made shows they both must absorb the same portion of the incident infrared from the Sun” when the probability this co-incidence is true given their vastly different compositions is virtually nil. But you are quite happy to believe that remote possibility rather than believe that it is merely co-incidence that multiplying by the orbital distance factor alone can convert an Earth temperature to a Venus temperature.
      There is no room for personal preference there, because the fact that a black object and white object left out in the sun will reach different temperatures is enough to show that an important factor is omitted from your calculations.
      THE ALBEDO.

      Obviously, from my comparison of the temperatures of Venus and Earth at corresponding atmospheric pressures, the Sun is the ONLY thing that DOES have an effect. In particular, there is no “greenhouse effect”, and there is NO ALBEDO effect.

      If the fraction of radiative flux reflected from a body makes no difference to how much radiative power it absorbs, you have created or deleted energy. Fatal error detected in hypothesis. Return to manufacturer.

      160

  • #
    Peter C

    Strangely Stephen Wilde and his New Climate Theory is not on the agenda.

    Neither is there any paper addressing the failures of the Greenhouse Gas Effect Theory!

    1017

    • #
      Mark Stoval

      “Neither is there any paper addressing the failures of the Greenhouse Gas Effect Theory!”

      It is a gathering of luke-warmers after all. What else would one expect?

      1016

    • #
      Richard

      I don’t think Stephen is proposing anything new. He’s just ressurecting genuine climate-science. I’m pretty sure adiabatic compression used to be the orthodox theory in the 60′s and 70′s for the higher than expected temperatures on both Earth amd Venus, but of course now it’s back-radiation from the 1% of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

      1016

    • #
      Peter C

      If I can get my thoughts together in time I will post a comment on the weekend asking for some help with an aspect of the Greenhouse theory.

      For a preview see this item by Dr Pierre Latour
      http://www.principia-scientific.org/no-virginia-cooler-objects-cannot-make-warmer-objects-even-warmer-still.html

      Does anyone have a view on his finite differential equations. In particular do they form a converging series?

      00

  • #
    Ian H

    That is a weird conference schedule. When you are organising a conference you usually try not to put on similar talks at the same time since they will then have to compete for the same audience. These guys seem to do the exact opposite.

    20

  • #
    • #
      aussieguy

      “We’re trying to change the entire global economy”


      => …By using alarmism (Climate Change) as a tool to achieve political control & wealth? Funny how no one voted for this! Again with the self-appointment! (Believing they know what’s best).

      They are disgusted by people like us, who reject them…

      How dare we point out their contradictions!
      How dare we question their politicised science!
      How dare we have conferences and live streams!
      How dare we set up websites to analyse, archive, and discuss their reports, articles, and behaviour!
      How dare we deny their rhetoric!
      How dare we be skeptical of their claims!
      How dare we stand up against their narrative!

      164

  • #
    Manfred

    In spite of what appears like one of the finer examples of cognitive dissonance on a national scale, given the juxtaposition of an ongoing high technological endeavour in the south of France with the ‘progressive’ UNFCCC meeting of eco-marxists in Paris in November, both endeavours share a remarkable commonality, one that may be observed in the form of the titanic bureaucracy possessed by each.

    The International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) — a large-scale scientific experiment that aims to demonstrate the technological and scientific feasibility of fusion energy — appears to be floundering, according to the latest expostulation from ITER Director-General Bernard Bigot, which makes excellent reading about how multinational, complex high technology projects, with complex funding and political governance languish under the suffocating weight of crushing, multi-stranded bureaucracy.

    Why? In essence for all the reasons we have come to understand that are typically associated with the political initiation and funding of bureaucracies, which unwittingly arrive at their eventual destiny of cause-stagnation and purpose-implosion, often while preserving the bureaucracy itself.

    As with all bureaucracy (and committees), where kollectiv intelligence appears inversely related to the number of people involved, in the true Babylonian tradition the incapability of ITER to seemingly enact a functional lingua franca from a defined leadership is torturing and strangling this epic project to a standstill. The appeal from Director-General Bigot makes very good reading, as does (at the time of writing this) the single comment made in the article thread Nature 522, 149–151 (11 June 2015) doi:10.1038/522149a

    And for the first time I have noticed that ITER is no longer free from required eco-religious genuflection. I cannot recollect seeing this before. Afterall, the project was spawned well before the institutional contagion of eco-zealotry developed. The project’s aspirations of co-operation and technological endeavour were well annunciated.

    At the Geneva Superpower Summit in November 1985, following discussions with President Mitterand of France and Prime Minister Thatcher of the United Kingdom, General Secretary Gorbachev of the former Soviet Union proposed to U.S. President Reagan an international project aimed at developing fusion energy for peaceful purposes.

    Now the preceding institutional genuflection has been inserted into the The ITER Story.

    Fossil fuels were the energy source that shaped 19th and 20th century civilization. But burning coal, oil and gas has proved highly damaging to our environment. Carbon dioxide emissions, greenhouse effect gases, and fumes all contribute to the disruption in the balance of our planet’s climate.

    Balance” is a red flag for obfuscation and wooliness. It is counter-scientific and reeks of politics or precautionism, where speculation alone may provide the required evidence. In healthcare, if the term ‘balance’ is used in any context, never fail to request a definition meaning in context, one couched in explicit terms. I mean, aren’t you interested to know what balancing your chakras is all about?

    When the UN are in Paris this November at their climate-fest, try if you will to have a whisper ersatz-sympathy for the thousands of jet-lagged bureaucrats struggling between shows at Le Moulin Rouge and their diced frogs legs at a Parisian brasserie, and having to personally cope through the fog of their hangovers with the frappe sipping delegates, the cats they are charged to herd. The litany of failure that precedes them and their ‘science’ that is so well know and graphically represented merely hints at the inescapable destiny of their own bureaucracies.

    Individually of course they dimly perceive this. Kollectively, it is far beyond their ken.

    114

    • #
      James Murphy

      stable fusion containment might eventually result in cheap ‘green’ energy. The UN do not want it to be cheap, that clearly goes against the philosophy of changing the global economy and punishing the decadent westerners.

      80

      • #
        Peter C

        Cheap Energy!

        How about these quotes.

        “Complex technology of any sort is an assault on human dignity. It would be little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy…”  Amory Lovins, ‘Rocky Mountain Institute’

        The prospect of cheap fusion energy is the worst thing that could happen to the planet.”  Jeremy Rifkin, ‘Greenhouse Crisis Foundation’

        20

        • #
          James Murphy

          Here I was thinking (hoping?) my claims were just a bit far-fetched… rarely am I so disappointed to be right.

          00

    • #
      James Murphy

      The temperature at the core of the sun is orders of magnitude lower than that of the corona. Thankfully the science (of the sun) has not yet been ‘settled’.

      40

  • #
    Leo Morgan

    Are the streams being recorded and saved to youtube?
    If so could you please post the link(s)?
    That would be my preferred way to view the presentations.

    20

  • #
    pat

    Heartland nicely timed to coincide with the Bilderberg meeting in Austria, just minutes across the border from where the G7 meeting in Germany was held.
    btw Financial Times Martin Wolf is in attendance at Bilderberg:

    12 June: Financial Times: Since You Asked: A ray of sunshine falls on an ever warmer world
    G7 recognises more aggressive action is needed to tackle climate change, writes Izabella Kaminska
    Q: Some say it might never happen because politicians don’t like to do things that the electorate or big business will find hard to digest.
    ***A: A major stumbling block is the difficulty of persuading poorer countries to slow down carbon-intensive development in favour of a more environmentally friendly kind that is also more expensive. There will have to be financial support for developing nations if they are to achieve these goals. But there is at least one thing that is different this time, something which should give us more hope of an agreement.
    Q: What’s that?
    A: Since the 2009 Copenhagen conference, big business has started to come on board the effort to curb emissions and suspend climate change…
    Q: I find that very hard to believe. Why have they changed their tune?
    A: A lot of credit must go to an organisation called Carbon Tracker…
    Q: You mean they’ve spun it into a money making opportunity?
    A: Kind of. They warn investors and businesses invested in fossil fuels that they may be sitting on a trove of financially toxic assets. This is because much of that fuel can never be burnt if the planet is to be spared from drastic climate change…
    Q: So is the argument that the assets will inevitably fall in price soon?
    ***A: They’ve dubbed it a “carbon bubble”…
    Q: Sounds like the makings of a financial panic?
    A: Could be. The critical challenge over the next few years will be communicating the carbon bubble message without sparking an investor rush for the exit…
    Q: What happens to all that money if and when everyone just starts dumping assets? It has to go somewhere, no?
    ***A: A key challenge will be finding enough high-quality green investments to transfer all that capital to…
    Q: So what if the carbon bubble just transforms into a clean-tech bubble instead?
    A: That’s the danger. Hence many large asset managers are waiting on the sidelines until tried and tested technologies and proven market leaders emerge before they invest…
    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e98f7aac-1022-11e5-bd70-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3ctgwQUz4

    10 June: Financial Times Alphaville: Izabella Kaminska: Carbon bubbles and artificial intelligence
    Institutions like Carbon Tracker have proved that reframing collective action arguments in dollar cost terms can be highly effective at mobilising the world’s top asset holders to take action.
    In the case of climate change, asset holders took note when the associated risks were presented as a carbon bubble threat on the basis that fossil fuel assets aren’t really wealth if they can never be burned (at least not if we’re to spare the planet from life-threatening climate change) .
    But, it turns out, there may be another equally effective way of framing the argument.
    As the FT’s Martin Wolf notes on Wednesday, citing the book Climate Shock , by Gernot Wagner of the Environmental Defense Fund and Martin Weitzman of Harvard University, at its core the climate change story is really a economic growth insurance story…
    Those projects that stand to eliminate climate tail risks should consequently command a very low or even negative discount rate because of their ability to protect our standard of living for future generations.
    Additionally, ***we’d add, sovereign governments prepared to act on climate change and invest in paradigm shifting projects/agreements that tackle climate should also be able to borrow at negative rates…
    Artificial intelligence
    You may be wondering what artificial intelligence has to do with any of the above and why we outlined it in the title.
    ***At a recent seminar on artificial intelligence hosted by Playfair Capital, Mustafa Suleyman, from Google-owned DeepMind, warned that if AI doomsayers didn’t stop fretting about AI-induced self-destruction we might never solve the climate change challenge. AI might even be the best chance we have of tackling the problem successfully…
    In any case, apply the Carbon Tracker logic to AI risk, and you end up with an investment hypothesis that assumes there’s a lot of theoretical technology that can never be developed if we’re to avoid an AI existential threat.
    We’ll refer to this as the technology bubble thesis. We’ll also assume it can only be countered by implementing some sort of big data/personal information collection/internet tax…
    http://ftalphaville.ft.com/2015/06/10/2131503/carbon-bubbles-and-artificial-intelligence/

    42

    • #
      diogenese2

      Pat, you never fail to find these examples of brilliant illogic.
      “Q: so the argument is these assets will fall in price soon”
      “Q: what happens to all that money when everyone starts dumping assets”
      “A: a key challenge is finding enough high quality green investments to transfer all that capital to.”
      When assets are dumped there isn’t any money. During the USA Sub-prime crisis you could not give property away, it was a liability!
      “governments prepared to act on climate change……. should also be able to borrow at negative interest rates.”

      I think Greece will be first in line here.

      10

  • #
    pat

    BBC Trust Chair, Rona Fairhead (director of HSBC & former chief executive of Financial Times) is at Bilderberg. headline below should be “Bilderberg meeting NOT EXPLAINED”:

    VIDEO: 11 June: BBC: The Bilderberg meeting explained in 60 seconds
    http://www.bbc.com/news/business-33100267

    BBC’s Jonathan Marcus had a few ludicrous comments about the meeting on World Service Radio this week – plenty of mocking – but he did mention Rona Fairhead would be there & said it was a meeting of “THE GREAT AND THE GOOD”!

    John Micklethwait, Editor-in-Chief, Bloomberg LP, is also at Bilderberg, tho this Bloomberg video does not care to note this fact:

    VIDEO 48 secs: 11 June: Bloomberg: Here’s Who’s Going to The Secret
    Bilderberg Summit
    June 11 — The Bilderberg summit, an annual gathering of some of the most
    powerful people in the world starts on Thursday. Here’s who got an invite.
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2015-06-11/here-s-who-s-going-to-the-secret-bilderberg-summit?cmpid=twtr1

    of course, Fairhead, Micklethwait & Martin Wolf will not be divulging anything of the proceedings to the public.

    32

  • #
    pat

    btw Jonathan Marcus who said Bilderberg is a meeting of the “GREAT AND THE GOOD” is BBC’s Defence & Diplomatic Correspondent.

    the only other BBC coverage documented:

    12 June: BBC: Bilderberg guests include George Osborne and Ed Balls
    The contents of their discussions are never released…
    Critics claim it is a front for a shadow world government, and the events often attract protesters…
    The organisers say the secret nature of the discussions allows participants to “take time to listen, reflect and gather insights”.
    “There is no desired outcome, no minutes are taken and no report is written.
    “Furthermore, no resolutions are proposed, no votes are taken, and no policy statements are issued,” they say.
    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-33107662

    following is a bizarre piece from BBC Magazine.
    “Bilderberg says” – huh?
    Breitbart reference suggests their story was about the “environment”, when it was clearly about “Global Warming” not being officially on the agenda (LOL).
    “Ordinary people can only guess at the goings-on at the meetings” – of course, because the 18 MSM folks at the talks will stay silent!

    10 June: BBC: Just who exactly is going to the Bilderberg meeting?
    By Justin Parkinson BBC News Magazine
    Critics call it a sinister conspiracy, reinforcing without accountability the dominance of a transatlantic capitalist cabal. Those involved say it’s merely an informal way to understand better the way the world works and to share their expertise to improve it.
    Whatever one’s view, an invitation to the four-day Bilderberg meeting is a ***sign that someone has arrived as a politician, business leader, administrator or opinion-influencer…
    “Thanks to the private nature of the conference, the participants are not bound by the conventions of their office or by pre-agreed positions,” ***Bilderberg says. “As such, they can take time to listen, reflect and gather
    insights.”
    Critics argue its aim is more sinister and there are countless different flavours of conspiracy theory..
    The event’s organisers describe its participants as “diverse”. Still, only 27 women are due to come, compared with 106 men. Among them are Santander chairman Ana Botin, BBC Trust chairman Rona Fairhead and Zanny Minton
    Beddoes, editor-in-chief of The Economist. The last two are among ***18 people from the media…
    One topic not on the outline list to be discussed this year is the ***environment. The Breitbart website calls this “stupid”…
    ***Ordinary people can only guess at the goings-on at the meetings of the secretive Bilderberg Group, which is bringing together the world’s financial and political elite this week. Conspiracy theories abound as to what isdiscussed and who is there. Why?
    LINK: Bilderberg: Why do people believe in cabals? (June 2011)
    http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-33067655

    12

  • #
    pat

    12 June: The Hindu: Getting the climate story right
    by Navroz K. Dubash, Radhika Khosla, & K. Rahul Sharma
    In what has been a marathon year for climate talks, negotiators have been meeting for the last two weeks to prepare a ‘2015 Agreement’ to be signed at the United Nation’s Climate Change Conference in Paris in December. But, in some ways, the international talks are the sideshow…
    Other countries have been on this storytelling exercise for some time…
    So, what story should India tell?…
    India is a rapidly growing economy, starting from a low economic base. Its per capita emissions are a third of the global average, and between a quarter and a sixth of those of other emerging economies; it needs carbon headroom to grow…
    This point is validated by recent analyses from the Centre for Policy Research. The report found that seven recent Indian energy and climate models predict anywhere from a doubling to a ***tripling of India’s carbon dioxide emissions from now until 2030. While there may be some technical scope to narrow this range, there is a residual uncertainty about the future that leads to such a wide band. Thus, spelling out a peaking year or putting a firm number to future absolute emission levels would be irresponsible…
    http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-opinion/getting-the-climate-story-right/article7307352.ece

    12 June: RFI France: Climate change tops agenda at Geneva Work summit
    No sooner did one conference on climate change end, than another one began.
    After ten days of strenuous negotiations in Bonn, Germany, over how to get countries to reduce their carbon emissions to below 2C, Thursday’s Work summit in Geneva strived to look at the implications of climate change, if that
    benchmark couldn’t be reached…
    Policies to protect the environment, and economic activity which is increasingly disrupted by climate change, is thus important, and this was the leitmotiv of the World of Work summit in Geneva on Thursday.
    (LOL)Officials were greeted by a surprise video appearance from grammy-award winning singer Pharrel Williams. The singer, whose hit “Happy” was a global sensation last year, has urged leaders to deliver green jobs as a crucial part of tackling climate change.
    http://www.english.rfi.fr/general/20150611-climate-change-tops-agenda-un-work-summit

    22

  • #
    pat

    desperate Hollande promises 60 million “green” jobs!

    12 June: The Local France: AFP: Hollande launches plea for climate change deal
    President François Hollande launched an appeal for climate change action this week, in the “interests of the planet and social progress”.
    Hollande’s plea in Geneva came as a UN conference in Bonn wound up with ***little headway to try and get a carbon-curbing agreement in place for the Paris conference in November.
    “I am here to launch an appeal,” the French leader told an International Labour Organization summit in Geneva on climate change and its implications for labour, businesses and communities.
    “We need the full engagement of our social partners,” he said.
    “It’s in the interest of the planet, of companies, of economic development and of social progress.”…
    “Fighting climate change does not in any way impact on jobs,” said Hollande, adding that fears expressed by both developing and developed countries were groundless and actually such action would create moreemployment.
    ***”It is because we are creating new rules on behaviour, production, transport and consumption… that we will create more activity, investment and have higher growth,” he said.
    He said 60 million new jobs could be created in the next two decades due to “green growth”.
    http://www.thelocal.fr/20150612/hollande-climate-change-paris-summit

    ***4 cents warrants this headline!

    12 June: Reuters: ‘New blood’ boosts California carbon market
    New participants in the secondary market for California carbon allowances have helped boost liquidity in recent days, providing a shot of life after weeks of stagnation, traders said on Friday.
    California carbon allowances for June delivery were last seen at $12.55 a tonne in the over-the-counter market, ***up 4 cents from Thursday’s close after two straight days of above-average trading volumes, carbon brokers said.
    “New blood has provided a boost,” one broker said on Friday. “The market has had a malaise for some time but a couple new people have come in as buyers.”…
    One particularly encouraging development from the perspective of brokers is a recent shift to outright buying and away from spread trades, where a participant sells contacts for one delivery month while simultaneously
    buying another.
    “People are actually buying the futures now, which is a sign that it could be procurement for compliance as opposed to people simply moving their positions along the curve,” one trader said.
    Despite the recent uptick in activity, most analysts consider the market to be oversupplied with pollution permits…
    He (a broker) said he expects the price for the December 2016 contract to be in the range of $12.85 a tonne next year, ***15 cents higher than where the December 2015 contract was trading on Friday.
    http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/06/12/carbon-market-california-idUSL1N0YY27R20150612

    13

    • #
      Lord Jim

      “Fighting climate change does not in any way impact on jobs,”

      Yup, there will be plenty of jobs as personal serfs and assistants to the carbon bankers and traders…

      21

      • #
        James Bradley

        Yeah, in South Australia the 430 Port Augusta Power Station workers are promised by the Labor Government that they will all have jobs in green industries when the power stations close in 2018.

        30

    • #
      Mike

      Ezra Pound radio quote whilst in Italy during World War Two. “Until you know
      who has lent what TO WHOM, you know nothing whatever of politics, you know nothing whatever of history, you know nothing of international wrangles.”

      That quote could probably be updated …’you will know nothing whatever of climate change.’
      https://archive.org/details/EzraPoundSpeaking-RadioSpeechesOfWorldWarIi

      10

  • #

    With friends like the Heartland Institute, climate skepticism doesn’t need enemies. All the speakers come across as either Sarah Palin lookalike US Republican retards, or inbred eccentric aristocrats from the UK. It’s a shame, because there is a scientific case against climate alarmism.

    417

    • #
      Manfred

      Ad hominems……ad nauseam.

      Why not try airing the ‘scientific case’ as the first of your 12 steps?

      61

    • #
      doubting dave

      Rod , thanks for one of the most interesting comments ive read for a long while, if it was possible i would give you both red and green thumbs at the same time. I’m one of the few socialst sceptics that posts here and when it comes to climate science lord Monckton is a hero of mine, just wish he didnt consider everything left of Thatcher and Bush to be scary far left comunism and constantly try to take the moral high ground by refering to his [ in my veiw way out there]religious faith .

      46

      • #
        Dariusz

        Reagan and Thacher liberated 600 mln people of Eastern Europe. I was one of them. Somehow I did not see you celebrating the fall of the Berlin Wall but I saw people like you dancing on her grave. Lord Moncton has every right to be proud and fearful of the green new commie and socialist mantra and I know from my own personal experience how dangareous that is.
        You said that you are a socialist but I bet you never experienced that crap as you never lived in the socialist paradise just like I did for a half my life. If you believe in socialism go to North Korea or Cuba. You would been accepted by the nazis with open arms as well as they also were socialists just like you too.
        And if you think that the goodness of Gordy has liberated Eastern Europe you have rocks for brain.

        121

        • #
          diogenese2

          Dariusz – the people themselves made some contribution as you know , being one of them. I will never forget the final rally addressed be Ceausescu – 21.12.1989 – when the “compliant” crowd started to jeer and boo.
          The image of Nicolais’ smug expression changing to bewilderment and fear will live with me for ever. He had lost control and did not comprehend what was happening. He had a less than happy Christmas.
          There are a lot of faces I would like to see bearing those expressions.

          60

          • #
            Dariusz

            The rot started with the DDR in 1953, Hungary 1956, Czechoslovakia 68, Poland 70, 76, 80 (this is where I was). But all this came to nothing because there was no will from the west to change anything. In fact the west paid the soviets to keep the people quiet so they could enjoy the fuits of capitalism next door.
            It was only with Reagan,s and Maggie,s dynamic duo and their idealism that they forced communism into bankruptcy. The major causes of the fall of coomunism were :
            1. Fall in the price of oil, something that obamer is trying to do now with Russia without much success
            2. Star Wars scare that accelerated soviets into spiralling debt;
            3. Change in soviet leadership,
            4. Unwinannable war in Afghanistan
            Unfortunately people do not come into this anywhere. You probably refer to a recently aired documentary on the “days that changed the world”. If this is correct pls note that all the players including ceauseku executioners were playing their roles of obedient citizens almost to the end.
            In 1956 despite Hungarian government asking the west for direct help to protect them the uk and others refused hiding conveniently behind the canal suez fiasco that was played at the same time. People did as much as they could, they died by their thousands fightling for freedom and the west did nothing.
            Sadly People,s will is not everything

            40

            • #
              diogenese2

              Dariuz – I did not watch “days that changed the world” because I lived through them watching with amazement the speed in which the structure of communism, rigid for 40 years, fell apart. Tell me though, you were there, how was the “west” viewed from behind the curtain? I perceived that the regimes fell because they run out of lies and could no longer disguise the fact that in the west the oppressed proletariat lived like kings whilst the workers paradise was a scheisshaus. Please correct me if I am wrong as this is important to me.
              But you are right to point to the way Regan and Thatcher confronted the “axis of evil”. I never realised the affect behind the curtain. “Star Wars” was always a bluff that the soviets could not call. The Afghan War destroyed the myth of the formidable red army which could reach Calais in 3 days, even though we knew that, without opposition or autobahn toll, no soviet tank could do this without breaking down.
              Lately, seeing the effect of Communism was to suppress economic growth I have come to realise that, in fact, that was its purpose. All the defeated class warriors have now re-emerged as Green Lantern tributes and are pushing the same agenda through the CAGW narrative.
              I think, all in all, we have a similar view of this history.

              20

              • #
                Dariusz

                D2
                Yes we do have a similar history of the world.
                To answer your question.
                My dad who was a communist who only recently said to me that “son you were right” as he seemed to believe in it. When I was 15 in 1975 I knew with all the brain washing that everything was a lie and yet people lived in it without a blink. When I started writing, printing on Gutenberg like print my leaflets and distributing them between 1977-1980 some older people thought this was advertising (something that they remembered before the war as there was no such thing under communism). I was only a handful doing it in gdansk, the city of 400,000.
                My conclusion is that people knew that the system was a lie but morally accept it and lived with its limitations. It was about bread or the lack it, not about the lofty ideals of freedom that always carried me.
                D2 thanks for interest
                Dariusz

                40

        • #
          doubting dave

          Dariusz its interesting that you see me as some type of far left socialist that admires the old USSR and despises thatcher and friends but thats not the case, i’m just a ordinary working class lad from Notts that was raised in a country with a class system where the privileged few get more advantages in life , i’m not a fanatic just a social democrat but your view of me is forged by your own far more difficult experiences so i think you slightly misunderstood my comment.My comment was based on Rod mclaughlins post which was in part a ad homin, but sometimes i think lord monkton in particular invites attacks like that because of his idiosyncrasies .Ive been a climate change / global warming sceptic for a long time and most sites i visit tend to be dominated by people with a right of center view which i have no personnel problem with ,but if we sceptics are to win this struggle it is important not to alienate people of all political views from this debate .All the best

          60

      • #
        Andrew McRae

        I, for one, will give Doubting Dave a green thumb for coming out of the closet (economically I mean) amidst such rugged individual(ism)ists.

        10

      • #
        Richard

        Dave,

        Monckton is a brilliant man in my view and he’s one of very few people along with James Delingpole and Rose Kaire who have had the courage to speak up about Agenda 21. If there’s one thing this world needs more of it’s Moncktons.

        70

        • #
          doubting dave

          yes i agree Richard, i first came across the good lord when he dropped into copenhagen to savage the climate congregation, ive been an admirer ever since despite the social differences

          60

    • #
      James Murphy

      Bob Carter was one of my university lecturers (one of the really good ones too), he was, and is, far from being any of the people, or personalities you describe.

      120

    • #
      Michael P

      Just what gives you the right to call anyone

      US Republican retards, or inbred eccentric aristocrats from the UK

      pray tell? You are you own worst enemy with these kind of comments. Or are you scared that they’ll put a stop to this insanity finally? Maybe we could see this scientific case that you claim to support,before you start throwing insults?

      51

      • #

        Anyone remember Dan Quayle? George W Bush? Has anyone here listened to a speech by Sarah Palin, for just five minutes? I’m sorry, but the Republican Party is chock-full of people who are either stupid, or feel they need to pretend to be stupid to get votes from the vast evolution-doubting US public. The Heartland Institute used a picture of the Unabomber in an attempt to discredit the global warming movement. The brief sections of their current conference in D.C. I watched showed they have learned nothing from this own-goal. White men in suits and ties, preaching to the choir.

        There is no necessary connection between the American version of right-wing politics and climate skepticism, and it’s unfortunate when skeptics give that impression.

        26

    • #
      andersm0

      Rod, now why, exactly, would you descend into an ad hominem attack against Monckton and Republicans in general? I have no religious leanings nor could I be considered right wing by any stretch, but someone’s political or religious beliefs do not detract from our common fight against climate tyranny. Yet, for you it seems to trump everything. Your post further down the page tries to justify your original insults by heaping on more putdowns. If you’re grasping for someone to agree with you, I doubt doubt you’ll find anyone here who wants to climb down to that depth.

      10

    • #
      Orson

      I take exception to your ignorant characterization of the former Governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin. I watched her debate to get elected to that office. And as an environmental scientist with a lawyer-buddy in the US Department of the Interior, we both found her command of state and federal issues for the largest of all states to be formidable and bewildering. “Bewildering” because the extensive detail and formal knowledge the woman displayed went beyond our joint knowledge.

      Palin also negotiated a new severance (ie, tax) agreement with Big Oil while in office – something not achieved before in many decades.

      And finally, Palin negotiated new treaty terms with Canada for trade.

      Taken together or even separately, Palin is a smart and direct woman. To me, it’s these last two, along with her religious and family devotions, that drives the media into hysterics over her!

      I enjoy these ignorant harangues by obviously threatened simpletons, elsewhere. But here at JoNova? You, sir, are plainly out of your depth to imagine you can dispatch Palin from the field of merited acumen.

      00

  • #
    john

    A lot of the [snip] they spoon feed the sheep requires psychological tactics and repetition by MSM. Here is the latest and note how they do it…

    http://phys.org/news/2015-06-countering-science-denial.html

    [Please avoid such terms. They add nothing to the discussion. Thanks] AZ

    00

    • #
      john

      Apologies.

      10

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      They take a well established propaganda technique, and present it as a scientific process to correct peoples cynical interpretation of another example of dubious science.

      Folks, we appear to have stepped through the looking glass. Humpty Dumpty would be so proud …

      01

  • #
    Mike

    http://phys.org/news/2015-06-countering-science-denial.html
    Peter Cook has been hard at work June 12, 2015
    Good comments section in this link.

    10

    • #
      Mike

      “Good comments section in this link.”
      This is my opinion and should not be taken as reflecting anybody else’s opinion other than my own.

      If i had the time to add an opinion or comment of my own there on that site, it would have been approximately that ‘anthropogenic species extinction’, or extinction that is caused by human activity to non human as well as to various human races is a far bigger concern than getting hot and bothered while discussing the weather. By the time sea levels rise if ever, the job of creating extinction will already have occurred from deforestation and so on. I have not ever met a climate changer who acknowledges traditional environmental causes of extinction and the like.

      We can at least do something about what we know we are doing to the very few remaining species, and the anthropogenic activities resulting in various human genocides. If we can manage to do that successfully without arguing about it and name calling like “deniers” etc, curtail emissions of herbicide, heavy metals, depleted uranium and so on, then i am sure the weather will take care of itself.

      I can remember that once upon a time, talking about the weather was a polite thing to talk about. These days, talking about the weather is like talking about religion, politics, economics and so on.

      10

      • #
        Mike

        Some self moderation. OK, To me “climate changer” in the comment above sounds like ‘name calling’ after some reflection.

        *I have not ever met a person who ‘believes’ in climate change who acknowledges traditional environmental causes of extinction and the like.*

        And would also qualify that if a person is a non scientist, then in that case knowing/understanding something is true is not possible, only ‘believing’ something is true, especially if it cannot be verified personally/empirically or by experiment. For example, a doctor tells me Thalidomide is good for me in my case. Since i am not a doctor, or a medical scientist, i can only ‘believe’ it is true.

        00

    • #
      diogenese2

      Mike – Peter Cook died in 1995 but could even now make brilliant sketch out of “countering science denial”, which reads like a cod handbook on how to do propaganda.
      The most important requirement JOHN Cook leaves out (judging by the “Denial 101″ video) is to at least look like a half competent con artist and not (to quote the late Peter) “a player of the pink oboe”.

      10

      • #
        Mike

        Good work diogenese2. Too busy moderating myself and forgot to proof read. I must have been thinking of John Cleese when looking at the guy with a tinfoil devil hat ready for a gestapo phrenology session on the couch armed with a toilet brush in the link to the Physorg article. Easy mistake for me to make when confronted with such a scary picture. Poor guy. Thanks. Mike.

        00

      • #

        Peter Cook and Dudley Moore on the Lost Tapes.Heh, what
        would they have done with the lost heat?

        httcps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbnkY1tBvMU

        00

  • #

    Try again.
    vhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zen7k4PJVZY

    00

  • #
    ScotsmaninUtah

    ICCC conference

    I have to admit I forgot to look in on the 10th ICCC. :o

    00

  • #
    ScotsmaninUtah

    “I liked it ! :D

    finally finished looking at the videos from the heartland conference.

    I have to disagree with the comment form Rod McLaughlin above, the content of the conference
    was important not the personalities or delivery style.
    Although Mockton again stole the show with his presentation and dare I say it cutting sarcasm.

    several speakers referenced the now acidic exchange going on between the likes of Mann and Co
    and the skeptics.
    In addition I am glad to see everyone coming out in defense of Dr Willie Soon.

    I liked very much the cross referencing of previous statements by the IPCC and present day stuff !
    it is amazing to see the differences in pre-Final comments by scientists and Final comments after they have been through the 4 day closed review process

    I would’ve liked to see much more critic of the Climate Models, as they are being used as the mainstay for what ends up in the Reports, and hide many of the problems , but are the engine upon which much of the claims for CO2 influence are being made.
    very large sums of money are being poured in to these climate models, and the accuracy claims by the likes of Schmidt that “the models are skilled” are not evident in the results.

    I am glad to see the conference also mentioned China .. especially since it is the top CO2er.

    20

  • #
    ScotsmaninUtah

    “Alex Epstein at the Climate march”

    This particular guy is an inspiration , especially given the location !

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVBNelw4yks

    Some great interaction with protestors… kinda cool :D

    00