Watch the 15th International Climate Change Conference Live Streamed from Florida
Amazing that with so many billion dollar Science Institutes, free market think-tanks run the best science conferences in the world.
Breakfast Keynote – 8:00am – 9:45am ET
Watch Patrick Moore ‘s breakfast keynote speech.
Lunch Keynote – 1:00pm – 2:10pm ET
Ian Plimer is a geologist and will give a science presentation. Marlo Oaks is the treasurer of the state of Utah. He will be speaking about his efforts in his state to fight ESG (Environment, Social, Governance) efforts.
Dinner Keynote – 6:30pm – 8:00pm ET
Alex Epstein will speak about energy policy. Ken Haapala of SEPP will present the Frederick Seitz Memorial Award to Christopher Essex. Craig Rucker of CFACT will present the Dauntless Purveyor of Climate Truth Award to a mystery guest.
Schedule Below
Panel 1A – 9:00am – 10:30am ET
Taking the Temperature of Global Temperatures
Anthony Watts will discuss how the U.S. temperature data has been hopelessly corrupted; Willie Soon, Ph.D., will speak about the effect of the sun on global temperatures, and how that is not taken well-enough into account; and Joe Bastardi will speak about the effect of the oceans on global temperatures.Panel 2A – 10:45am – 12:15pm ET
Understanding What’s Really Happening to the Climate
Judith Curry, Ph.D., will give a presentation (remotely via video) titled “Climate Uncertainty and Risk”; Ross McKitrick, Ph.D., will give a presentation titled “Updated Climate Sensitivity and the Social Cost of Carbon”; Richard Lindzen, Ph.D., will give a presentation titled “Actual Climate vs. Policy.”
Panel 3A – 2:30pm – 4:00pm ET
Is Climate Science Scientific?
We examine the flaws in climate models. Tom Sheahen will explain the need to apply the Scientific Method to modeling. Howard Hayden will point out the glaring numerical inconsistency between AR-6 climate models and physical reality. Ken Haapala will discuss the impact of IPCC’s continuing errors.
Panel 4A – 4:15pm – 5:45pm ET
Green Agenda’s Impact on People
Donna Jackson will speak about how “environmental justice” for communities of color is a scam; Bob Carlstrom will speak about the impact higher “green energy” costs have on the poor and the elderly; Margaret Byfield will speak about the Biden administration’s “30×30” agenda and its impact on land owners
———————————————————-
Panel 1B – 9:00am – 10:30am ET
Consequences of Scarce Energy
Vijay Jayaraj will give a presentation titled “Green or Blood Red”; Benjamin Zycher, Ph.D., will give a presentation titled “Biden, not Putin, to Blame for High Energy Prices”; and Marc Morano will give a presentation titled “The Great Reset: Global Elites and the Permanent Lockdown.”Panel 2B – 10:45am – 12:15pm ET
Defeating ESG (Environment, Social, Governance)
Jason Isaac will give a presentation that gives an overall explanation of ESG, its goals, and its unintended consequences; Paul Watkins will talk about fighting ESG efforts on the state level; Marlo Lewis will give a presentation that has yet to be determined.
Is Climate Science Scientific?
Ronald Stein will give a presentation titled, “We’ve had 200 years to Replace Fossil Fuels: The Elephant in the Room”; Linnea Lueken will give a presentation titled, “Why ‘Big Oil’ Pushes ‘Green Energy’”; Alex Epstein will give a presentation titled, “Global Human Flourishing Requires Much More Energy.”
Unworkable Climate ‘Solutions’
Steve Milloy will give a presentation titled “Net Zero is Unachievable and Will Kill People”; Kevin Dayaratna will give a presentation titled “The Unsustainable Costs of Biden’s Climate Agenda”; and Ben Lieberman will give a presentation titled “The Global War on Air Conditioning.”
I will watch this soon starting at 4.15 am Sydney time. Hope I’m right with this.
61
I haven’t seen the videos but I’ve always thought that many climate policies were dangerous. In my mind the worst is biofuels, whether that is for ethanol or different types of biodiesel or biomass. The amount of land you need to devote to fuels boggle the mind. But the guy who did the best treatment of this was Michael Moore in “Planet of the Humans”.
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Michael+Moore+documentaries&view=detail&mid=88AB038608B27A2A2FB888AB038608B27A2A2FB8&FORM=VIRE
120
Woke up early this morning, going out with some friends for an sunrise walk and I find this!
Jo’s done it again: found something almost unbelievable, a huge pushback that will go a long way towards restoring “Science” to it’s proper place in the world.
This conference may not bring the Climate Change Enslavement Juggernaut to it’s knees but it’s a good start.
KK
270
Where are the up-and-coming young climate scientists presenting novel research?
Most presentation talking points were debunked decades ago.
351
Who debunked what ? A different oppinion isn’t debunking, you will not learn it.
300
Ah, Simon drops in with the usual invidious statements. Null hypothesis Simon ; there is no need for young upcoming scientists because the climate is driven by natural factors and you should understand that. If your head tells you there is a climate crisis then go for it – there are bigger problems.
I
120
“there are bigger problems.”
And a large proportion of the current world problems are BECAUSE OF the RESPONSE to the fabricated fantasy “climate change” memes.
140
Simon,
you left out an important group, our original peoples.
Apparently in many spots around our coast there are stories handed down which describe the rise and fall of oceans over very long periods, i.e. Thousands of years, not like the BOM which presents data recorded every tenth of a second.
280
https://notrickszone.com/2023/02/23/new-study-mid-holocene-sea-level-was-2-3-m-higher-than-today-rates-of-rise-reached-80-mm-yr/
Early Holocene rise of around 80mm/year (against less than 2mm/year now)
Sea level shown by geology to have been 2-3m HIGHER than now in the mid Holocene (also applies to NSW coast)
150
Well come.. which talking points have been debunked?.
A nebulous empty, meaningless statement… as usual.
Now, where is your scientific evidence of warming by human released atmospheric CO2.
Still totally lacking !
250
“Where are the up-and-coming young climate scientists presenting novel research?”
You will be pushed to find any, especially in the “climate science” area.
What they do is mostly model-based BS in support of the AGW meme. !
200
Up and coming young climate scientists know which side their bread is buttered. A very senior person in the UK met office told me anything that didn’t follow current thinking wouldn’t get funded.
280
Simon, the term “climate scientist” has been rendered almost meaningless by climate catastrophists because it constitutes an excuse to promote junk anti-science. People who typically identify as “climate scientists” are basically an embarrassment to real scientists and engage in routine violations of the Scientific Method.
320
What is a climate scientist? There are too many disciplines for a climate scientist to be a master of all. The term, to me, is like a GP in the medical profession.
10
More like Gimp or Gip?
00
Seems someone has answered that question that Simon keeps ducking –
“When I Covered Climate Change for Reuters I Thought CO2 Was Certainly to Blame for Rising Temperatures. I Was Wrong”
https://dailysceptic.org/2023/02/23/when-i-covered-climate-change-for-reuters-i-thought-co2-was-to-blame-for-rising-temperatures-i-was-wrong/
Via http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/2023/02/24/y2kyoto-i-was-wrong/#comments
and comments there – Jo gets a mention
140
Re SDA comments – note the explanation for “glowball warming”
30
Where are the up-and-coming young climate scientists presenting novel research?
Waiting in the wings, global cooling has begun and its only a matter of time before AGW grants are dropped.
90
Welcome to Simon’s world, where “debunking” science is done by an angry 16 year old girl does with a loud hailer.
140
The Heartland Institute hosting a climate conference ??!!.
The outcome will be like its efforts to disprove the tobacco-cancer link.
A balanced conference would have included some climate scientists.
125
You wouldn’t know a climate scientist if they sat on you.
Richard Lindzen, Willie Soon, Judith Curry, Ross McKitrick, Joe Bastardi.
Still trying the fake thirty year old smoking smear. That’s all “the Science” you have?
320
All of which , plus yourself, have not disproven the consensus view.
A conference stacked with yes men is far from scientific.
The fake cancer smear ??, go look at their history Jo.
You clearly operate on alternative facts.
09
“A conference stacked with yes men is far from scientific.”
You mean the IPCC event? Totally.
Heartland would be delighted to have IPCC scientists speak at their events and be represented on their panels. They’ve invited them, but they are too afraid to come.
Meanwhile the government funded IPCC panels won’t ask skeptics because they are too afraid…
130
Haw haw haw haw haw
Mr. Bogus Trump,
all you have done here is make smears and attacks on the people which is an old long running warmist/alarmist tactic because they cannot debate the details which YOU make clear vividly.
You write:
There are number of credentialed scientists attending and others who have made impactful contribution to the debate surrounding the overblown climate whining that people like you and the media make every day with their deliberate dishonest claims.
It is too bad that your bigoty is all you have to offer here which shows you are an empty vessel with nothing viable to offer.
Can you surprise us with something beyond an adolescent level comment?
60
Are you unaware that “consensus ” is meaningless in science !?
Did you know that warming by human released atmospheric CO2 has NEVER been observed or measured anywhere on the planet,
It just DOESN’T EXIST except as a failed hypothesis and in climate models.
You have NO facts and are therefore incapable of argument using facts.
50
Here is a response to the tobacco smear from Heartland (link below).
My comments as follows:
They never denied a connection between smoking by an individual and adverse health for that individual.
They did question the demonstrably junk science of second hand tobacco smoke but did not deny the possibility of a connection, just the junk science.
As a pro-freedom, pro-reason organisation they have supported the right of smokers to use a still-legal product, regardless of being an unhealthy product. It’s called personal freedom. How is it any different to the Left promoting an arguably more unhealthy product, especially unhealthy for the brain, marijuana?
We all know Leftists hate personal freedom and individual rights except those perverse issues they promote like “gender transition” (sic) in children.
And they have also supported people’s right to vape due to personal freedom issues. In any case, vaping is definitely more healthy than tobacco. Governments are against vaping because it’s harder to tax, they don’t care about health.
Heartland comments at this link:
https://heartland.org/opinion/secondhand-smoke-lung-cancer-and-the-global-warming-debate/
120
Heartland tried to play down the risks and Phillip Morris paid them millions to do so:
https://www.scribd.com/document/220221584/Joe-Bast-op-ed-on-smoking
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heartland_Institute
012
So, again absolutely nothing to do with climate. Just Simon attempting to slime [snip]
So, Where is your evidence of warming by human released atmospheric CO2.
ps.. there are still lots of questions about just how dangerous second hand cigarette smoke is.
Aren’t you interested in actual SCIENCE to back up anything you say !?
70
And also, tell us which part of Joe Bast’s comments on the first link was incorrect at the time ?! (you will avoid answering, of course…)
Seems that stating known facts, that don’t agree with leftist agendas, is what you are really against !
And far-left Wiki as a source… nope… not accepted in any scientific circle.
20
I very much doubt that.. a) Simon would even listen to the presentations…
and b) that he would be able to produce anything scientific to debunk any of it, even if he did listen to the presentations.
130
Novel research is NOT needed Simon, as have we not had it drummed into us ad nauseum that the science is settled.
Or is it now unsettled?
140
‘Most presentation talking points were debunked decades ago.’
This one is contemporary.
Understanding What’s Really Happening to the Climate
40
Simon,
I tried really hard to find anything useful in your comment gave up as I realized you never had one to offer.
Your fact free, blanket statement don’t impress me, try harder make your case.
150
Fifteen years ago would have been the same participants saying the same things. It’s impossible to find these proceedings online though, because it would then show that the climate did not cool as they forecast.
010
No warming except for El Nino event.
No evidence of warming by human released atmospheric CO2, ANYWHERE !!
Climate is not WARMING as the climate glitterati modellers “predicted” (LOL) it would.
70
We await your “science” to debunk any comments in the presentations.
Are you capable.. ?
… or are you just an empty, zero-science wannabe !
20
In the 1970s it was the same “climate gurus” (lol) predicting a new ice age !.
50
Fifteen years ago I was a lot younger.
10
Perfect projection. Al Gore is still around from far longer ago than fifteen years and he is still saying the same things, and the climate did not cook us as as he forecast.
40
Simon,
I tried really hard to find anything useful in your comment gave up as I realized you never had one to offer.
Your fact free, blanket statement don’t impress me, try harder make your case.
20
I see you take after Tony Blair. He too thought that he only had to say something for it to be true, regardless of the evidence.
And even though long dead, he’s at it again with the ‘need’ for digital IDs.
20
What I like about these united presentations is the “safety in numbers” approach. Standard strategy (in anything) is to take the approach of picking off your opponents one-by-one. Divide and Conquer” if you will.
The more that climate sceptics organize in groups, the harder it is to take them down through a cancel culture approach.
I hope that this is inspiring to those on the front lines because it is inspiring to those of us isolated and behind enemy lines.
Thank you for posting this Jo.
210
On a related note -fightback-, President Trump has just stated that if re-elected he will reinstate his previous ban on retirement funds (called 401K in the US) investing in ESG (Environmental, Social, Governance) “investments”, risking investor money for woke political reasons (and benefiting the Leftist subsidy harvesters and crony capitalists). President Trump’s previous order was over-turned by the Biden Maladministration.
Only 2 mins 15 secs https://youtu.be/5TLPj8C_t44
210
201K.
20
I had to check
“A 401k retirement fund that has lost half of its value.”
Urban Dictionary
40
200.5
20
Thanks again Jo and I’ll be following the speakers and always hoping to learn something new.
But I wish they’d mention how Humans have thrived since the start of the Industrial Revolution and the mind boggling increase in population and wealth and health since 1950.
But I’ll reserve my opinion until I hear Alex Epstein’s speech, because he’s very thorough and always uses proper historical data and evidence to support his claims.
130
You’ll like Epstein’s talk, also watch Patrick Moore’s breakfast talk.
20
More on the Ohio train crash
“Exhibit ‘A’ On Stupidity”
https://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=248176
60
I see Bowen (the Minister for stopping electricity) has decided that Australia will become a hydrogen superpower.
Time for compulsory sanity checks for politicians?
150
Any “green” project promoted as making Australia a “superpower” in that area is certain to be a failure.
NEVER let politicians make scientific or engineering decisions.
And the last “superpower” failure was the Sun Cable. It was an absurd project from the start and didn’t even pass the BS test. But, no one seems to learn the lesson as shown in the following article.
How many more billions are going to be thrown away on this insanity?
100
I blogged on Sun Cable today
Sun Cable in Administration – what’s up?
http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=7096
My thoughts – Proposed cable to Singapore running along then crossing one of the great ocean trenches on Planet Earth.
The trench is location of colliding tectonic plates, subduction zone, heightened seismic activity, plus elevated volcanic risk think Krakatoa.
I wonder if behind the scenes efforts are going on to get Fed Govt taxpayer $dollars to boost the loony-toon scheme?
Even the comparatively tiny Basslink cable has been a financial disaster for Tassie taxpayers and TasHydro. But that does not TasHydro promoting some “son of Basslink” cable to failure seeking Fed Gov $Moolah.
30
News for him
“SMH: Aussie Hydrogen Export Plans At Risk from US Hydrogen Development”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/02/24/smh-aussie-hydrogen-export-plans-at-risk-from-us-hydrogen-development/
50
Apparently, Bowen is a big fan of Michael Mann after reading one of his books. Who knew that bloke could even read? Anyway, I have suggested he read this book. “A disgrace to the profession” (Mark Steyn book re. Michael Mann). 2015
150
Isn’t the problem with becoming a hydrogen super power that if it is viable, anyone can make it? This is an argument I heard used as a positive of hydrogen, so how can it be ignored when it might apply against it?
Oh that’s right, that’s a skill taught in debating 101, simply ignore all arguments not in your favour.
60
Patrick Moore’s talk at:
https://www.youtube.com/live/0l7u6hVdTqs
was good but he made an omission or even an error.
At around 41:45 he presents a graph showing a catastrophic decline in CO2 which was actually happening but then he incorrectly attributes the turn-around of this decline to mankind’s activities.
That is incorrect because my understanding is that only 3-4% of atmospheric CO2 is of anthropogenic origin.
Thoughts?
70
The theory is that a fraction accumulates.
20
Yes, you see David, plants, which normally consume CO2, are cogans. Being cogan is similar to being vegan. Vegans avoid consuming anything derived from animals, and cogan plants avoid consuming CO2 derived from humans and livestock.
Also, unlike “natural” CO2, the kind produced by humans and livestock is insoluble in water.
130
🙂
60
There are still a number of climate skeptics/ commentators who are in the Bjorn Lomborg club. That is, they believe the rise in CO2 levels is all due to mankind’s activities, but that’s mankind’s response is completely out of proportion to the possible threat. Mostly they believe this to not be completely censored and so remain in the debate. The extent to which they believe that rise in CO2 is significant or having an effect on climate is variable. Moore is in that AGW club. Along with many others. I think you can divide climate “ realists” up into many subgroups depending on their beliefs. That’s been my observation over 30 years of interest in this subject.
100
Yes they are called Lukewarmers. They accept AGW but think it more or less harmless, or even benign.
91
The club that think the theory of AGW/ man made CC has little scientific foundation should be called the Tony Abbott subgroup. TA being a previous Aussie Prime Minister who famously uttered “ climate change is crap”. ( Referring to AGW/man made climate change, not natural CC)
60
No PM ever said anything like that.
A member of the Coalition in opposition said that. When he became Leader of the Opposition he did a 180 and became a believer. When he became PM remained a believer. When he was ousted as PM he was still a believer.
It was only after he lost his seat that he reverted to being a skeptic.
60
I met Tony Abbott On 9th November 2016 (I can’t believe it was that long ago) when the late Dr Tim Ball visited Australia and Tony had become a skeptic again then, although I was surprised he hadn’t seen the following video in which Lord Monckton warned about the possibility of Abbott’s removal as PM due to being a supposed “skeptic”. Incidentally, I think YouTube is shadow banning this video.
https://youtu.be/NG0WcjGHkEw
70
“They accept AGW but think it more or less harmless, or even benign.”
Certainly the GW (Global Warming) the planet has experienced since the Little Ice Age has been absolutely and completely BENEFICIAL !
90
Being “reasonable” and accommodating this unscientific “warmist” rubbish is why climate keptics have been losing the debate for thirty years now, and will go on losing.
Either rising atmospheric CO2 is the CAUSE of increasing global temperatures, or rising atmospheric CO2 is the RESULT of increasing ocean temperatures.
There is no middle ground, and Henry’s Law makes it abundantly clear which is correct.
150
Alex Epstein is a prominent member of this group. He rarely argues the science. Whether this is a good tactic or not I dont know, but he has some very good takes on environmental philosophy.
For someone who has lived a city life I would suggest, studying philosophy, he understands how the environment works, way more than the environmental sciences and propaganda unit, who have it fundamentally wrong. An interesting mind, and a novel approach to tackling the issue at hand.
40
I like how the introductory speaker (https://www.youtube.com/live/0l7u6hVdTqs) referred to Florida, where the conference is, as a “free state” with a rapid population growth of 15% due to internal migration from failed DemocRAT states like California. I think as the Left continue to destroy America, more people will be seeking refuge in the free red states. If things get really bad, such states may even be the starting point for a Second American Revolution to re-establish a society based on the consent of the governed with recognition of inalienable natural rights as the US used to be.
100
Now I understand what the definition of science is. Or at least the definition acceptable to this community. As posted above, there is nothing new, and nothing that has not already been assessed, weighed and debunked, often decades ago. The Heartland institute, famous for their work on smoking, would be proud to see their old playbook reissued for this discussion.
124
LOL.. you never did understand what “science” is, and you still don’t.
Where is your science proving that human CO2 causes warming ?
Where is you “science” that counters one single fact that will be raised in these presentations.
You will remain EMPTY of science, as always.
150
typo line 1.. done => don’t.
30
I very much doubt that.. a) Peter would even listen to the presentations…
and b) that he would be able to produce anything scientific to debunk any of it, even if he did listen to the presentations.
80
The green cultists never debunk anything because they can’t. They just go la-la la-la, and repeat ad infinitum that the Maldives will be under water, there will be no snow on Kilimanjaro, Greenland will melt, there will be mass climate refugees, we’ll run out of oil, millions will die of heat, temperature follows CO2 (which it patently doesn’t), man-made CO2 is a not a rounding error on natural CO2, that by taking us back to the stone age we’ll affect the weather, etc. It’s a deliberate narrative and nothing at all to do with science or genuine concern.
Spend a few minutes looking at the Extinction Clock.
https://extinctionclock.org
Masses of predictions since the 1960s. Not a single one came true by it’s due date or even long after.
40
After a debate with other Mensa members, I came to the conclusion that carbon dioxide warming by radiative forcing is falsified by the evidence. First you have evidence of what caused global warming. Astronomers from William Herschel onwards had known about correlations between Climate Change and Sun Spot numbers, this was followed by more accurate correlations with Solar Cycle Length and then finally, the Hale Magnetic Solar Cycle. By 2018 it had been established that these correlations are caused by the speed of the centre of the Sun relative to the centre of mass or barycentre of the Solar System, which determines the length of the solar cycles, or more importantly the Hale Magnetic Solar Cycle. This in turn is caused by the orbits and masses of the Planets, short Hale Magnetic Solar Cycles have higher Solar Magnetic activity due to the increase in the speed of plasma within the Sun. Between 1913 and 1996, only one of eight Solar Cycles was longer than the mean Solar Cycle length of 11.04 years, the last of these was the shortest Solar Cycle for more than 200 years, the strength of the Suns magnetic field more than doubled, the cosmic ray flux fell by 11 percent and there was a 8.6 percent reduction in clouds. Then you have two sets of replications of evidence using the scientific method which can also explain the Earth’s past temperatures based on past global average surface air pressure, for what causes the global average surface temperature. The paper (Unified Theory of Climate, Ned Nikolov & Karl Zeller, 2011) shows that the average surface temperature divided by the grey body temperature gives you the magnitude of the Thermal inertia which resembles the response of the temperature/potential temperature ratio to the altitudinal changes of pressure described by the Poisson formula, with predictions matching evidence for Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Europa, Titan, Triton and the Moon, to prove that the physical nature of the so-called Greenhouse Effect is in fact a Pressure-induced Thermal Enhancement or Thermal Inertia which is independent of the atmospheric chemical composition. Then you have the simplest way of proving that Carbon Dioxide does not cause warming by radiative forcing, but by molar mass, by the fact that the average temperature at the one bar pressure points on each of the planets, is the same, adjusted for distance from the Sun, despite the different main gases, Nitrogen for the Earth & Titan, Hydrogen for Jupiter, Neptune, Saturn & Uranus and Carbon Dioxide for Venus. That’s it really, “Man Made Climate Change” is just a pagan ideology for mass formation morons who worship Greta Thunberg, the Church of Mother Earth and Big Pharma.
120
In the essential chain of logic in Rational science, the prior and essential question is not whether CO2 causes warming but whether humans have increased CO2.
Quite amazingly, it’s a statement even the most famous sceptics accept without proof but you can measure it. In 1958 fossil fuel CO2 was measured as 2.0+/-0.15% of the total CO2 when it was really expected to be 14%. And now you can demonstrate unequivocally that human CO2 is only 3.0% of atmospheric CO2. So the universal hatred of fossil fuels is inexplicable by science.
Whether there is warming due to increased CO2, the CO2 levels are natural and we humans have no significant effect on CO2. Rather CO2 levels are based solely on the vapour pressure of CO2 from the oceans which contain 98% of all CO2. So warming oceans release more CO2. More CO2 does not produce warming oceans. There is no mechanism for that. NASA says the ocean stole the warming? How?
And for James Hansen’s story to Congress in 1988 when all this started with the UN and WMO and IPCC, Hansen was an upper atmosphere NASA scientist looking for a job, what worked on Venus at 900C does not work on our cool water covered planet. Game over.
And you might have noticed above, people like Judith Curry are talking about two things and ONLY two things controlling the weather. Solar intensity and ocean currents. Both of which are largely missing from the infamous atmospheric computer models which cannot reproduce the past let alone the future. And that’s after 35 years of fiddling. There is zero man made Global Warming. Climate Change was a story to get multi national funding for the WMO, nothing more.
For a decade since even warming stopped, trillions are being spent every year to stop something which has stopped. Why?
50
You talk was great, Jo.
60
Long (very long) time, no post.
I’m in Florida at the ICCC. Congratulations, well deserved. Generally they make the announcement at the ICCC as a surprise. I was surprised to see you on the remote connection.
I have a couple photos, not sure if I can post them. I have other means I can figure out.
60
This should work. There is one problem with the award – it’s a prop. More precisely, it’s Mark Morano’s from 2021. I have been assured that you will get a properly personalized award!
We all wish you were here!
40
This should work, oops. I needed to finish the HTML.
There is one problem with the award – it’s a prop. More precisely, it’s Mark Morano’s from 2021. I have been assured that you will get a properly personalized award!
We all wish you were here!
This should work.
60
Well deserved.
60
Thanks David!
Thanks Ric for the photos!
I wish I could have been there. CFACT and Heartland are so generous they offered to fly me to Florida. Alas the USA requires vaccination for foreigners. (Still). So it was not to be this year. I was sworn to secrecy.
Perhaps next year I’ll be able to get there? So many people I would love to meet and some old friends I don’t see often enough.
90
Good to see Jo’s happy face and you should be congratulated.
40
Congratulations Jo, you are a ” DAUNTLESS PURVEYOR OF TRUTH’. it’s a well deserved award.
50
Yes, Undaunted.
30
TdeF is going over the primitive arguments of AGW. Come on, you should do better. Your arguments would not change anyone’s idea of AGW.
01
Just so honored to win the Dauntless Award. Heartland and CFACT went to so much trouble..
I have the 4 minute mini documentary they made. I will figure out a way to post it up tomorrow. Rumble, Bitchute I suppose. 250Mb.
50
[…] Livestreamed: The True Crisis, Climate Change or Climate Policy? […]
00
[…] Livestreamed: The True Crisis, Climate Change or Climate Policy? […]
00