Posted on 03/05/2008 5:32:30 AM PST by Delacon
President Klaus--who won reelection just two weeks ago--explained his strong opposition to claims that global warming is a "crisis" that requires rapid reductions in human greenhouse gas emissions. An economist by training and author of a new book on environmentalism, Dr. Klaus pointed out the impossibility of meeting the ambitious emission reduction goals being endorsed by European countries, saying they would require lowering populations or widespread poverty.
Dr. Klaus was followed by Dr. William Gray, one of the country's preeminent hurricane forecasters and a pioneer in tropical meteorological research. Gray described what he called the huge errors in the treatment of water vapor by computer models used to forecast future weather conditions and pointed to evidence showing the warming predicted by the models was not occurring at the altitudes and latitudes predicted by the models.
Following Gray's presentation, scientists were urged to come to the front of the room for a group photo to commemorate the event and drive home the fact that "real scientists" were willing to speak out against global warming alarmism. Some 60 scientists stood for pictures.
The audience then split up to attend concurrent sessions on climatology, the impacts of climate change, and the economics and politics of the global warming debate. Eight panels took place featuring such noted experts as Richard S. Courtney, technical advisor to several UK MPs and one of 15 scientists invited to brief the U.S. Congress on climate change in 2000; Andreas Prokoph, a professor of Earth sciences at the University of Ottawa; and Paul Waggoner, a distinguished scientist at the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station in New Haven.
The group reconvened for a final lunch and plenary session featuring Dr. Roy Spencer, principal research scientists for the University of Alabama in Huntsville and the U.S. Science Team Leader on NASA's Aqua satellite, and John Stossel, an ABC News correspondent and co-anchor of 20/20.
Spencer reported on his latest research documenting how background "noise" in climate systems creates temperature variations that are not random, the size of which exceed all of the warming attributed to human activity by the models. He further documented a major error in the way climate models attempt to deal with cloud cover and convection in the tropics.
Stossel delivered a withering critique of the way the news media cover science and health issues. While confessing to have been duped into covering alleged "crises" in the past, he said he now recognizes that advocacy groups take advantage of the scientific illiteracy of journalists and their natural interest in stories of lurking or invisible threats that only government can protect people from. He further decried the pervasive anti-capitalist bias of the media, represented by their attacks on The Heartland Institute and other organizations associated with the conference for accepting any corporate funding.
In his concluding remarks, Heartland President Joseph Bast observed that the audience, which had been quiet at the beginning of the opening dinner Sunday night, was now so loud it was difficult to bring to order. The willingness to speak out, it seemed, had grown in just the past day-and-a-half. Bast reported on the extensive press attention the conference had received, reporting interviews on CBS, ABC, BBC, CNN, PBS, Glenn Beck's television program, Fox News, and a score of print publications including The New York Times, Washington Post, and The Wall Street Journal.
Bast then laid out an agenda for future collaboration: expansion of the International Climate Science Coalition, completion and release of the report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, publication of books and a new journal on climate science, posting of videos of all the presentations online, creation of a speakers bureau, and planning for a conference in London in 2009. James Taylor, the Heartland senior fellow and managing editor of Environment & Climate News who recruited many of the speakers who attended, added his closing remarks urging continued communication and collaboration for global warming realism.
A postscript by Joseph Bast: I have never before attended a conference, much less helped organize and host one, where so many people in the audience were so energized, engaged in the debate, and so obviously happy to be there. I saw friendships being created that I expect will last for lifetimes. The level of intellectual engagement was apparent from lively question-and-answer sessions and dueling presentations on several panels, the kind of free-spirited debate that is virtually absent from the global warming alarmist camp.
The 2008 International Conference on Climate Change was a success by every measure: attendance, quality of presentations, media coverage, and as a catalyst for future programs. History may well note that the long and largely unimpeded march of error, exaggeration, and even lies in the campaign to turn climate change into a global "crisis" hit a bump in March 2008, when the advocates of sound science and common sense finally came together to expose and confront it.
It was the conference heard around the world. And its message was deceptively simple: Global warming is not a crisis.
Joseph L. Bast (jbast@heartland.org) is president of The Heartland Institute.
I saw President Klaus on the Glenn Beck show the other day. He struck me as a very intelligent and thoughtful gentleman. Exactly the opposite of the typical AGW reactionary nutcase. He certainly made a positive impression on me. The other scientists that Glenn had on after President Klaus also presented very compelling and credible arguments. Kudos to Glenn Beck for getting these guys on his show.
The founder of the Weather Channel came out yesterday criticizing the science noting that several temperature collection sites violated guidelines by not being 100 feet away from metal, concrete, or asphalt structures. He showed several photos of such violations and said they could account for as much as a 5 degree difference.
>> where so many people in the audience were so energized
They’ll be accused of generating too much heat.
I think many people missed the idea on the “Global Warning” segment of that show.
President Klaus was pointing out that the same ideas, dressed up under different causes, that are used in this global warming BS have been used by many groups in order to gain power.
Outlawing crime worked so well, that same approach should be used with globle warming. Just outlaw it and it will stop “cold” in it’s tracks. Ain’t this fun?
The compelling evidence is there to expose this fraud. Al Gore and his ilk will have a rude awakening when they are “served” to appear in court. Now it should be interesting to see all of the AL Gore minions have to scramble because they hate looking like fools for believing a lie.
I would personally like to thank the Heartland Institute. This may get the ball rolling on debunking this destructive cult. For I, am personally much more worried about Global Stupidity, than I am of “Global Warming”.
Unfortunately, those who have perpetuated this foolishness, will never be held accountable. And the countless sheep who have been indoctrinated, well carry this pseudo-scientific belief with them for the rest of their sorry lives.
If algore.....knowing for sure that there is a good bit of serious opposition to global warming...... therefore......there is a chance that he is wrong.....goes ahead and sells his carbon credits and continues to stir the global warming pot for financial gain...then he has committed fraud, and ought to have to go before a jury.
We saw some of this in yesterday’s Ohio primary where this was Obama’s race to lose - and he did. How? He had NAFTA to hang around the Clintons’ necks in a union state. No way to get around it, and it was working - until the Canadian leaked his envoy’s telling them he really didn’t mean it. This Agent of Change is a hypocrite just like all the other politicians. Obama’s union supporters were looking at more of the same, NO REAL CHANGE! With egg on their faces they went in droves to his opponent, Hillary.
Gee, Al Gore...where is your consensus of the world’s scientists supporting global warming now?
Yeah, I’m surprised he didn’t, after inventing the internet, sell time-share “cyber property”, too. Snake oil comes in many forms.
“Paging Algore, Paging Algore”
Please pick up the Egg colored courtesy phone...
Yes, Glenn Beck had Lord Monckton(Thatcher advisor) on the other day and he told how they successfully sued to keep Al Gore’s movie out of public schools in the UK because the movie is political and contains many errors, lies, and distortions. He estimates that a simular fraud suit here in the US would cost about 2 million bucks. Not a large price to pay. Just think of how easy it would be to rip Gore apart as a snake oil salesman with his carbon credits scam. He is personally making money off that by scaring people with lies then getting them to buy carbon credits from a company he is part owner in. When Gore says he buys carbon credits, he is buying them from a company he owns. He is in effect buying stock in his own company, not paying money out of pocket like the rest of us would have to. Sue the bastard.
I'll chip in.
The court case that was brought against Al Gore and his global warming propaganda film in Great Britian, was by Stuart Dimmock - a father of two sons at state school and a school governor. The "ruling" had to do with Al and his friends' attempt to "politically indoctrinate" little children in school - which is illegal.
The 35 "scientific errors" they discovered in Gore's movie, "An Inconvenient Truth" (AIT), are a side issue, and were not the basis for the case brought against the propagandist, Al Gore.
The judge found, among other things, that in Al Gore's movie, AIT, "science is used, in the hands of a talented politician and communicator, to make a political statement and to support a political programme. ..." [See details below]
England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions Case No: CO/3615/2007 Hearing dates: 27, 28 September, 1, 2 October 2007 Before: MR JUSTICE BURTON
Stuart Dimmock - Claimant -- Mr Paul Downes and Miss Emily Saunderson (instructed by Malletts) for the Claimant
-vs-
Sec. State for Education and Skills - Defendant -- Mr Martin Chamberlain (instructed by Treasury Solicitors) for the Defendant
[Judge] Burton:
Stuart Dimmock is a father of two sons at state school and a school governor. He has brought an application to declare unlawful a decision by the then Secretary of State for Education and Skills to distribute to every state secondary school in the United Kingdom a copy of former US Vice-President Al Gore's film, An Inconvenient Truth ("AIT"), ..... I have had very considerable assistance from both the very able Counsel, Paul Downes for the Claimant and Martin Chamberlain for the Defendant, and their respective teams.
The context and nub of the dispute are the statutory provisions described in their side headings as respectively relating to "political indoctrination" and to the "duty to secure balanced treatment of political issues" in schools, now contained in ss406 and 407 of the Education Act 1996, which derive from the identical provisions in ss44 and 45 of the Education (No 2) Act 1986. ...
I viewed the film at the parties' request..... It is now common ground that it is not simply a science film – ... – but that it is a political film.. . Its theme is not merely the fact that there is global warming,... but that urgent, and if necessary expensive and inconvenient, steps must be taken to counter it, many of which are spelt out.
Paul Downes... has established his case that the views in the film are political by submitting that Mr Gore promotes an apocalyptic vision, which would be used to influence a vast array of political policies, which he illustrates ...:
(i) Fiscal policy and the way that a whole variety of activities are taxed, including fuel consumption, travel and manufacturing …
(ii) Investment policy and the way that governments encourage directly and indirectly various forms of activity.
(iii) Energy policy and the fuels (in particular nuclear) employed for the future.
(iv) Foreign policy and the relationship held with nations that consume and/or produce carbon-based fuels."
... the Defendant, does not challenge that the film promotes political views. ................."
In the DEFRA [the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs] leaflet ... there was this one sentence summary:
"Mr Johnson said that influencing the opinions of children was crucial to developing a long term view on the environment among the public."
After the pre-action correspondence from the Claimant, and on the very day the Judicial Review Claim Form was issued, a somewhat differently worded news release was issued by the Defendant dated 2 May 2007:
"....This pack will help to give young people information and inspiration to understand and debate the issues around climate change..."
The explanation for the distribution to all schools is now given in these proceedings in the witness statement of Ms Julie Bramman of the DES:
"8. …I should say at once that it was recognised from the start that __parts of the Film contained views about public policy__ and __how we should respond__ to climate change. The aim of distributing the film was not to promote those views, but rather to present the science of climate change in an engaging way and to promote and encourage debate on the political issues raised by that science."
...the meaning of partisan, as in partisan political views: ...
Partisan ... Mr Downes pointed to dictionary definitions suggesting the relevance of commitment, or adherence to a cause. In my judgment, the best simile for it might be "one sided". Mr Downes, in paragraph 27 of his skeleton argument, helpfully suggested that there were factors that could be considered by a court in determining whether the expression or promotion of a particular view could evidence or indicate partisan promotion of those views:
"(i) A superficial treatment of the subject matter typified by portraying factual or philosophical premises as being self-evident or trite with insufficient explanation or justification and without any indication that they may be the subject of legitimate controversy; the misleading use of scientific data; misrepresentations and half-truths; and one-sidedness.
(ii) The deployment of material in such a way as to prevent pupils meaningfully testing the veracity of the material and forming an independent understanding as to how reliable it is.
(iii) The exaltation of protagonists and their motives coupled with the demonisation of opponents and their motives.
(iv)The derivation of a moral expedient from assumed consequences requiring the viewer to adopt a particular view and course of action in order to do "right" as opposed to "wrong."
This is clearly a useful analysis.
"....What is forbidden by the statute is, as the side heading makes clear, "political indoctrination". If a teacher uses the platform of a classroom to promote partisan political views in the teaching of any subject, then that would offend against the statute.
[...]
The Film
I turn to AIT, the film. The following is clear:
i)"... science is used, in the hands of a talented politician and communicator, to make a political statement and to support a political programme. ..."
The Errors [35 found - only 9 focused on for brevity - are snipped here]
The Guidance
"... in order to establish and confirm that the purpose of sending the films to schools is not so as to "influence the opinions of children" (paragraph 7 above) but so as to "stimulate children into discussing climate change and global warming in school classes" (paragraph 6 above) a Guidance Note must be incorporated into the pack, and that it is not sufficient simply to have the facility to cross-refer to it on an educational website.....
...it is noteworthy that in the (unamended) Guidance Note there is no or no adequate discussion at all, either by way of description or by way of raising relevant questions for discussion, in relation to any of the above 9 'errors', the first two of which are at any rate apparently based on non-existent or misunderstood evidence, and the balance of which are or may be based upon lack of knowledge or appreciation of the scientific position, and all of which are significant planks in Mr Gores's 'political' argumentation. ..."
"...One particular change in the section on "Citizenship: Planning a whole day event on climate change" is of some significance:
"..... Invite in a guest speaker to go over the issues raised across the day and discuss solutions … But please remember that teaching staff must not promote any particular political response to climate change and, when such potential responses are brought to the attention of pupils, must try to ensure that pupils are offered a balanced presentation of opposing views."
The _amended_ Guidance Note contains in its introduction a new and significant passage:
"[Schools] must bear in mind the following points
* An Inconvenient Truth promotes partisan political views (that is to say, one sided views about political issues)
* teaching staff must be careful to ensure that they do not themselves promote those views;
* in order to make sure of that, they should take care to help pupils examine the scientific evidence critically (rather than simply accepting what is said at face value) and to point out where Gore's view may be inaccurate ...
* where the film suggests that views should take particular action at the political level (e.g. to lobby their democratic representatives to vote for measures to cut carbon emissions), teaching staff must be careful to offer pupils a balanced presentation of opposing views and not to promote either the view expressed in the film or any other particular view.
"...I am satisfied that, with the Guidance Note, as amended, the Defendant is setting the film into a context in which it can be shown by teachers, and not so that the Defendant itself or the schools are promoting partisan views contained in the film, and is putting it into a context in which a balanced presentation of opposing views can and will be offered. There is no call for the Defendant to support the more extreme views of Mr Gore – ..." bttt
Sorry. Where I say carbon credits, I meant carbon offsets. I haven’t finished my coffee this morning.
That’s all right. Those offsets credit algore’s bank account, so technically you were correct.
“The 35 “scientific errors” they discovered in Gore’s movie, “An Inconvenient Truth” (AIT), are a side issue, and were not the basis for the case brought against the propagandist, Al Gore.”
Thanks for fleshing things out. I don’t think the errors in “An Inconvenient Truth” are a side issue though. I mean, do you think the court would have ruled as it did if the movie was a real documentary that showed a serious effort to look at the subject of climate change scientificly and had few errors?
I agree, but as far as the BASIS for the court case goes, they were a side issue.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.