Heartland Institute
On June 2, 2009, Heartland will be hosting the Third International Conference on Climate Change at the Washington Court Hotel in Washington, DC. ICECAP is one of over 60 co-sponsors of the event. It will call attention to widespread dissent to the asserted “consensus” on various aspects of climate change and global warming.
The purpose of the event is to expose Congressional staff and journalists to leading scientists and economists in the nation’s capital. Senators and Representatives will be invited to speak side-by-side with leading scientists and economists. Allied organizations have been invited to be cosponsors, to help supply speakers and promote the event to their members and supporters.
The conference’s theme will be “Climate Change: Scientific Debate and Economic Analysis.” The theme reflects the fact that the scientific debate is not over and that economic analysis is more important than ever, now that legislation is being seriously considered. The real science and economics of climate change support the view that global warming is not a crisis and that immediate action to reduce emissions is not necessary. This is, in fact, the emerging consensus view of scientists outside the IPCC and most economists outside environmental advocacy groups.
The first conference, which took place in March 2008 in New York, dramatized the view that global warming is not a crisis, that it is probably natural and not caused by human activity, and that computer models are unreliable guides to future temperature change. The second conference, which took place in March 2009 in New York, focused on areas where alarmists have lost credibility and where skeptics have gained ground during the past year.
The complete program for the 2009 International Conference on Climate Change, including links to videos and PowerPoint presentations as they become available, is here. A copy of the printed program from the conference, which includes cosponsor information and brief biographies of all speakers, can be downloaded in Adobe’s PDF format here.
Click here for the full proceedings of the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change—including audio and video for more than 100 speakers.
Icecap still has 1 admission ticket available if you are in the DC area and would like to attend. E-mail me at jsdaleo@yahoo.com or jdaleo@icecap.us.
By Marc Morano, Climate Depot
Commissioner Foster Campbell of the Louisiana Public Service Commission is demanding to know why a witness skeptical of man-made global warming was not “shut down” during a May 13, 2009 hearing in Baton Rouge. According to an article in The Times-Picayune on May 19, 2009, Campbell was irate that Climate Depot’s executive editor Marc Morano was invited to speak at the hearing by Commissioner Eric Skrmetta. The paper reported: “Campbell criticized [Chairman] Boissiere for not shutting down Morano’s presentation.”
Campbell attempted to verbally grill Morano during the hearing and has since publicly accused the Climate Depot editor of being a “phony” and a “hack” who is part of a “fringe group” and he accused Morano of “deception” and taking “quotes out of context.” (See: Global warming presentation prompts Foster Campbell to ask for PSC testimony under oath )
Campbell, who engaged in a testy back and forth during the hearing with Morano, is now apparently demanding any future witnesses that challenge his scientific understanding of global warming be promptly “shut down.” The Times-Picayune reported: “After a presenter at last week’s Public Service Commission meeting asserted that global warming is a hoax, Commissioner Foster Campbell said Tuesday he plans to introduce a motion at the June meeting requiring most people testifying before the commission to do so under oath.” [Morano note: The paper is incorrect; I never testified that global warming a “hoax.” ]
Campbell’s call for future witnesses to be sworn-in is apparently his attempt to scare off any future skeptics of man-made global warming fears from testifying. Campbell somehow implies “swearing” in witnesses would somehow force witnesses to change their dissenting views of climate change. [Morano note: Sadly, it seems as though Campbell actually believes that if you present scientific evidence refuting Gore’s climate view, you must be a liar.]
The paper reported that Morano’s testimony “upstaged” Campbell’s invited witness. “Marc Morano, a former aide to Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma who now runs an anti-global-warming website called ClimateDepot.com, said there’s no proof that the planet is getting hotter and called the award of the Nobel Peace Prize to Al Gore and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change a ‘political gimmick.’” [Morano note: I merely quoted award-winning physicist Dr. Claude Allegre—who reversed his view on warming to become a skeptic—stating Gore’s Nobel award was “a political gimmick.” ]
The paper continued: “Campbell maintains that [his witness] offered the commission an analysis of a proposed policy change while Morano, who once worked for Rush Limbaugh, delivered a political rant that was of no value to the commission. He criticized [Chairman] Boissiere for not shutting down Morano’s presentation.”
[Morano note: A frustrated Campbell sat through my presentation which contained extensive analysis of cap-and-trade and I cited peer-reviewed scientific studies, award-winning scientists and the latest real world developments exposing the errors in man-made climate fears. My testimony even cited left wing environmentalists and promoters of global warming fears like the UK’s James Lovelock, NASA’s James Hansen and Green Party candidate Ralph Nader trashing the concept of cap-and-trade as “verging on a gigantic scam.” In addition, I presented the overwhelming polling data showing the public is rejecting climate fears. ]
During the question and answer portion of the testimony, Campbell accused Morano of representing “big business” and not being kind to former Vice President Al Gore. Campbell has been on a public relations war path since Morano’s 35 minute testimony at the hearing. Last week, Campbell released a May 14, 2009 letter calling Morano a “political operator from Washington, D.C. and he accused him of giving a “far-right sermon on Global Warming straight out of Rush Limbaugh, complete with obscure references, quotes out of context and personal attacks on a former Vice President and winner of the Nobel Prize.” Campbell called Morano’s testimony a “political circus.” He then went on to label him a “hack” who used “deception.”
[Morano note: In addition to providing comic relief, Campbell’s angry rants are quite chilling. As the science behind man-made global warming fears utterly collapses, many of the biggest promoters of the theory are growing increasingly desperate.
NASA’s James Hansen has called for trials of climate skeptics in 2008 for “high crimes against humanity.” Environmentalists Robert F. Kennedy Jr. lashed out at skeptics of 2007 declaring “This is treason. And we need to start treating them as traitors”. In 2006, the eco-magazine Grist called for Nuremberg-Style trials for skeptics. In 2008, Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki called for government leaders skeptical of global warming to be “thrown into jail.” In 2007, The Weather Channel’s climate expert called for withholding certification of skeptical meteorologists. A 2008 report found that ‘Climate blasphemy‘ is replacing traditional religious blasphemy. (See also: A July 2007 Senate report details how skeptical scientists have faced threats and intimidation].
See more here.
By William W. Beach, David Kreutzer, Ph.D., Karen Campbell, Ph.D. and Ben Lieberman
Representatives Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Ed Markey (D-MA) modified their global warming proposal from the draft version published on March 31. For the most part, the changes focused on the distribution of the allowance revenue--the equivalent of tax revenue.
There was also a slight easing of targeted emissions reductions for 2020, which resulted in a marginally lower economic impact. However, the new distribution of allowances created a less efficient pattern of government expenditures and more than offset the gain from the lower cap for 2020.
The economic impact of the new draft varies from that of the original draft in several major ways:
Compared to no cap and trade, real GDP losses increase an additional $2 trillion, from $7.4 trillion under the original draft to $9.6 trillion under the new draft; Compared to no cap and trade, average unemployment increases an additional 261,000 jobs, from 844,000 lost jobs under the original draft to 1,105,000 lost jobs under the new draft; and peak-year unemployment losses rise by 500,000 jobs, from 2 million under the original draft to 2.5 million under the new draft.
Though the proposed legislation would have little impact on world temperatures, it is a massive energy tax in disguise that promises job losses, income cuts, and a sharp left turn toward big government. Ultimately, this bill would result in government-set caps on energy use that damage the economy and hobble growth--the very growth that supports investment and innovation. Analysis of the economic impact of Waxman-Markey projects that by 2035 the bill would:
Reduce aggregate gross domestic product (GDP) by $9.6 trillion
Destroy 1,105,000 jobs on average, with peak years seeing unemployment rise by over 2,479,000 jobs
Raise electricity rates 90 percent after adjusting for inflation
Raise inflation-adjusted gasoline prices by 74 percent
Raise residential natural gas prices by 55 percent
Raise an average family’s annual energy bill by $1,500
Increase inflation-adjusted federal debt by 26 percent, or $29,150 additional federal debt per person, again after adjusting for inflation.
Read more here. See the effect on one state (Pennsylvania) as determined by three state utility commissioners here.