Heartland is offering people the chance to see and possibly meet some of the heroes of the skeptic world in Washington in June 30 – July 1, 2011, Washington D.C. (I hear this may possibly be the last of the Heartland Climate conferences. I hope not!)
Unfortunately I won’t be able to get there, but Bob Carter, Fred Singer, Harrison Schmitt and Steve McIntyre will, the great Craig Idso will be.
Click on the images to enlarge them and read
I thoroughly enjoyed the Heartland conferences I have been and highly recommend getting yourself there if you can. You meet the best people. 🙂
Click on the postcards to enlarge them. Use this PDF if you want to print and post!
UPDATE:
The poster image was apparently a draft, and Steve McIntyre, alas, won’t be speaking. (Drat!) I’ve updated the image to the correct one.
Unfortunately I’m over committed at the moment but I hope the conference is as good as the last one.
I’ll certainly be following the presentations online and let’s hope the MSM wakes up and provides some coverage of these quality scientists who are obviously only trying to provide the facts of historical and present day CC.
BTW just had a Eureka moment to share with the Gillard govt.
If they want to reduce our emissions of co2 by 5% why not just produce 5% less coal, oil and LNG every yeasr.
Afterall if we cut the exports of coal and LNG by 5% and reduced imports of oil by 5% we wouldn’t need a tax or need to wreck our economy for zero return at all.
Trouble is Juliar last night promised the Japanese govt we would always provide coal and LNG to them and she certainly didn’t mention any reduction in tonnages.
I think my solution is a bit too simple to get a run.
20
I hope the Governor of the great state of Texas will be there.
He is particularly well placed to understand the effects of climate change. Industry in his state is well placed to do something about it: oil is a hydrocarbon. Hydrocarbons produce water vapour when burnt. Water vapour condenses to rain. Prayer is unnecessary: burn more oil to end the drought.
[Al used to be “known” as huh in other threads… — JN ]
10
ATNN: JoNova
Here is a comment I just posted to Tom Fuller at Mother Jones
ATTN: Tom Fuller
RE: The BC Climate Action Plan
RE: The BC New Communist Manifesto
In July 2008, BC enacted the “Climate Action Plan” (CAP) and started Phase One of the Plan: A carbon tax on fossil fuels at $20 per tonne of CO2 equivalent. This tax will increase to $30 per tonne
on July 1, 2012. I currently pay a ca 20% tax on the commodity price of BC nat gas.
The BC gov will soon introduce Phase Two: Laws regulating the emission of GHG’s from all sources. When the Climate Action Plan is fully “entrenched” in law, the BC gov has the “legislative authority” to:
1. Indirectly, seize control of all means of production.
2. Indirectly, control the production of all goods and services.
3. Use the carbon tax scheme to redistribute wealth via tax cuts to busineses and corporation and to taxpayers with incomes less than $120,000. Individual taxpayers and families with incomes much greater than $120,000 get no tax breaks.
4. Control every aspect of the affairs and lives of the people of BC. For example, banning the sale of certain incan. lightbulbs.
NB: The terms “entrenched” and “legislative authority” are used in the CAP.
What is really scary about the CAP is that the clueless folks in BC have swallowed the CAP hook, line, sinker, beaver, bear, and bluejay. There has been no complaints so far about the CAP because they have brain washed by the white-coated wiseguys aka climate scientists and the likes of Don David Suzuki who is a running a climate protection racket and shaking down a guillible public for cold hard cash.
The BC CAP can found at:
http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/cas/cap.html#cap
You really haven’t got a clue about the true objective of the UN via its front organization the IPCC but you do now.
You should check out the BC CAP because your gov will use it as a model for their carbon tax plan.
10
Neville: #1
Because it doesn’t work like that. You have obviously not been paying attention. No real CO2 is produced by mining coal, nor from extracting oil or importing gas. CO2 is only produced whey you burn the coal, oil or gas. And since exported coal and oil is not burnt here, there is no CO2 produced here, so no tax is payable.
We wouldn’t need the tax at all if people didn’t insist on burning coal, oil, and gas, instead of just trading it for some nice warm blankets (and perhaps a few muskets).
Exporting = good, consuming = bad. OK? Got it now? How can the Government socially engineer the population, if people like you don’t make an effort to keep up?
11
David Archibald is sure this SC24 and possibly SC25 will both be short and weak leading to a Dalton Minimum type cooling. He also states that should such cooling occur the Canadian wheat crop would be seriously reduced. This is one of several stories coming out of the northern prairies: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-04-18/canadian-wheat-sowing-may-be-delayed-on-wet-weather-board-says.html
It seems late snows and melt are delaying sowing 10 to 20 days. The same region experienced a number of early frosts last year. Combine the two and the short growing season will see yield reductions. Maybe it’s La Nina and maybe it’s the solar cycle or maybe a bit of both. Either way cold weather equals less food.
While the IPCC and acolytes keep talking of frying, Canada is cooling. Should we tell Tim Flannery and Julia that their tax may not be necessary after all. The thing about snow on the ground is that it is fact rather than the computer fiction we have been dealing with up til now.
10
Rereke I’m deeply offended by your nasty comments because I’m trying my best to keep up to you higher IQ types.(Sarc off.)
Btw we export LNG and coal but import some oil to top up our requirements.
Interesting we emit 1.3% of global emissions and NZ emits 0.1%.
Now if we attribute the 0.7C increase in temp over the last 100+ years to human’s co2 increases Australia would have contributed 0.009C and NZ 0.0007C.
So it’s good to see NZers are already doing their level best to tackle CAGW.
10
Off Topic:
Something we have to prevent happening in Australia, this from Christopher Booker.
A truly deplorable situation, not to mention stupid.
10
Something to include in any correspondence with our hapless Government re- green energy.
Wind farms produced “practically no electricity” during the cold snap which manufacturers’ groups say could lead to severe winter energy shortages.
We need to keep reminding our politicians Wind and Solar are both too expensive and inefficient to put our faith in.
It’s not that there just inefficient, there not even green.
In China, the true cost of Britain’s clean, green wind power experiment: Pollution on a disastrous scale
10
Correction to first link in my last post. the link should be this; http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/6957501/Wind-farms-produced-practically-no-electricity-during-Britains-cold-snap.html
10
@Neville: #5
“Rereke I’m deeply offended by your nasty comments because I’m trying my best to keep up to you higher IQ types.(Sarc off.)”
I must admit Neville, I re-read Rereke’s reply to you at #3 several times before I realised that it had received 5 ‘Thumbs Up’s’, and Rereke was obviously joking.
Sorry for being such a ‘Slowy’ tonight.
I mean, everybody here already knows that to produce LNG takes massive amounts of power, and that it will most likely be our single, largest, source of emissions by 2020.
10
Sorry all, I see my link @5 is not working, look here.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/8455928/EU-red-tape-will-cost-Calor-millions-to-replace-brand-new-tanker-fleet.html
10
@Bob Malloy: #10
Your link at #7 worked fine for me Bob.
Thanks for the article, typical EU crap, as an ex pomme it makes me glad I left Europe many years ago.
10
You do find the strangest things when you’re rooting around in other people’s data. Julia’s latest attempt to rally the wavering foot soldiers of Labor with a sing along proved just as accident prone as her administration …
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QtSyr6yW9U
Pointman
10
The sixth Heartland Climate conference will no doubt be a success at which the latest science will be presented that debunks the IPCC’s mantra and model-based predictions. And people will feel good about it.
But sadly, those who are driving the catastrophic man-made global warming will not even bother to listen or take any notice… from politicians to the media, from climate agencies to universities… they won’t want to know. Why would they? They have to continue defending their catastrophic man-made global warming scare. For them, too much us at stake to admit they have been wrong.
With the next IPCC report due to be completed next year, the promoters of the IPCC’s mantra will simply wait for their updated “climate bible” which no doubt will contain more apocalyptic predictions based on biased science, and governments will try even harder to impose tighter regulations over fossil fuel energy and our lifestyle.
And so, on and on it will go… on a road to nowhere but more misery and economic destruction when the world can least afford it.
The truth is that we are all on a hiding to nothing unless this whole issue can be tested in a Court of Law… where the full spectrum of claims by the IPCC and governments can be tested… based on real-world scientific evidence.
Unless this issue is dealt with by the Courts, the alarmists who outnumber the skeptics in every area, be they in politics, government agencies, science academies, universities, the media, etc. will simply keep driving this fraud.
Make no mistake. These fraudsters are not interested in real-world climate data. To them, regulating Co2 and carbon is simply the right thing to do. That’s their religion… that’s their politics. For them, the science was settled in 2007.
My view is that Heartland Institute and other similar enterprises should be coordinating a plan on how to get this ‘monster’ dealt with by the Court system. Which Court system, which country, and how to fund such legal action should be determined as matters of priority. It is the only way to force these politicians and their global warming experts to defend their case where it can be tested against the real-world data.
We know what happened when Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” was the subject of a challenge in the British High Court. We know what happened when the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition took the National lnstitute of Water & Atmospheric Research Ltd to Court over the New Zealand temperature record. It is this type of action the world needs more of in order to expose the greatest global swindle of out time.
10
@Mervyn Sullivan: #13
“My view is that Heartland Institute and other similar enterprises should be coordinating a plan on how to get this ‘monster’ dealt with by the Court system”
Nice Summary Mervyn, and I agree with your sentiments.
Unfortunately, Court, here in Australia, costs big bucks if you lose, but given that nearly all Law, is primarily driven by precedent, it may just be possible to bring a case that has already been resolved by another court. (ie. The “An Inconvenient Truth” case in the UK)
I don’t know whether our Australian Children are being subjected to the abuses of Al Gore’s ‘Pack of Lies’, but if they are then there may be a case to answer.
It would be arkward, for an Australian Court, to totally ignore a ruling from a country on which its Legal System is based.
In respect of bringing this matter, Front and Centre, into the living rooms of Australian voters, then I think a Law Suit is a brilliant idea. the only problem is, who can affort to pay for it.
Are there any lawyers on this site who would like a little ‘pro bono’ work for a class action suit against a Government Department?
10
Mervyn Sullivan — There is more to the conferences than just aiming to get outside attention. For example, without Heartland hosting a conference here in Australia I wouldn’t have met 2 high ranking conservative Australian columnists, and 4 important Australian skeptics that I had not otherwise had the chance to meet. Plus one senator too. The spin-offs from putting active skeptics together are impossible to quantify.
Oh, and yes, I wouldn’t have met Deltoid either…
10
Here is a quote from a science source
Taking the multiverse on faith – physicsworld
10
“The sixth Heartland Climate conference will no doubt be a success at which the latest science will be presented that debunks the IPCC’s mantra and model-based predictions. And people will feel good about it.”
Well you’d be wrong. If they had any science to present that debunked AGW they would be able to do it now. They don’t. Because they can’t.
The Heartland Climate Conference is 60% PR, 40% planning how to spread disinformation
10
Have they invited Al Gore or James Hansen? Every conference should have some comedy relief.
gees nnMomoron, there is heaps of science that totally debunks the AGW theory, you just don’t accept/understand it because of your religious beliefs
10
nnNomnom @18
Nonnom (YUMYUM = “you get fed on the wrong info”)is another Lowlot? or July? etc
Go away?
10
“gees nnMomoron, there is heaps of science that totally debunks the AGW theory”
There’s plenty of junkscience like that sky dragons stuff and climate myths like the MWP being degrees warmer than present sure. I just don’t fall for it because I dont have a political agenda.
10
Joanne Nova @16
Yes, I agree in the importance of networking etc.
But my point is that if the ‘catastrophic man-made global warming juggernaut’ is ever going to be stopped dead in its tracks, the only effective way of doing this is by having the ‘evidence’ of the warmists challenged and discredited in a Court of Law.
For example, whether it is in relation to the supposition of the green house effect, or the IPCC model-based predictions (scenarios), or the corrupted surface temperature record, there is a wealth of real-world data and studies indicating that the IPCC has got it wrong. If these aspects could be proven in a Court of Law, then without a shadow of a doubt, the foundations on which the IPCC has built its mantra would be demolished.
Imagine, for one moment, if a Court of Law were to accept…
… that available scientific evidence conclusively demonstrates that the greenhouse effect supposition, relied upon by the IPCC, is not valid, and therefore the IPCC cannot rely on a false supposition to promote its false alarmism?
or
… that available studies clearly demonstrate that the model-based predictions of the IPCC are without foundation, and show no resemblance to the real-world data, and therefore can be considered to be “garbage-in garbage-out” models that are incapable of accurately predicting future climate?
or
… that untested model-based predictions cannot be held out to be ‘science’, when real-world data clearly shows the models are wrong?
In my opinion, legal challenges are necessary to chop the IPCC’s pseudo science at the knees, thereby leaving the IPCC and green governments without a leg to stand on.
Because this has not yet happened, the ‘catastrophic man-made global warming juggernaut’ has been able to roll on… and it will continue to roll on. Look at the EU’s greening policies… look at the attempts by Obama’s EPA to regulate Co2… look at Gillard’s attempt to have a carbon tax… look at the UN’s progress with it’s US$100 billion Green Climate Change Fund.
And so, on and on and on it will go UNLESS we can somehow stop it… and to do that, use of the Court system is essential.
The question is how can this be effectively done?
10
Jo, you say: “Unfortunately I won’t be able to get there, but Bob Carter, Harrison Schmitt and Steve McIntyre will.”
I’m puzzled that I’m featured on this poster. Not only did they not invite me to be a featured speaker, they didn’t invite me at all.
10
Thanks Steve, it must have been a draft image accidentally sent out. I’ve updated the file and replaced it with the original.
10
I wonder if they’ll be inviting Richard Muller and his team? Probably not eh?
10