Finally!! A conference that promises to explore the scientific dissent on GW... Are you as excited as I am?
The 2008 International Conference on Climate Change is the first major international conference to focus on issues and questions not answered by advocates of the theory of man-made global warming.
Hundreds of scientists, economists, and public policy experts from around the world have gathered in New York to call attention to widespread dissent in the scientific community to the alleged “consensus” that the modern warming is primarily man-made and is a crisis.
According to their website, the debate over whether human activity is responsible for some or all of the modern warming, and then what to do if our presence on Earth is indeed affecting the global climate, has enormous consequences for everyone in virtually all parts of the globe. Proposals to drive down human greenhouse gas emissions by raising energy costs or imposing draconian caps could dramatically affect the quality of life of people in developed countries, and, due to globalization, the lives of people in...
less-developed countries too.
The global warming debate that the public and policymakers usually see is one-sided, dominated by government scientists and government organizations agenda-driven to find data that suggest a human impact on climate and to call for immediate government action, if only to fund their own continued research, but often to achieve political agendas entirely unrelated to the science of climate change. There is another side, but in recent years it has been denied a platform from which to speak.
I'm going to be watching what comes out of this conference closely AND how much coverage it gets from a biased media... Will you? Please keep an open mind!
Gengi... It is sponsored by "The Heartland Institute," a national nonprofit research and education organization. According to it's website, it is not affiliated with any political party, business, or foundation.
Heartland's mission is to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems. Such solutions include parental choice in education, choice and personal responsibility in health care, market-based approaches to environmental protection, privatization of public services, and deregulation in areas where property rights and markets do a better job than government bureaucracies.
The Heartland Institute produces five month
Ouragon: You mentioned, "... One of the points you mention is how accepting this theory could affect the quality of life in developed nations..." It is interesting that YOU brought that up. I suspect that reference has to do with the fact that many GW activists are fighting to PREVENT developing nations from providing basic survival services for their struggling masses... out of fear that it could somehow impact global warming. That has way more implications for these poor people than my SUV (if I had one... which I don't... BTW).
Obviously, a few of our answerers have already made up their minds. If you are so SURE of your position, why are you so quick to denigrate any efforts to discuss less known/understood issues?
Sad... Very sad,
Ken. You said, "Real research scientists prefer working, rather than going to mock science conferences. If you want to know that the actual climate scientists of the world think, read the scientific literature, or attend the American Geophysical Union conference."
Gosh, doesn't that mean that those "real research scientists" must be leaving their work to attend these conferences?
Dana... News Flash. It is not unusual to pay key scientists to come and speak at a conference. Maybe you are not a speaker, but I am. This is common practice. Find another reason to try to put down the conference... That one won't fly.
gcnp... At least you know how to dissent in an interesting way and even with a little humor. I can appreciate that... even if I don't agree with you.
- KenLv 51 decade agoFavorite Answer
Now why would you think a "scientific" conference supported by a well known ideologically driven public policy think-tank like the Heartland Institute (with it's well documented history of pro-tobacco and it's secretive funding sources) would change anything? This is clearly a PR stunt and few, if any, actual climate scientists are expected to attend.
Real research scientists prefer working, rather than going to mock science conferences. If you want to know that the actual climate scientists of the world think, read the scientific literature, or attend the American Geophysical Union conference.
Gee kathy is English your second language or what? You do know the definition of the word "mock" don't you? It means a something is a sham or false. Real scientist aren't interested in wasting their time on that kind of conferences.
I'll call your bluff. Show us a link to a scientific conference where you spoke?
- Awesome BillLv 71 decade ago
I will. Whether we have anything, or something to do with GW, and even if we don't, the fact is obvious that it is happening and at the very least, MUST find ways to cope with it.
Personally, I think it is due to the convergence of our dependence on industrialization, and the natural biorythym that the planet has undergone throughout its existence - as evidenced by research on ice core samples.
In other words, we have contributed to an already occuring natural cycle.
I think too many folks are spending too much time debating whether the earth will warm up or cool down when our time and money are better invested in just such a conference. Nature isn't that black and white, the change to a warmer climate will involve "jags" of cooling throughout parts of our biosphere as the planet struggles to maintain an equilibrium.
When everyone is backing up to the tops of our tallest geographic regions, it will be too late to admit that it is happening.
- gcnp58Lv 71 decade ago
Yes I am. The outpouring of man-love the conference will generate has not been seen since Dobson, Hayford, and Barnett counseled Haggard.
Ok seriously, as a nurse with really bad skin and a bit of a facial hair problem, I can see why you might distrust science. But climate science isn't like dermatology (all medicine is more art than science since we don't, at a very fundamental level, really understand biology), where you have doctors (I bet you hate doctors huh, ever since that time at the Christmas party when, never mind, no need to go there) who will prescribe no end to lotions, pills, creams, surgeries, and at the end, you don't look any better and feel like you have been taken for a fool (or just taken). Climate science is based on much more tractable physics, which is well understood. So don't let your hatred of medicine color your perceptions of climate science, the two are very different.
- 1 decade ago
Well, I'm going with mainstream scientists and here is the statement form the 50,000 members of the American Geophysical Union.
Another link to the Geological Society of America and it's 21,500 members (see PDF, right side of page).
The National Academy of Sciences membership consists of approximately 2,100 members and 350 foreign associates, each of whom is affiliated with one of 31 disciplinary Sections. Their position statement is linked.Source(s): http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/positions/climat... http://www.geosociety.org/positions/index.htm http://dels.nas.edu/basc/Climate-LOW.pdf
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
George Bush has done an excellent job of keeping the public off-balance about this issue. It's sad how gullible people can be when they just don't want to change. One of the points you mention is how accepting this theory could affect the quality of life in developed nations. I guess you'd like somebody to tell you that is has nothing to do with the impact of man on the planet so that you can keep driving an SUV or whatever quality of life you're so worried about. I'm a lot more worried that my children aren't going to have a livable planet than my own quality of life. The waters have been muddied by the Bush Administration (he IS an oil man, remember?), but the science is clear. We are causing the problem, and we are going to have to fix it. Maintaining ignorance about what's happening isn't keeping an open mind.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
Hardy Har Har! What a freak show that should be. Can't wait to see the results of that conference.
I foresee headlines such as "Mankind Unequivocally and Absolutely Exonerated of All Sins Related to Global Warming!" and announcements like the creation of the "Solar Institute of Global Warming and Museum" just down the block from the Creationist Museum in Cincinnati.
P.S. I got some prime real estate in Florida if you're interested.
Because "efforts to discuss less known/understood issues"
is a fallacious statement.
If you understood these issues you would not be promoting demagogic tripe from reactionary political groups.
If you understand these issues and continue to post "information" and leading questions pertaining to pseudo-science that has been so thoroughly refuted, debunked and deconstructed here - then you are part of the deliberate misinformation campaign.
If you sort of understand these issues and continue to post looking for some kind of "resolution" to your internal conflict, I would suggest that you are hopelessly sophomoric and impressionable. Please study some science and come back later when you have a meaningful contribution.
In the meantime quit wasting everyone’s time. And I mean that literally. We are running out of time.
Pathetic is a better word for it.
- SomeGuyLv 61 decade ago
I think it's absurd. It's nothing more than a PR event hosted by a right wing think tank. I can guarantee you there won't be a single serious scientist there.
Nonetheless, I expect the conference will serve its purpose admirably. That being to provide fuel for the global warming denialists.
- Anonymous4 years ago
If you don't understand a question, DON'T ANSWER IT! How hard is that to do?
- Dana1981Lv 71 decade ago
Oh yeah I'm very excited that the right-wing think tank Heartland Institute is having to pay people to speak at a "conference" whose sole purpose is to create the illusion of scientific dissent with regards to anthropogenic global warming.
I put "conference" in quotations because a conference is actually supposed to be about discussing new scientific findings, not a publicity stunt.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
nothing will change. they will still not put forward viable one alternative theory or have any papers written on the subject.
BTW do you know who is funding this?