Anonymous asked in Politics & GovernmentPolitics · 1 decade ago

Why did so few scientists attend the Heartland Institutes's 2008 International Conference on Climate Change?

"Several hundred people sat in a fifth-floor ballroom at the Marriott Marquis Hotel in Times Square on Monday eating pasta and trying hard to prove that they had unraveled the established science showing that humans are warming the world in potentially disruptive ways...but after the luncheon, when an organizer made an announcement asking all of the scientists in the large hall to move to the front for a group picture, 19 men did so."


Here are the bios of the conference speakers:

You've got theologians, economists, geographers, botanists, biologists, right-wing policy strategists, statistical consultants, TV weathermen, petroleum's hard to even find a name on here with any climate science experience.

Update 2:

Why do you think so few climate scientists attended this conference?

Particularly since the entire purpse of the conference was "to generate international media attention to the fact that many scientists believe forecasts of rapid warming and catastrophic events are not supported by sound science, and that expensive campaigns to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are not necessary or cost-effective"?

Update 3:


You seem to be admitting that the accepted norm (aka SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS) is that man made global warming is happening.

Why conservatives choose to believe the minority when the vast majority say it is happening makes no sense.

Update 4:


I know but it was such a good question. I was going to give you credit, but then forgot. Sorry.

10 Answers

  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    Hey you stole this question from me.;_ylt=As51e...

    The reason of course was that

    a) this was not a real scientific conference, but simply a PR stunt by the right-wing think tank Heartland Institute.

    b) virtually no climate scientists think the consensus is wrong.

    For those who think the credentials of the speakers were impressive, why do you think theologians, economists, geographers, botanists, biologists, right-wing policy strategists, statistical consultants, TV weathermen, petroleum engineers, etc. know more about climate science than climate scientists?

    Are all scientists equal? I'm an environmental scientist with degrees in physics. I haven't studied medical science at all, but since you think all scientists are equal, would you trust me to diagnose your illnesses and operate on you? If not, why would you trust a geographer's opinion on climate science instead of a climatologist's?

    The answer is simple - a person in denial will listen to anybody who says what he wants to hear.

    Source(s): no apology necessary
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Having done a fair amount of work in my own field of research, I usually correct anybody who uses the term "scientist" by mistake while in my presence. It doesn't mean anything neccessarily does it? I hate the word "expert" too if it isn't accompanied by the field and area of expertise.

    Nobody but a shrinking minority of nuts like those who post here and the painfully uninformed doubts this anymore, and I bet the "Flat Earth Society" has more than 19 "scientists" in their corner too (but no astronomers, cosmologists, etc. Probably some nutritionists and such).

  • 1 decade ago

    Sounds like fear to me. Researchers/Scientists, as a group, are a very skittish lot. They live in perpetual fear... Fear of having their grant money cut off... Fear of losing tenure... Fear of their Liberal peers ostracizing them due to any perceived "heresy" that goes against the accepted norm... Etc. When they were asked to come forward and get their picture taken, that was too much of a risk for many.

    Edit: Who doesn't recognize that the most VOCAL scientists believe in manmade global warming? Have you ever heard of the "silent majority?" My point is that the scientific community is set up to put such significant PRESSURE on scientists to comply that they are AFRAID to question accepted theories.

    That is not something I'd be proud of if I were you.

  • 1 decade ago

    Did you even read the bios that you attached? They all had some pretty sound qualifications.

    Either way, I think the controversy will come to an end pretty soon. The Earth cooled enough in the past year to make up for the past 100 years of warming, signifying a global cooling cycle. I'm guessing the libs will chalk this up to a decrease in CO2 caused by the destruction of rain forests.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 1 decade ago

    "Why do you think so few climate scientists attended this conference?"

    Because it was a sham and not a conference about Climate Change at all.

  • 1 decade ago

    Apparently real scientists do not read Thomas Sowell's op-ed drivel.

  • 1 decade ago

    Sounds to me like the Scientist think it is a pile of it including Gore.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Because the conference was a partisan, neocon fraud

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Guess they didn't want an "AL GORE 2000" bumper sticker?

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Because global warming is a crock of sh*!.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.