Posts Tagged ‘Heartland Institute’

Heartland Institute-Second Annual

February 9, 2009

Editor: The global warming scam is so easy to figure out it borders on the ridiculous.

I’ve been posting about the scam for over two years now.

Here it is in a nut shell – the Club Of  Rome – “we came up with the idea”.

IPCC – produced models to fit the idea.

Not based on science – unless you call JUNK science, science.

I hope that helped you understand Global Warming.

.

The Heartland Institute has produced a short video to advertise the upcoming Second International Conference on Climate Change which takes place in New York in early March.

Beck interview – Heartland Institute

March 10, 2008

Editor
Global Warming – Al Gore – David Suzuki and the Green Movement are all frauds. The sooner you understand this fact the better off the world will be.

Protest Earth Day by turning on your lights

Al Gore Gets Roasted on global warming

March 3, 2008

Editor
Al Gore had been invited to the conference and to speak and that The Heartland Institute was prepared to pay his US$200,000 speaking fee – but he declined the invitation.
Why? Because he would have to debate real scientists.  Both Gore and Suzuki keep saying the debate is over. What they are really doing is trying to keep the spotlight from shining on the truth.

ONE WORLD ORDER 

Climate skeptics roast Al Gore on global warming

Photo
By Steve James NEW YORK (Reuters) – Al Gore, who won the Nobel Peace Prize and an Oscar for his environmental advocacy, was the main target on Monday at a conference of dissident scientists skeptical of his views on global warming. Several speakers at the conference on climate change whose theme was “Global warming is not a crisis,” took pot-shots at the ex-vice president and his film, “An Inconvenient Truth,” which won last year’s Academy Award for best documentary. “Whether we like it or not, it was extremely effective propaganda,” said Timothy Ball, an environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. “It was appropriate that he got an Oscar from the land of make-believe,” he joked.

The gathering was sponsored by the Heartland Institute, a non-profit libertarian organization that studies environmental and other issues “from a free-market perspective” and argues that “property rights and markets do a better job than government bureaucracies.”

Attendees watched a movie, “A Climate of Fear,” by conservative TV commentator Glenn Beck, who charged that anyone who opposes the view that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are causing the earth to warm up, are branded “heretics or Nazis.”

“Al Gore’s version of climate change has no longer become science. It’s dogma. And if you question it, you are a heretic,” Beck said in the film.

The conference challenged a strong majority of world scientific opinion that has concluded that greenhouse gases are contributing to global warming.
This view has been backed by bodies such as the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, American Meteorological Society, American Geophysical Union, the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

“Our imperfect understanding of the causes and consequences of climate change means the science is far from settled,” said Fred Singer, of the Science and Environmental Policy Project.

“Proposed efforts to mitigate climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions are premature and misguided. Any attempt to influence global temperatures by reducing such emissions would be both futile and expensive,” he said.

Lord Monckton, who advised former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, blamed “the international left,” for promoting that global warming is dangerous.

“It’s the media wanting a scare story,” he said.

(Additional reporting by Timothy Gardner, editing by Alan Elsner)

uk.reuters.com

Global Warming Conference in New York City

March 3, 2008

Report #1 from the Global Warming Conference in New York City
Joseph Bast – March 03, 2008
The 2008 International Conference on Climate Change, hosted by The Heartland Institute and more than 50 cosponsors, got off to a fast and successful start … (read more)

Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate (pdf)
Edited by S. Fred Singer, Ph.D. – March 02, 2008
The public’s fear of anthropogenic global warming seems to be at a fever pitch. Polls show most people in most countries believe human greenhouse gas … (read more)

Media Advisory: Presentation of the Summary for Policymakers of the NIPCC Report on Global Warming
Diane Carol Bast – March 02, 2008
The Summary for Policymakers of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) is being officially released at the 2008 International … (read more)

Policy Study (pdf): Understanding Visual Exhibits in the Global Warming Debate
Ronald J. Rychlak, J.D. – March 02, 2008
The manipulation of visuals–bar and line graphs, pie charts, even photographs–has proven to be a highly effective way “to offer up scary scenarios” … (read more)

Global Warming Visuals Often Distort Scientific Data
Diane Carol Bast – March 02, 2008
(Chicago, Illinois and New York, New York – March 3, 2008) A new study on the use of visual exhibits in the global warming debate–a tactic employed regularly … (read more)

Heartland Institute

New Report counters IPCC AR4.

February 25, 2008

New Report counters IPCC AR4.

The Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (N-IPCC – not to be confused with the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC) has been published by the Heartland Institute.

It has been described as the most complete, up-to-date, authoritative summary of peer-reviewed critical positions with respect to “Anthropogenic Global Warming”.

The report is titled Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate and is edited by S. Fred Singer. From the report’s Forward:

In his speech at the United Nations’ climate conference on September 24, 2007, Dr. Vaclav Klaus, president of the Czech Republic, said it would most help the debate on climate change if the current monopoly and one-sidedness of the scientific debate over climate change by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) were eliminated. He reiterated his proposal that the UN organize a parallel panel and publish two competing reports.

The present report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) does exactly that. It is an independent examination of the evidence available in the published, peer-reviewed literature – examined without bias and selectivity. It includes many research papers ignored by the IPCC, plus additional scientific results that became available after the IPCC deadline of May 2006.

The report is highly critical of the UN’s Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) released last year. From the N-IPCC’s Summary for Policymakers (SPM):

The Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Working Group-1 (Science) (IPCC-AR4 2007), released in 2007, is a major research effort by a group of dedicated specialists in many topics related to climate change. It forms a valuable compendium of the current state of the science, enhanced by having an index, which had been lacking in previous IPCC reports. AR4 also permits access to the numerous critical comments submitted by expert reviewers, another first for the IPCC.

While AR4 is an impressive document, it is far from being a reliable reference work on some of the most important aspects of climate change science and policy. It is marred by errors and misstatements, ignores scientific data that were available but were inconsistent with the authors’ pre-conceived conclusions, and has already been contradicted in important parts by research published since May 2006, the IPCC’s cut-off date.

In general, the IPCC fails to consider important scientific issues, several of which would upset its major conclusion – that “most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations” (emphasis in the original).

The IPCC does not apply generally accepted methodologies to determine what fraction of current warming is natural, or how much is caused by the rise in greenhouse (GH) gases. A comparison of ‘fingerprints’ from best available observations with the results of state-of-the-art GH models leads to the conclusion that the (human-caused) GH contribution is minor. This fingerprint evidence, though available, was ignored by the IPCC.

The following is taken from the report’s Conclusions:

The extent of the modern warming – the subject of the first question – appears to be less than is claimed by the IPCC and in the popular media. We have documented shortcomings of surface data, affected by urban heat islands and by the poor distribution of land-based observing stations.

(…)

This report shows conclusively that the human greenhouse gas contribution to current warming is insignificant. Our argument is based on the well established and generally agreed-to ‘fingerprint’ method. Using data published by the IPCC and further elaborated in the U.S.-sponsored CCSP report, we have shown that observed temperature trend patterns disagree sharply with those calculated from greenhouse models.

And finally, this statement on Policy Implications:

Our findings, if sustained, point to natural causes and a moderate warming trend with beneficial effects for humanity and wildlife. This has obvious policy implications: Schemes proposed for controlling CO2 emissions, including the Kyoto Protocol, proposals in the U.S. for federal and state actions, and proposals for a successor international treaty to Kyoto, are unnecessary, would be ineffective if implemented, and would waste resources that can better be applied to genuine societal problems [Singer, Revelle and Starr 1991].

Even if a substantial part of global warming were due to greenhouse gases – and it is not – any control efforts currently contemplated would give only feeble results. For example, the Kyoto Protocol – even if punctiliously observed by all participating nations – would decrease calculated future temperatures by only 0.02 degrees C by 2050, an undetectable amount.

In conclusion, this NIPCC report falsifies the principal IPCC conclusion that the reported warming (since 1979) is very likely caused by the human emission of greenhouse gases. In other words, increasing carbon dioxide is not responsible for current warming. Policies adopted and called for in the name of ‘fighting global warming’ are unnecessary.

It is regrettable that the public debate over climate change, fueled by the errors and exaggerations contained in the reports of the IPCC, has strayed so far from scientific truth. It is an embarrassment to science that hype has replaced reason in the global debate over so important an issue.

Contributors to the N-IPCC report are: Warren Anderson United States, Dennis Avery United States, Franco Battaglia Italy, Robert Carter Australia, Richard Courtney United Kingdom, Joseph d’Aleo United States, Fred Goldberg Sweden, Vincent Gray New Zealand, Kenneth Haapala United States, Klaus Heiss Austria, Craig Idso United States, Zbigniew Jaworowski Poland, Olavi Karner Estonia, Madhav Khandekar Canada, William Kininmonth Australia, Hans Labohm Netherlands, Christopher Monckton United Kingdom, Lubos Motl Czech Republic, Tom Segalstad Norway, S. Fred Singer United States, Dick Thoenes Netherlands, Anton Uriarte Spain, Gerd Weber Germany.

Source: A Dog Named Kyoto