I always said that if the Heartland ICCC conference ever took place in Chicago, I would go. Turns out the 4th International Conference on Climate Change will take place in Chicago. I visited the web page and discovered that the registration is $432. Naturally, I am not going to pay $432 to attend this. Heck, as I’ve responded to AGW activist bloggers who suggest the “solution” to scientists communication challenges is to get the public to attend professional conferences, with very few exceptions, I won’t pay $432 to attend any conferences at which I am not presenting.
Lucky for me, Heartland has provided for select bloggers to attend for free. To apply, bloggers should visit the registration page and download a simple to fill out application form.
Since I want to attend for free, I filled out the form, and also encouraged Jeff Id of The Air Vent to consider applying. We both live fairly near Chicago but have never actually met. We both also want to meet the bloggers who have been invited to speak; these include, Anthony & Willis, SteveM, Chip Knappenberger, Joe D’Aleo and Roy Spencer. Attending may also permit me to meet Lord Monckton, though all things considered, maybe I’d be wise to hide behind a shrub if I see him heading toward me.
Blogging issues
Or course my goal is to provide people an idea of what happens at these events. If I am approved, I intend to bring a camera to take photos. I did this at the Lisle Tea Party gathering last year. My camera can take video but, even if I get permission to film, the memory will quickly fill. Does anyone have suggestions of other things I should bring? I’d like to figure out how to post as much semi-candid stuff at the blog as possible, with resources I have at hand.
Social Activity Possibilities
The ICCC is scheduled from Sunday May 16 through Tuesday May 18. The weather should be fine. I think the meeting would make a good excuse for a some climate-blog addicts of all stripes to collect together somewhere near the Chicago Marriott on North Michigan Ave. Does anyone think some sort of picnic would be fun? Or maybe a gathering at watering hole? Coffee? Or something?
I’ve attached a map showing Union Station and the Marriott for those who might be sufficiently familiar with the area to suggest gathering places suitable for the sort of weather we anticipate in May. Let me know what you think!
Does that include hotels and board?
If not, that’s hyperinflationary.
I’m sure Lord Monckton would be, as always, a perfect gentleman.
Whatever people might like to believe, he is always gracious and respectful of people and ad hominem is not his stock in trade, unlike many of those who try to argue with him.
No doubt a meeting would be a memorable event.
I’m waiting for them to send my broke butt a ticket.. or an invite at least. I had to fire Bender from his pool cleaning job. Blame Obama or C02, take your pick
Pierre–
I don’t know if that includes hotels and food. I’ll either take the train in and walk or drive. Which will depend on the weather.
Steve Mosher–
Clearly, they should have invited you to make a presentation on climategate! A bunch of us would love to meet you, along with everyone else.
The program says 70 speakers, but they don’t seem to have 70 confirmed yet. Maybe there is still hope?
Chicago… I have only been there once, and Oh, What A Trip It Was. I have a buddy that lives in Gary, IN. He had some of the Gary Railcats (independent baseball league) stay at his HOUSE(!) when me and my buds were there for a golf thingy the first time. The nutshell of the story is that- yes, I took a cab from Chicago to Gary in the middle of the night. lol Is it time for a return to the scene of the crime? 😉
Andrew
$432 for registration seems pretty steep unless lunches are included; looks like they are not. For anyone traveling from outside the Chicago area, the total tab (air, hotels, meals) would for sure run in the $1,500-$2,000 range. Not too many will likely pay this much to attend.
Where are those evil energy industry paymasters when you need them?
Lucia,
You should ask your readers to make contributions to cover your registration if the Heartland Inst. won’t let you attend for free. Your perspective on the conference would be worth $20 to me!
You’d think that the Heartland Inst. would get their “big oil” sponsors to pony up for everybody. 🙂
Fred–
When I emailed Jeff, I said that if he and I didn’t qualify, I would a) be stunned and b) ask Anthony, SteveM, Chip, Roy, Craig Loehle etc. to impress on Heartland that if Jeff and I don’t qualify, that’s just nuts!
I realize I’ve criticized Monckton but seriously. . . You know, if I don’t qualify, I’ll be very perplexed!
If you didn’t notice, my tongue was firmly planted in cheek for the above comment.
It might be interesting and informative to find out who has press credentials from the mainstream/alarmist press and arrange to visit with some of them.
DonB–
The press are invited too. I’m sure that there is no official “alarmist v. skeptic” screen for the press to qualify.
Lucia, I was not clear. I assumed press would be there based on history; you would have to decide, say, if Andy Revkin were in the skeptic camp. Or not. 😉 “Reporters” with either agenda ought to be interested in talking with you.
Sorry, due to a typo, the above post was done without the “FL”-please delete it.
Here is what I said:
I probably won’t be able to go, but for those of you who do go, if you see David Douglass of the University of Rochester, ask him if he never checks his email.
Seriously, most of my emails to Roy have been answered pretty promptly-not all of them-I emailed John Christy once and got a response, and Chip and I have this deal where if I ask for a paper he worked on he’ll send me a copy ;)-But a few years back (maybe it was more like one?) I sent Douglass an email asking about some work he presented at the second Heartland conference and, well, utter silence.
I don’t know about you but I like to hear back from scientists when I contact them.
Why is it that I never get invited to these things 😛
.
Miss_Magoo,
“ad hominem is not his stock in trade”
Obamasamarama may disagree 😛 But then again, I’m just a green who is too yellow to admit he is red…
Zeke-
You’re in New York anyway. You should have gone last year. Obamasamarama was a classic. If it has been on TV it might have gone down in history like “Nattering nabobs of negativism”
Zeke: “Obamasamarama may disagree . . . ”
Pols are fair game. *Ad hominem* rules don’t apply with respect to them. Hard to say anything nasty about them which isn’t true.
Lucia,
Invite as many people as your house will hold and charge them enough for you to recover your costs. Commute and eat together.
Mosh then only needs to start hitch hiking. He should be able to bum enough money on the way to cover all his costs!! Or, he can sell his body.
I’m gunna volunteer for medical experiments.
Take your best shot on which experimental drug or proceedure I should volunteer for
Steve M,
Maybe they are still working out the kinks in whatever performance enhancing meds Mr. Wood’s recent performances implied the use of.
Oh! my editor says they were talking a bout his golf.
@Miss_Magoo
I’m sure when he meets people of a similar opinion he is very magnaminous. I didn’t agree with the methods used by the activists that cornered him, but to refer to them has ‘Hitler Youth’, to repeat the accusation even after being informed of the activists roots as a jew and then further repeat the claim when challenged afterwards, with no subsequent apology shows boorishness honed to professional levels. I’m not overly surprised given his dubious background as a journalist (that means he wasn’t a very good journalist, not that journalists have a tendency for rudeness).
Why would a serious lukewarmer want to go this PR stunt? Didn’t Christy decline an invitation last year because he didn’t want to look ‘guilty by association’? Monckton, Watts, d’Aleo and Spencer are overt denialists. Sure, attend a lecture or two by these people , but go to a conference where all of them are present at the same time? Why would anyone who isn’t a denialist, psychologist or anthropologist want to do that?
Lucia
you will be able to ask Monckton, d’Aleo and Watts about their wacky conspiracy theories. If they get up and repeat them, will you ask them if they really take them seriously?
Neven–
Are you really going to try to make mystery points by posting silly rhetorical questions? I can do that too. Here goes: Why would anyone who has more than two functioning brain cells in their heads not understand that a climate blogger with sufficient time would certainly want to go, meet people, and report what goes on, particularly if the price is right?
“denialist”
Neven,
Here’s another rhetorical question:
Don’t you have anything more productive to do than label and denigrate perceived political enemies? It’s not a very creative or original calling. Athletics, music, and volunteer work are very rewarding ways to spend your time. Just some suggestions.
Andrew
>sigh< the true believers cannot even admit there are skeptics.
Do they notice how much less crowded their crowd is getting?
.
Because most people at this denialist PR conference are (un)conscious liars out of psychological, ideological and/or financial motives?
.
Here’s the spectrum:
.
Alarmists
Warmers
Lukewarmers/skeptics
Denialists
.
This conference is mainly denialist, plain and simple. Hardly any genuine lukewarmers/skeptics there.
.
Lucia, when will you be going to the next Polar City conference to meet people who claim that The Day After Tomorrow is tomorrow? Or a WNF and Greenpeace conference?
bugs–
Maybe I should ask people to suggest questions and do an interview? Maybe I can make it a youtube video?
What do you think?
Neven
When will I be going?
When will one of these conferences take place less than 40 miles from my house? When will one take place when I have time to go? When will the organizers let me attend for free? Will the major topic related to be climate change?
Why would any of my readers with more than two functioning brain cells not know in advance that if any group hosts a reasonable large climate oriented conference within easy commuting distance, and lets me attend for free, I will go. Period. I don’t care if it’s the polar cities, WWF or whatever. If it’s free and I have time, I’ll go. Why wouldn’t any and all curious climate bloggers go?
Why does this notion seem to bother you?
hunter (Comment#39989) April 6th, 2010 at 7:15 am
It’s a lot easier to find a denier than a skeptic. If the conspiracy theories of Watts and Monckton are getting more popular, what does that mean?
If it gets too bad
Pull out your big ball of yarn.
Spin a little cow.
===============
.
Ask them this: What if you’re wrong and AGW does turn out to be a problem? What will be the moral implications that you very actively and successfully have delayed action that could have prevented damage to economy, society and humanity? Please ask Watts, Monckton, d’Aleo, Eschenbach, Spencer and all the other denialists if they feel any responsibility, if they ever doubt themselves and their actions (like accusing NOAA scientist of fraud and not retract when it has been pointed out to you that you’re wrong by various persons). If you manage to do this I’ll donate you the entrance money.
Concatenation
Of several agendas;
No conspiracy.
==========
Precautionary,
A Paean to Ignorance.
Lost lives and treasure.
=============
I don’t know who will post it, but congratulations for posting comment 40000.
Neven–
I’m only going if it’s free! But it looks like I’m going. I’ll let you know when I’m certain.
Do you really want me to ask Watts, Monckton &etc. if they doubt their actions about accusing people of fraud? I think every person on your list would love me to ask them that. Those who accused people of fraud will just answer that they don’t doubt their actions, and go on from there. Those who didn’t accuse anyone of fraud will say that. If I make a video of that, I suspect it will go viral, and not in the way that would make you, Neven, happy.
On this:
People are going to just discuss the moral implications of destroying the economy by imposing draconian taxes that are unnecessary. You do understand that $1 of hypothetical damages arising from unwarranted, unnecessary activities to avert climate change is as bad as $1 of hypothetical damages arising from failing to take action? Right?
But I am going to write a post asking people for interview questions and then I can see who I can buttonhole. But I suspect you, Neven, are crafting questions that will be answered in ways that you will find counter-productive to what you consider your cause. Why don’t you go ask that “The benshi” guy to craft questions?
http://thebenshi.com/
(Maybe I’ll ask him myself.)
Neven–
Looks like you beat out the spam bots! ( I think WP numbers comments even if they go into spam. So… there aren’t really 40,000 real comments. I may need to count how many approved comments I really have!)
Lucia, You’re still a little green behind the ears to make a presentation about climate issues (although you are getting better)… but I bet you would be one of the most qualified on making a presentation about running a climate blog.
MikeC–
I’m not making a presentation. I’m attending as a blogger and sitting in the audience.
.
Looks like I’m on a roll on the Blackboard. 🙂
.
Ah, my cause. I’m having no illusions about my cause.
.
Let’s just say that I want people like Monckton, Watts and d’Aleo to be aware of their responsibility. They aren’t. They are just having a great time gloating and basking in all the attention they get.
.
There are no lengths older people will go to so that they can have the feeling that they are still productive and important. Most of the time this unwise behavior turns out to be quite destructive. The ironic thing is that these older people who partly caused a situation are not around anymore to witness the consequences of their actions. I’ll send Watts’ grandkids a postcard telling them I’m sorry their grandpa caused so much trouble.
.
Lucia, could you also count the number of people you will encounter at the ICCC PR conference that are younger than 50? :-p
.
BTW, are you implying Watts hasn’t accused anyone of fraud?
Neven
Well…. ok. Put more generically, what I see is you have certain interpretations of facts and you want these guys to adopt your interpretation.
Getting me to ask “When did you stop beating your wife?” questions is not going to make this happen. You will also not like the answers to that question because anyone who is not utterly inept knows how to answer this question in a way that make them look good and the person asking the question sound bad.
Oh? All older people? How is this different from some younger people some of whom are unimportant and unproductive and do many things to convince themselves that the things they do are somehow useful to others?
I don’t know how old you are, but do you really think being snide, unlikeable and making pointless stupid gestures is productive? Or are you just trying to illustrate the lengths some people will go to convince themselves they are useful to others?
I guess I could ask that question. I’m exactly 50 btw.
Neven wrote:
Neven, I think you would be quite taken with this lovely little essay by the Australian philosopher David Stove on the subject of retirement http://web.maths.unsw.edu.au/~jim/retired.html.
What if we are “wrong”? Wouldn’t make any difference-there is no action that is being “delayed” which would make any difference anyway. There isn’t even any action that could be taken that would make a difference. The fact of the matter is that if you suppose that AGW is a serious problem, the costs of “acting” still outweigh the costs of not doing so.
Apparently you can’t even imagine that anyone could have thought about this other than yourself if they didn’t come to the same conclusion as you…
.
Great, you’ll be bringing the average down considerably! 😉
.
Thanks for that essay, Alex Heyworth.
Andrew_FL,
Thats a bit of an extreme position. Even the more skeptical economists (Nordhaus, Mendelson, Tol) argue that some level of carbon mitigation is socially optimal. They just argue for an optimal emission trajectory much higher than most scientists like 😛
Zeke (Comment#40016)-The first Left Wing commandment: Thou Shalt Go No Further Right Than This Point-wait, no, this one, no now this one, no a little further to the left, there you go, no wait, a little more….
Neven —
“Assuming the conclusion” is what happens when a person comes into a situation, already knowing what the right answer is.
On the other hand, some people know that a scientific conclusion (which is always going to have some level of tentativeness to it) must depend on the integrity of the processes through which it was reached.
Of course, the moniker “scientific” is mostly used as advertising puffery. In social and politicial settings, any agreeable belief can be praised as “scientific”. There are no disqualifiers.
Still, what some people see in Climategate and sundry other accounts is the short-circuiting of the procedures of normal science, in order to assure that foreordained outcomes can be stamped in this way.
These people, of whom I am one, thus shake their heads at the notion of advising Lucia to curse those who dissent from the AGW Consensus (since the truth of the matter is already established).
A novel idea, only a few centuries old, is that we can only have confidence in those conclusions that are arrived at through rigorous, correct, open-minded scientific procedures. Climate science and the AGW Consensus’s lay supporters may come to appreciate this perspective. Some day.
Neven,
Did you miss a “not” in here?
“There are no lengths older people will go to so that they can have the feeling that they are still productive and important. Most of the time this unwise behavior turns out to be quite destructive.”
“I’m not making a presentation. I’m attending as a blogger and sitting in the audience.”
Ha! A little shy are we? Hmmmm? A little nervous about getting up in front of all those OLD right wing tea baggers?(j/k)
It’s too bad you will not be making a presentation because you have something to offer from a blogging standpoint.
MikeC
You seem to be jumping to some very odd conclusions.
It just happens that I’m attending as a blogger. That’s it.
Neven (various comments),
You should consider lightening up a bit. Nobody looks (of sounds) good cloaked in certitude.
Lucia Please Let me know the results. If need be I’ll make a pitch.
Anthony
(j/k = just kidding)
MikeC–
Ahhh! 🙂
Neven (40008)
‘..Ah, my cause. I’m having no illusions about my cause’.
Which is fine, so long as the cause itself is not an illusion. 🙂
Neven,
once you implement all the energy and economic policies, you will not have a large economy that can recover from major disasters that are not expected. What then??
If you really believe in your cause of AGW the last thing you want to do is destroy the large, productive, innovative, industrial economies that can DO SOMETHING about those disasters even if it is only cleaning up after or adapting!!!
Then again, a lot of believers seem to think Gaia would be better off without humans, BUT, did they ever ask her exactly what she wants humans to do and how she wants us to do whatever it is??
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
There is always plan B: Buy a vendor table for $1,000. I know that that is a lot of mugs. But the good news is that the table comes with two tickets — maybe Mosher can bring some books and split the cost!! Also, I can have the guys in the N. Illinois chapter of my militia group drop off some inflammatory bumper stickers and humorous paper shooting targets. If Neven is right, they should sell really well in that Angry Old Guy crowd.
George– $1,000 is more than $432!
I think your militia groups should meet us all for coffee on Sunday. I’m waiting for the program to figure out exactly when we should meet.
The militia groips might have the added benifit of holding off Greenpeace gorilla fighters… since they know where everyone works and lives
bugs,
You mean this conspiracy theory?
http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/international/press/reports/dealing-in-doubt.pdf
Please don’t be so buggy, bugs.
It is silly.
Another possibility for the memory problem is a memory card with WiFi so you can download to your laptop. But then you may need more batteries due to the WiFi power drain. If there isn’t a blogger/press area with electrical power, it might be easier to just have extra batteries and 8GB memory cards in your pocket.
Also check the prices of pocket audio recorders, so you can have a backup recording of what is being said. If your primary camera fails or is changing batteries when something interesting happens, you might need the backup. But there also are sometimes pocket video cameras for $100, so you can also consider getting a small video camera instead of an audio recorder so you also have a video backup option. One of those small flat video cameras also has an audio recording mode which could run for days.
Does your laptop have a cell phone link to the Internet, in case WiFi fails? Extra batteries for the laptop in case there is no electrical outlet? A battery charger at home so all the batteries can charge for the second day? (If you have two laptops which use the same batteries, you can use both as chargers) There also are external battery packs available, which plug into the laptop as external power.
I don’t suppose you have a recreational vehicle with an accessory battery. If you do, that offers another option for battery charging, if you can find a parking spot. A battery charger in the RV could start charging a battery at lunch time, and have it ready by afternoon for an evening session.
Neven,
“Let’s just say that I want people like Monckton, Watts and d’Aleo to be aware of their responsibility. They aren’t. They are just having a great time gloating and basking in all the attention they get.”
I’m not sure you have any sense whatsoever about what people’s “responsibilities” are. I think those who claim to know what other people’s responsibilities are, have a responsibility to back those claims up. To put it another way. I have ZERO rational or moral obligation to take anything you say seriously. First and foremost is the issue of identity. For example, if you want to impose a moral code on on people I would like to see if you actually live your own code. or are you a tammy faye baker of climate change morality? That point aside, even in the abstract I doubt whether you can construct anything that looks like a morally compelling argument for what anybodies behavior should be. In my own case, I believe I have no moral obligation to your children, your grandchildren and any other future generation. I choose to believe it is a nice thing to leave the earth a better place than when I was born here, but beyond that my moral obligations to my immediate family, my community, and my country take precedence over any obligation you might try to impose on me.
Since the question ” Do we have an obligation to future generations?” is an open question, I’d argue that it’s not a moral certitude. However, you are welcomed to prove the case. One thing I know for certain, is that you cannot convince me and remain anonymous. That’s a pretty low buy in to the conversation.
.
“There are no lengths older people will go to so that they can have the feeling that they are still productive and important. Most of the time this unwise behavior turns out to be quite destructive. The ironic thing is that these older people who partly caused a situation are not around anymore to witness the consequences of their actions. I’ll send Watts’ grandkids a postcard telling them I’m sorry their grandpa caused so much trouble.”
Now, most people will rise to your unsubstainted claims about people past 50, and they will miss the real issue, which is the issue of intergenerational obligations. Now, on one hand if Anthony were to try to leave a substantial sum of money to his grandchildren the government will not allow him to exercise his free choice. he is not free to leave all of his property in whatever form he wants to his children or grand children without being taxed, ( depending on the country of course laws differ ) so that what you see reflected in these laws is a sense that his obligations to current generations, even people outside his family, are judged to be more important than his obligtaions to his future generations, even if those generations are his lawful heirs. It’s more important that the poor of today get Anthony’s property upon his death, than his own grand children. When it comes to Global warming, however, you want to judge that the needs of future generations out weigh the needs of current generations. In short, the case for global action today is a hidden war on the poor of today. Now in every war on the poor there are merchants of death. and the merchants of death in this war are the Al Gore’s of the world.
Neven, if you believe that the needs of future generations and their rights are so very clear and so very compelling, then nothing should stop you from sacrificing your current standard of living for them. You clearly believe that Anthony has obligations to more than his grandchildren, you believe he has an obligation to everyone’s grandchildren. And to be fair, if you believe this of him, you have to believe it for yourself. As I said, nothing is stopping you from sacrificing everything. Do you walk your talk?
Of course you dont.
Finally, you seem to believe that by talking Anthony and others have caused trouble. you are not suggesting that they be silenced. But you are suggesting that they are engaged in some sort of thought crime. The real thought crime is the lack of transparency in climate science. That created more doubt than any skeptical non sense I ever read on the internet.