I Will Be in a Climate Change Debate in DC This Evening

I will be a panelist at a World Affairs Council of Washington, DC sponsored climate change discussion beginning at 6 pm today. Other participants are New Scientist environmental consultant Fred Pearce, Micheal McCracken, chief scientist from the Climate Change Institute, S. Fred Singer, president of the Science and Environmental Policy Project, and Marlo Lewis, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

MONDAY, APRIL 30, 2007
6:00 - 8:00PM
National Association of Home Builders - Conference Center
1201 15th St., NW, Washington, DC 20005
Students: $5 WACDC Members: $10 Non-Members: $15

The World Affairs Council notes:

Climate change is one of the most talked about issues facing our globe today. The controversy over its existence, its causes, and what is to be done about it remains at the forefront of many scientific and policy discussions. This panel discussion will host some of the most renowned experts on the subject. The panelists will discuss their views, what factors have influenced their views and what they see as the future of the issue.

For more details and to register go here. I hope to see many H&R commenters and readers there tonight. 

Comments

[GILMORE]

Sans disclosure, how are we to be sure this is the REAL Ron Bailey?

[Ron Bailey]

GILMORE: Come see for yourself tonight. 😉

[jp]

Webcast?

[D.A. Ridgely]

Shouldn't any advertised debate on climate change include the disclaimer "weather permitting"?

[Guy Montag]

Good thing you were in a DC building that did not burn down yesterday.

[Thomas Laprade]

Global Warming???

Dear Editor, May 1/07

Recent research by Henrik Svensmark and his group at the Danish National
Space Center points to the real cause of the recent warming trend. In a
series of experiments on the formation of clouds, these scientists have
shown that fluctuations in the Sun's output cause the observed changes in the
Earth's temperature.

In the past, scientists believed the fluctuations in the Sun's output were
too small to cause the observed amount of temperature change, hence the need
to look for other causes like carbon dioxide. However, these new
experiments show that fluctuations in the Sun's output are in fact large
enough, so there is no longer a need to resort to carbon dioxide as the
cause of the recent warming trend.

The discovery of the real cause of the recent increase in the Earth's
temperature is indeed a convenient truth. It means humans are not to blame
for the increase. It also means there is absolutely nothing we can, much
less do, to correct the situation.

Thomas Laprade
480 Rupert St.
Thunder Bay, Ont.
Canada

Your readers might be interested in these websites.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2332531355859226455&q=The+Great+Global+Warming+Swindle

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

http://www.unikron.com/play/play_display.cgi?speed=hi&id=canadian_values_march1

http://www.hometownannapolis.com/cgi-bin/read/2007/04_26-32/LIF

[Rattlesnake Jake]

Mr. Laprade, I have been singing the praises of Svensmark for some time on this site.

Still some people are skeptical of Svensmark's position. I read last night in "Skeptical Inquirer" May/June 2007 an article by Stuart D. Jordan supporting the claim of AGW. He argues against the cosmic ray/solar hypothesis. He said that an early surprisingly high positive correlation of increased cloud formation with enhanced cosmic-ray flux stimulated interest in the possiblility, but that further work with a more extensive database has negated it. He said there were other problems with the hypothesis that were too technical to review in the article.

I keep an open mind about all this. There may be some effect from man's contribution of CO2, I don't know, but if there is such an effect, it probably is not that great. Nothing near the extreme scenario of Al Gore's