CFACT co-sponsors climate and energy conference with EIKE

CFACT is proud to partner with EIKE, the European Institute for Climate and Energy, for the conference which opens today in Dusseldorf, Germany. The conference will feature CFACT’s Marc Morano, Craig Rucker and many other prominent science and policy experts including Nir Shaviv, Henrik Svensmark, Francois Gervais, Horst Lüdecke, Lord Christopher Monckton and many more.

9 – 10 November 2017, Nikko Hotel, Düsseldorf

Thursday, 9 November
8.30 h Registration
10.00 h Introduction: EIKE against the World?
Dr. Holger Thuß
President, Europäisches Institut für Klima und Energie (EIKE)
10.30 h US Climate and Energy Policy after 10 Months of Trump
Zero Hour for Climate Alarmists?
Marc Morano
Editor in Chief www.climatedepot.com and Director of Communication CFACT
11.15 h The German Energiewende – Germany’s Green Path, between Illusion and Reality,
Prof. Dr. Helmut Alt
FH Aachen
Measurements vs. Models
12.00 h The bi-polar Climate Swing:
Thermic Counter-Coupling between Arctic and Antarctic
Dipl.-Meteorologist Klaus-Eckart Puls
Former Director of the States Weather Institutes Essen and Leipzig
12.45 h – 14.15 h Lunch Break – Joint Lunch
14.15 h Rising Sea Levels – Fact and Fiction
Results of latest empirical Studies on Fidji

Prof. em. Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner
Ocenographer, Former Head of Faculty for Paleogeophysics and
Geodynamik at the University Stockholm
15.00 h The Climate Myth and the exponential Fear
Dr. Benoît Rittaud,
Maître de conférences at université Paris-13 Sorbonne Paris Cité“
Präsident climato-réalistes
15.30 h Panel discussion: The Politics of Climate ChangeComparing France, Germany, the Netherlands and the United States
Moderated by Craig Rucker
Pierre Bouteille (Climato-réalistes.fr)
Michael Limburg (EIKE)
Hans Labohm (Climategate.nl)
Marc Morano (CFACT.org)
James Taylor (Spark of Freedom Foundation)
16.15 h – 16.45 h Break
16.45 h Economics, Climate, and Foreign Policy: The Case for American Natural Gas Export
James Taylor
Spark of Freedom Foundation
17.15 h via Skype Threatened by Extinction? – The real Threats for Polar Bears
Dr. Susan Crockford
Evolutionary Biologist and Expert for Polar Bear Populations,
Assistant Professor at the University of Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
17.45 h CO2-induced warming vs. increased growth of plants
Prof. em. Dr. Francois Gervais
Université François Rabelais, de Tours, où il enseignait la physique et la science des matériaux
19.00 h Evening Event – Joint Dinner with Dinner Speech
Facing the Green Blackout!
Alexander Wendt,
Journalist and Author
Friday, 10 November
9.00 h Climate Science within EIKE: Latest Research about Climate Cycles
Prof. Dr. Horst Lüdecke
Press Spokesperson, Europäisches Institut für Klima und Energie (EIKE)
9.45 h Saving CO2 with compulsory Insulation – Why and how?
Konrad Fischer
Member of the Expert Council, Europäisches Institut für Klima und Energie (EIKE)
10.30 h – 11.00 h Break
11.00 h Drivers of the Climate The Influence of Cosmic Rays on Earth Climate
Latest Research and its Relevance for Understanding Climate ChangeProf. Dr. Henrik Svensmark
Centre for Sun-Climate Research, Danish National Space CentreProf. Dr. Nir Shaviv
Racah Institute of Physics – The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
12.15 h It’s over! Climate change alarm sprang from grave 120-year-old errors
Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley
Dipl.-Ing Michael Limburg
Vizepräsident, Europäisches Institut für Klima und Energie (EIKE)
13.00 h   – 14.30 h Lunch Break – Joint Lunch
14.30 h via Skype: Peer Review – Why Scepticism is Essential
Donna Laframboise
Blog nofrakkingconsensus.com, Author of “The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert“, Toronto, Canada
15.00 h Two Years after the Paris Climate Agreement!
Michael Limburg, Dipl.-Ing.
Vice President, Europäisches Institut für Klima und Energie (EIKE)
15.30 h Going green in Switzerland? Will Switzerland repeat Germany’s Mistakes?
Elias Meier
President, Freie Landschaft Schweiz
16.15 h – 16.45 h Break
16.45 h Facts instead of Propaganda – How we can reach a ‘real’ Discussion about Mobility
Günter Ederer
Author, Film Producer and Economic Editor
17.30 h Closing Remarks
Wolfgang Müller           
General Secretary, Europäisches Institut für Klima und Energie (EIKE)
followed by Reception and the End of the Conference

We reserve the right to change the programme at short notice.
The conference, with the exception of the Dinner Speech are simultaneously interpreted into German-English / English-German.

CFACT is particularly grateful to Holger Thuss, Wolfgang Mueller and Michael Limburg of EIKE for their hard work in putting together this important conference.

Categories

About the Author: CFACT Ed

  • MichaelR

    Yay, Lord Monckton! The single most discredited commentator on climate change. The fact that people still pay to hear him speak after he has been proved to contradict both the science and himself is such a perfect example of the wrongheaded approach of climate change ‘sceptics’.
    Go on – treat yourself to some objective and witty debunking of Monckton’s particular brand of nonsense.
    https://youtu.be/lpMZ4EpCseM
    https://youtu.be/9K74fzNAUq4
    https://youtu.be/IKY03ImDiNw

    • AndRebecca

      How long have we heard the climate is warming and green house gasses will kill us? Since at least the 1980s, with no ill effects. The climate protesters look as healthy as can be, especially compared to their ancestors. Remember the “we’re being buried in garbage” garbage? Same nonsense, different century. Go scare yourself.

      • MichaelR

        rebeccca, CO2 itself is not directly toxic unless it is in high concentrations but that was never the threat of greenhouse gasses. They change the climate which causes many harms to human health. Try to research what you are saying before you say it. Here is the EPA on harms to human health due to climate change.
        https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/climate-impacts/climate-impacts-human-health_.html
        But just google “climate change human health” and you will find many more reports like this.

        As for the problem of garbage, that problem absolutely does exist. The issue has mainly been pushed into the oceans as so many people just dump refuse at sea. This is wreaking horrible damage on marine ecosystems and causing the deaths of literally billions of sea creatures.
        https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/great-pacific-garbage-patch/
        https://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21722647-ocean-sustains-humanity-humanity-treats-it-contempt-how-improve-health

        It’s worth saying in passing, that the CO2 we have pumped into the atmosphere is doing huge damage to the oceans as well. Temperatures are rising (causing coral bleaching and destruction of habitat that way) but the oceans are also becoming less alkaline and more acidic as they directly absorb huge quantities of CO2 from the air. That change makes it harder for shelled creatures like plankton and coral to form their protective shells as the more acidic water dissolves the shells away. If they cannot build their shells, they die. If they die then the gigantic food chains that they support collapse.
        https://climateinterpreter.org/content/effects-ocean-acidification-marine-food-chain

        Ocean acidification is nicknamed climate change’s “evil twin” but it does it’s damage out of our sight so its easy to ignore but it could be even more catastrophic for our oceans and the huge abundance of life they support, not to mention the food they supply humans, than climate change is for humans and nature on land.

        • AndRebecca

          You need to do some research. You apparently are unaware of the admitted scam over garbage started in the 1970s and that ended in the 1990s. It was on TV for all to see. The National Geographic and the Economist are left-leaning publications and put politics before science. As for coral reef destruction, coral reefs are living organisms and live and die due to all sorts of natural reasons. And pine trees die from natural disease and butterflies and bugs have large or small populations related to what part of the country they live in, not due to the ridiculous Rachel Carson theory. The globalists and Leftists want to redistribute the wealth from the earners to the non-earners because that is how they make money. You can go on the multiple Leftist websites and see their support for climate change, and see its political roots. You might try looking at all the political, unscientific textbooks being used in the schools today. Being green on the outside and red on the inside is not just a description of watermelons. It fits you Leftie propagandists to a t.

          • MichaelR

            In what world is the Economist leftist? It advocates liberal free markets and capitalism. And what does it benefit “leftists” in countries like the U.K. and Japan to be giving their money away? If you really can’t see that there is a moral duty for rich countries to help poor ones, especially dealing with a problem that the rich countries caused, then you are clearly just selfish and don’t give a crap about anyone but yourself. Fortunately the US does not share this view in general and spends $23Bn in USAID and is also a large contributor of private charitable giving.
            In the case of climate change, you have not presented any evidence to support your case, just unsubstantiated assertions that make no sense.
            As for coral reefs, these are extremely important and long lived structured that support huge amounts of life nd biodiversity. They take decades or centuries to grow. When they die, the life that they support dies with them. The fact is we KNOW what is killing them. We can measure the warmer temperatures, we can observe the effect on the organisms that support the coral symbiotically and we can see their long term bleaching and death. The last link in my last comment shows directly how ocean acidification is killing shelled creatures, and they support gigantic food chains. If they go, the small fish that eat them go, so do the larger fish that eat those fish and so on up to marlin, tuna and sharks. Plus whales rely on phytoplankton directly. Phytoplankton are also badly effected by ocean acidification
            http://news.mit.edu/2015/ocean-acidification-phytoplankton-0720

            Stop burying your head in the sand. It takes 2 minutes to find hundreds of papers and studies on this stuff from peer reviewed journals and reputable institutions.

            • AndRebecca

              Here, let me enlighten you: https://www.cpusa.org/article_tag/climate-change/ The Left has been busy infiltrating the publishing industry since the early 1900s at least. But play dumb.

              • MichaelR

                I have no idea how that website is meant to demonstrate to me the left has taken over the media but, whatever.
                If you want to understand why people with left of center political views would more readily accept that action is required on climate change then you need to consider how they think vs people with right wing political views.
                First though, get out of your head that politicians invented climate change theory. It was first hypothesised in the 19th century and pretty much all science ever since has reinforced it, increasiyso since the 1970s as all other explanations for warming temperatures, aside from CO2, dropped out of the picture (largely as solar activity has not increased over the solar cycle since then, but temperatures have).
                Right wing political theory says that the market is the best way to allocate resources, set prices etc.
                Left wing politics says that collective action can solve problems that raw unfettered markets create.
                Both are partly true.
                When it comes to a problem on a global scale, which of these two camps is going to recognise this as a problem that their thinking is built to fix? It’s not going to be the right wing because in their view collective action breaks markets and misallocates resources. So right wingers reject the solutions to climate change, action to reduce emmissions, agree targets, agree standards, agree funding for adaptation, etc because these are collective measures.
                And if they are really committed to prove they are doing the right thing, they actually go on to assert that there is actually no problem to be solved at all, happily disregarding overwhelming science in the process.

                So that is why the left accepts climate change and the hard right doesn’t. It’s because the right refuses to accept the only solution to a huge global problem, global collective action, so it denies the problem exists at all.

                • AndRebecca

                  The people on the Left think like George Lakoff has told them to… that is, they don’t think! They use their feelings instead of thinking. You proles need the rulers to do your thinking for you…You just need to react to it and put their ideas into action by organizing, demonstrating and propagandizing…I knew you were a hard-core Leftie.

        • DDwatcher

          Such nonsense. CO2 is NOT a pollutant, it is vital for plants and sea creatures that need shells,just to mention 2 issues. CO2 has been 10 times what the greenies are crapping in their pantsuits about now. All the computer climate income models fail on another point. The earth is not a glass-house, at night on a cloudless night, the earth radiates out excess heat. None of the models accept this. Anyway, if the models are so wrong for 20 years minimum, anyone with a brain can see that this is a climate income scam, a giant ponzi scheme where the crooks are dead when everyone finally wakes up!!!! Makes Bernie Madoff look like a ponzi angel.

    • Johnny Mac

      Yay, Al Gore! The single most discredited commentator on climate change. The fact that people still pay to hear him speak after he has been proved to contradict both the science and himself is such a perfect example of the wrongheaded approach of climate change fear-mongers.
      There…. fixed it for you.

      • MichaelR

        Nice little straw man you built for yourself there.
        In fact two fallacies at once. Strawman and tu quoque. Congrats.
        I have not cited Al Gore as a source of truth or accurate predictions on climate change. Indeed he did misrepresent the science in his first film and was roundly and justly codemned for doing so by scientists pretty much ever since. Although he made a lot of noise, his contribution to the debate has probably been broadly negative. I think anyone who is misrepresenting the science needs to be called out. However, as the published science provides mountains of evidence to support AGW, it is both unnecessary to exaggerate as Gore did first time around (I can’t comment on his second film as I haven’t seen it), it is also only by misrepresenting the published science that you can provide arguments against AGW.
        I am specifically picking out Monckton as he has been so completely debunked over and over, has revised his statements backwards and forwards over years, vehemently rejects his critics while never addressing their critisms and yet still gets top billing at events like these.
        And their is a whole bunch of people in the same camp. Crowder, Delingpole, Watts, etc. They keep being shown to be misrepresenting science to make their points, again and again, and people keep listening to them.

        • AndRebecca

          You can’t even understand his paragraph. It doesn’t matter if you cited Al Gore. As for who believes what, anyone can go outside and see that the weather changes big time four times a year and that it is colder one year and warmer the next. That doesn’t mean people need to make a religion out of science like you have.

          • MichaelR

            Ok, you clearly have literally no understanding of what is going on here.
            Climate is not weather. And observations clearly show that over the last 100+ years, global temperatures have, on average have gone UP. If average global temperatures were steady, no one would care!
            Please at least eductate yourself on the case for AGW before you criticise with statements like that. They betray a total ignorance of the science.
            I am sure you know tons about other things, but if you aren’t prepared to educate yourself then, please stay out of a discussion that you clearly know next to nothing about.

            And @Fromafar, my long comment was to Johnny Mac, and it’s not about virtue. Its my self interest. I don’t to live in a world with more poverty and extreme weather events and less prosperity and less wildlife and more wars etc because all of those things suck.

            • AndRebecca

              I have a couple of sets of encyclopedias and can look up more on climate change, the carbon cycle or anything else you bring up and know more than you! Why is it stupid people always think they are smarter than everyone else? I’m sure you are too dumb to figure that out ,so I don’t expect an answer. I donate money to poor people and pay thousands in taxes which go to the poor. I don’t just sit there and tell others what to do about poverty like you. The dictators in the third world nations are the main reason for poverty in poor countries and the dictators at the U.N. are the main pushers of the climate change baloney- so they can fleece people! We have fewer people in poverty today than ever before thanks to capitalistic agriculture and the export of knowledge and even jobs. And here is a definition of climate and weather straight out of my dictionary a book you need to read: climate: 1. The meteorological conditions, including temperature, precipitation,, and wind, that characteristically prevail in a particular region. weather: 1. The state of the atmosphere at a given time and place, described by specification of variables such as temperature, moisture, wind velocity, and pressure. I must receive at least five updates on what is going on with the weather daily including charts and graphs. You need to get a grip.

              • MichaelR

                So first, it’s great that you give to charity. Good on you.

                The problem with our conversation here stems from what you just said though in terms of weather and climate.

                Second I am absolutely NOT calling you stupid. You have not said anything “stupid” at all. It’s just that I think you are still missing the differences that have been measured that have scientists, and most other people outside of the US, very worried.

                Like you kindly quoted climate is
                “The meteorological conditions, including temperature, precipitation,, and wind, that characteristically prevail in a particular region”
                So that means that when you are measuring things to do with the climate you aren’t interested with difference one day to the next or even one season to the next. That is Weather.
                When you are studying climate you are looking at changes of prevailing conditions years and decades at a time.
                So first we are interested in average temperatures over a period of time, like the whole year. Temperatures on any given day are not interesting to a climate scientists.

                Also we are interested in not just one location but every location on the planet. So the scientists have been measuring temperature everyday in hundreds of places across the world, on land and sea for decades so that they can get these yearly average temperatures. So again, seasons don’t matter. They are averaged out by using annual average data.

                So then if you take a period of day 10 years, and averaged the temperature across the whole world you would expect it to go up and down a bit but you would expect the average for that decade to be roughly the same as the next decade. There are some big things that happen in the oceans that pull heat out of the atmosphere and into the oceans and then that flips back every 5-7 years. These are La Niña and El Niño events but scientists can measure those and factor them into there readings for average temperatures etc.

                So the problem that we see is that since about 100 years ago, the average global temperature has risen by about 1 degree C. That might not sound like much but it has big consequences that we can see.
                Firstly, that average temperature is not the same everywhere. The polar regions have warned by much more, 2-3 degrees and the equatorial regions have warned by less. But that is kinda worse than it being an evenly distributed warming. Warming at the poles means that ice sheets melt. A lot. The Greenland ice sheet is dumping 279 BILLION TONNES of melted ice into the ocean each year and that rate of melt is increasing. That has two big problems. The melt itself directly caused sea level rise. More water in the oceans, higher sea levels. To put that in perspective, if the whole Greenland ice sheet melted (which would take over a century as things are going now, but if), then the sea level would rise by 20 feet. So that puts all coastal cities underwater or so prone to flooding that they would be abandoned.
                The second problem is that ice reflects incoming sunlight really well, reflecting it back into space. When ice melts, it reveals sea or land. Both are darker than ice and the absorb more heat from the sun than the ice did. That means that even with not more sunlight, the Earth and it’s atmosphere gets warmer. Warmer atmosphere means – more melting ice -> less ice to reflect sunlight -> more warming.
                This is caused positive feedback. It’s bad. Another bad positive feedback cycle, potentially even worse is methane locked up in arctic Siberian Tundra. Tundra is frozen peat and soil that has been permanently frozen for thousands of years. It contains a lot of methane. Methane is a greenhouse gas 23 times more powerful than CO2. The tundra is starting to thaw due to warmer temperatures near the North Pole. As it does it releases the frozen methane as gas into the atmosphere. Methane causes warning -> more tundra melts and more methane is released -> more warming etc. And there are billions of tonnes of methane in the tundra. Russians can find holes in the ground where it’s leaking out and spontaneously set light to it. Search YouTube for videos.
                So you see when we see that annual average global temperature are up 1 degree in a century, and rising faster than any time we can see in any historical records we see in every temperature record we have (from geology, ice cores, tree rings, etc) over hundreds of thousands of years, then it is a big deal. It’s not the same as the fact that today was warmer than yesterday, or even that this day last year was colder than today, it’s that on average THE WHOLE ATMOSPHERE is getting significantly warmer in a way that has not happened while modern humans have been around. We are due another ice age in about 16000 years based on the normal cycles we can see. Until then, things should just have carried on as they were 100 years ago for millennia. But thanks to us humans and the 50% increase in atmospheric CO2 we have caused, that plan is now off. They question is how bad will things get… if we act now and act seriously it won’t be too bad. If we do nothing, it will be very bad indeed. The current central projection based on business as usual is 1.5m sea level rise and global average temperatures up 3 degrees C. That makes much of the Midwest and California unfarmable due to drought. Much of the gulf coast will be subject to catastrophic flooding due to seas level rise and powerful superstorms. Cities like New York, New Orleans, etc will be gone.

                Please look at the case FOR this being real before you make your mind up that all the scientists and all the other countries on the world are wrong. I recommend that you start with this video that explains why it is all so controversial even when the science is so one-sided. Your kids and grand kids might really thank you one day
                http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP

        • Fromafar

          Said the virtuous expert to no one in particular…..

  • WhiteFalcon

    It is time for the U. S. to totally defund that giant POS.

    • MichaelR

      Defund the EIKE? I would agree, but AFAIK, the US government does not fund it. It is funded by private donors and members. Anyway, out of interrst why would you want it defunded?

  • Klaus Berger

    No live video of the event??? Please!

  • David Boleneus

    Will the speaker slides and audio/video be available? Where? Link?