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

Question

"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."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/04/science/earth/04climate.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

Here are the bios of the conference speakers:

http://www.heartland.org/NewYork08/ConferenceBios.pdf

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

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

Answer 1

If they had to pay people to attend and the only people they were willing to pay were skeptics, it stands to reason that only a few scientists would attend.  The few, the proud, the brave, the paid.  

The true test of relevance of a conference like this is whether or not a proceedings volume is published.  I suspect there will be none because the conference was a PR stunt rather than a true scientific exchange.  All of the talks are given by senior people, there is no ongoing research presented by graduate students or post-docs (those of you who have been to an actual national/international meeting will recognize the significance of that).  There are no poster sessions, no break-out discussions.  It's all froth and no substance.  

In short, this is the hallmark of senescent science.  Maybe stillborn is a better term.

Answer 2

From the list of speakers, I count 46 PhD's and they make up less than half of the list.  I also noticed at least 2 emeritus types who are probably PhD's but are not listed as such.  Although most of the credentials were not relevant to understanding of global global warming, lets give them the benefit of the doubt.  If all 19 of the men in the picture were PhD's then at minimum 29 declined.  Knowing human nature, I suspect that a few of the 19 were wannabe scientists with no credentials.  The amazing thing is that the organizers could not even get 40% of their paid seals to perform.  More than 60% of the so called skeptical scientists took the free meal and $1000 then slipped out the back door or cowered in the back with a paper bag over their heads. I can't blame them for taking the pasta dinner (my tastes are a bit more refined) but most had the good sense to slip away.

Answer 3

I would presume that the few legitimate skeptics did not want to get their work mixed up with the right wing fanatics unscientific nonsense.

One such who published in "Energy and Environment" later said he regretted having published there.

EDIT mt zion wants to know what industrialists think.  Excellent.

"I believe there is now more than enough evidence of climate change to warrant an immediate and comprehensive - but considered - response. Anyone who disagrees is, in my view, still in denial."

Ford Motor Company CEO William Clay Ford, Jr.

"The science of global warming is clear. We know enough to act now. We must act now."

James Rogers, CEO of Charlotte-based Duke Energy.

Many companies are partnering with environmental groups to fight global warming.  They know that global warming will create enough economic impact to cause a worldwide depression, which would destroy their businesses.

http://www.us-cap.org/

Answer 4

Disney on Ice was scheduled at the same time?

Answer 5

Part of my job is organising travel and fee payments for scientists going to science conferences (mostly in the fields of Atmospheric, Solar and Antarctic research) Scientists have to pay an attendance fee usually 300-500$ as well as travel & accommodation this is usually paid by the scientists employer, in our case the Aus Gov we limit attendee’s to 2-3 per conference to reduce costs, most of these conferences have at least several hundred attending.

Because we have links around the world, when I head about this 'Heartland' conference  I sent out a group email asking if anyone had heard of this or been invited, the answer was no to both questions.

A conference with 19 scientist would hardly qualify as a committee meeting, little own a conference.

Answer 6

Apparently the $1000 compensation offered attendees was not enough to pull many credible scientists in.

Here's RealClimate's take on the conference:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/arc...

At the regular scientific conferences we attend in our field, like the AGU conferences or many smaller ones, we do not get any honorarium for speaking - if we are lucky, we get some travel expenses paid or the conference fee waived, but often not even this. We attend such conferences not for personal financial gains but because we like to discuss science with other scientists. The Heartland Institute must have realized that this is not what drives the kind of people they are trying to attract as speakers: they are offering $1,000 to those willing to give a talk. This reminds us of the American Enterprise Institute last year offering a honorarium of $10,000 for articles by scientists disputing anthropogenic climate change. So this appear to be the current market prices for calling global warming into question: $1000 for a lecture and $10,000 for a written paper.

At regular scientific conferences, an independent scientific committee selects the talks. Here, the financial sponsors get to select their favorite speakers. The Heartland website is seeking sponsors and in return for the cash promises "input into the program regarding speakers and panel topics". Easier than predicting future climate is therefore to predict who some of those speakers will be. We will be surprised if they do not include the many of the usual suspects e.g. Fred Singer, Pat Michaels, Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer, and other such luminaries. (For those interested in scientists' links to industry sponsors, use the search function on sites like sourcewatch.org or exxonsecrets.org.)

Heartland promises a free weekend at the Marriott Marquis in Manhattan, including travel costs, to all elected officials wanting to attend.

Answer 7

I don't get the criticism about the scientists being paid to speak. An honorarium to speak at conferences is quite acceptable and happens all the time. There is absolutely NOTHING unethical about it. Primarily, honorariums are meant to cover their expenses to and from the conference. I believe this one is about $1000... and this conference is in New York. That's hardly going to buy them a vacation home, my friend.

Ken: Don't you get tired of posting the same answer? I bet you don't have the same criticism when researchers who support global warming show up at conferences to discuss their side? Scientists and academics can't survive without going to conferences and presenting. Your comment really isn't founded in reality, my friend.

Answer 8

I have no answer to the question but I do find it interesting....I will be checking back to find out the answer.

Answer 9

Great question. Anyway, there is a very well educated contributor who has been posting on this site, though recently he has not been very active and I am wondering if he was actually one of the speakers. (he has a PhD!!) Apparently he has done a lot of research on the subject of global warming and has found that it is nothing to worry about.(phew!) Maybe he will post an answer to this question and help to clear it up for you. His name is Dr. Smith PhD.

Answer 10

Because they fear for their continued employment if they are caught conducting open minded science rather than mindlessly chanting dogma.

Answer 11

they were paid not to attend

Answer 12

And to think, somebody gave me a really hard time when I said

"The debate is over, the opposition didn't show up"

I knew this would backfire for them.

Whenever you get the "Great Number of Dissenting Scientists" argument, just link to this.

19?  LOL.

Answer 13

Why do they have to be "scientists"?

What is wrong with the opinions of industrialists?  More advances in science happen in the private sector than the universities.

Answer 14

Because it was not a scientific conference.  Real scientists would rather do actual research than participate in an anti-science PR event like this.

Answer 15

The answer to your question is obvious. There are only a handful of scientists who both doubt the science of anthropogenic climate change AND are currently involved in climate research*.

* By this I mean someone who had published in peer-reviewed journal on the subject of climate.