This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site you agree to our use of cookies. To find out more, see our Privacy and Cookies policy.
Skip to the content

Share this

Free weekly newswire

Sign up to receive all our latest news direct to your inbox.

Physics on film

100 Second Science Your scientific questions answered simply by specialists in less than 100 seconds.

Watch now

Bright Recruits

At all stages of your career – whether you're an undergraduate, graduate, researcher or industry professional – can help find the job for you.

Find your perfect job

Physics connect

Are you looking for a supplier? Physics Connect lists thousands of scientific companies, businesses, non-profit organizations, institutions and experts worldwide.

Start your search today


Sour grapes in the Big Apple

Letting off steam in NYC

What do the president of the Czech Republic and the last living man to walk on the moon have in common?

Answer: they both have a thing about climate change “alarmists”

Both angry men are giving speeches at what’s being billed as the world’s largest ever meeting of climate change sceptics, in New York City.

Organised by the Heartland Institute – a US public policy think tank dedicated to free market solutions – the conference will centre around the question: “Global Warming: Was it Ever Really a Crisis?”

One of the pre-event adverts led with the statement:

Tens of thousands of scientists now say the media and environmental advocacy groups have it all wrong, that global warming is not a crisis. They point to a cooling trend in global temperatures since 2000, past warming and cooling cycles that were not man-made, and new evidence that carbon dioxide is not a very powerful greenhouse gas.

You can also watch a couple of the Institute’s short promos here.

Amongst the keynote speakers is Vaclav Klaus, President of the Czech Republic which currently holds the rotating presidency of the European Union.

Klaus, who has an academic background in economics, is giving a talk this morning (Tuesday) entitled “We Should Not Make Big Changes over Climate Change”.

Other notable presenters include: Jack Schmitt, the last living astronaut to walk on the moon; Roy Spencer, the principal research scientist on NASA’s Aqua satellite; and Richard Lindzen of Massachusetts Institute of Technology, one of the world’s leading experts in dynamic meteorology.

Meanwhile, over in Copenhagen this week more than 2000 climate scientists will be discussing their latest research ahead of the UN Conference on Climate Change that will take place in the city in December.

I’m guessing the outlook at that event will be rather different.

This entry was posted in General. Bookmark the permalink.
View all posts by this author  | View this author's profile


  1. It so strange that this debate goes on. Everyone agrees with the fundamentals, that the planet naturally heats and cools in cycles, and that the current rate of global warming is greater than the natural cycle, yet big business prevents any preventative action from moving forward. It’s so depressing.
    California Home Loans

  2. Timray

    Better hurry….the citizens are getting wise to the Gore scare

  3. pjm

    There have been arguments about the cycles (eg was there a mediaeval warming period?) and there is argument about how good the evidence is for the current rate being more than natural. Both sides claim the other is driven by funding (big business or IPCC), not that it is relevant to the science. For a good look at problems with the science see

  4. harold

    Joel says “everyone agrees … that the current rate of global warming is greater than the natural cycle” … umm, apparently everyone does NOT agree, Joel.
    But … “california home loans” is your shameless URL link spam advertisement ? Now THAT is depressing ! You are part of a much bigger problem than global warming, I am sorry to say.

  5. David Tyler

    With “sour grapes” and “angry” speakers, I wondered what this blog was about. Visiting the conference web site is well worth the effort, with access to many presentations and other resources. The conference is worth plugging positively: we need to be encouraging a debate that is more critical of the so-called consensus. I would like to see Physics World exploring some of the arguments in more depth. The angriest presentation I could find was by Joanne Nova – The Great Global Fawning: How Science Journalists Pay Homage to Non-Science and Un-Reason. This suggests, with some justification, that the popularisers of science have lost their ability to critically appraise the climate science issue.

  6. Yogendra

    What the skeptics say has the simple implication that the problems this unique planet is facing has nothing to do with the activities of the human race. That is even if the human race were not there, things would have been more or less what they are there today: the forest cover would have been dissapearing in the same way, living species would have been facing extinction as ever, under-ground water level would have been going down as usual, the ozone cover would have continued dissapear and so on. They mean to say that human presence has no effect on this planet. That is indeed heartening!


  • Comments should be relevant to the article and not be used to promote your own work, products or services.
  • Please keep your comments brief (we recommend a maximum of 250 words).
  • We reserve the right to remove excessively long, inappropriate or offensive entries.

Show/hide formatting guidelines

Tag Description Example Output
<a> Hyperlink <a href="">google</a> google
<abbr> Abbreviation <abbr title="World Health Organisation" >WHO</abbr> WHO
<acronym> Acronym <acronym title="as soon as possible">ASAP</acronym> ASAP
<b> Bold <b>Some text</b> Some text
<blockquote> Quoted from another source <blockquote cite="">IOP</blockquote>
<cite> Cite <cite>Diagram 1</cite> Diagram 1
<del> Deleted text From this line<del datetime="2012-12-17"> this text was deleted</del> From this line this text was deleted
<em> Emphasized text In this line<em> this text was emphasised</em> In this line this text was emphasised
<i> Italic <i>Some text</i> Some text
<q> Quotation WWF goal is to build a future <q cite="">
where people live in harmony with nature and animals</q>
WWF goal is to build a future
where people live in harmony with nature and animals
<strike> Strike text <strike>Some text</strike> Some text
<strong> Stronger emphasis of text <strong>Some text</strong> Some text