Hundreds of skeptics of man-made global warming are gathering at a conference in New York City to “focus on issues and questions not answered by advocates of the theory of man-made global warming.” The Heartland Institute , the sponsor of the conference, states on their website:

“The 2008 International Conference on Climate Change is the first major international conference to focus on issues and questions not answered by advocates of the theory of man-made global warming. Hundreds of scientists, economists, and public policy experts from around the world will gather on March 2-4, 2008, at the Marriott New York Marquis Hotel on Manhattan’s Time Square, to call attention to widespread dissent in the scientific community to the alleged ‘consensus’ that the modern warming is primarily man-made and is a crisis.”

New York Times columnist John Tierney previews the conference on his blog this morning in his post Global-Warming Skeptics Convene in N.Y.:
"Hundreds of skeptics in the global-warming debate are convening in New York today and tomorrow. The meeting, sponsored by the Heartland Institute, is an assortment of climate scientists, economists and free-market think-tankers — some who have impressive credentials, some of whom are listed in the conference program simply as 'Scientist” or “Meteorologist.' Sorting out the wheat from the chaff will not be easy, but here’s one way to start: Check out this report being presented at the conference today. It’s a critique of the report last year from the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This new report, which accuses the I.P.C.C. of “errors and misstatements,” is from a group of scientists calling itself the N.I.P.C.C. — the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change. The report was edited by S. Fred Singer, a professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia. It comes with an introduction from Frederick Seitz, a physicist and past president of the National Academy of Sciences and of Rockefeller University, who writes that the report shows “we do not currently have any convincing evidence or observations of significant climate change from other than natural causes.” That conclusion, of course, is hardly the majority view among scientists who study this issue. But what, specifically, is wrong in this new report? What’s right in it? I welcome substantive comments — by which I don’t mean denunciations of “deniers” or “ecoNazis,” or lazy ad hominem attacks and conspiracy theories about who’s being paid off by whom. Let’s stick to the science, or lack thereof, in this particular critique. There are plenty of specific claims and charts to analyze. Have the authors identified genuine problems in the I.P.C.C. report, or are they cherry-picking data?"