I can contest to this fact as well, but it is fairly easily explained: the people in the GMU economics department (especially the people concerned with "economic thought" where the thinkers in question range from James Buchanan and Hayek all the way over to Adam Smith) actually live in an alternative universe and in that universe there is no global warming.
Still, it is interesting to hear more about how that conference went. Did the next few days turn out to be any more fruitful? Then again, I guess if you were fishing for how the Adam Smith hagiographers would respond to your arguments, it might not have mattered that they could barely let you get a word in edgewise.
For those not there, no kidding there was a guy in the audience with three dog eared marked up volumes of Smith and while Michael was presenting he would stop him every other sentence to try to call him out on some minor quibbling detail, usually having nothing to do with the overall argument, rarely completely necessary for it, and almost always open to interpretation. It was a very rude treatment compared to the person who went before him who was, IIRC, trying to read Adam Smith to say that the market made people more tolerant because they were interdependent as if it was some new argument. (basically Durkhiem on the Division of Labor, but completely ignorant of any social theorist except Adam Smith--and she was an invited speaker.)
Mixed in there was a reading of Adam Smith such that he was in favor of gender equality and so on. In short, the whole session was like a series of people reading the Wealth of Nations as if it were some Rosetta Stone with something to say about every transformation in western culture since--and all of it good. It is no wonder that they refuse to admit global warming exists: their understanding of the world precedes the industrial revolution by a good half century or so.
s