Guest post by Alan Caruba
Full disclosure: Years ago I received a small stipend from The Heartland Institute to help cover the costs of writing articles regarding the global warming hoax, well before it was exposed in 2009 when emails between its perpetrators—the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—revealed the total lack of real science involved. I have continued to expose the hoax without any support from Heartland or any other entity.
A total of six conferences on climate change have been sponsored by The Heartland Institute. I attended the first conference in New York City in 2008 and my initial observation was that virtually no one from the press was there and the meager coverage it received disparaged it.
This week, a major smear campaign against the Institute erupted as the result of an act of deception and thievery that may well result in criminal charges against its as yet unknown perpetrator.
The President of the Institute, Joe Bast, immediately informed its supporters, directors, donors and friends that someone pretending to be a board member had sent Heartland an email claiming to be a director and asking that documents regarding a January board meeting be re-sent.
A clever ruse, but the result was that elements of the confidential documents were then posted on a number of so-called climate blogs and from there to various members of the media who, with the exception of The Guardian, took no steps whatever to verify the authenticity of the documents, some of which Heartland says were either a concoction of lies or altered to convey inaccurate information.
The leading disseminator of the global warming hoax, The New York Times, published its version on Wednesday, February 15th, titled “Leak Offers Glimpse of Campaign Against Climate Science.”
Suffice to say, the “climate science” served up by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has been a pack of lies from the day it first convened. Its “science” was based on computer models rigged by co-conspirators that include Michael Mann of Penn State University and Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia.
The original leak of their emails in November 2009 instantly revealed the extent of their efforts to spread the hoax and to suppress any expression of doubt regarding it. A second release in 2011 confirmed what anyone paying any attention already knew.
The “warmists”, a name applied to global warming hoaxers, launched into a paroxysm of denial that has not stopped to this day. Their respective universities have since engaged in every possible way to hide the documentation they claimed supported their claims. Suffice to say, the global warming hoax was the golden goose for everyone who received literally billions in public and private funding.
We have reached the point where the warmists have been claiming that global warming causes global cooling! Along the way the bogus warming has been blamed for thousands of utterly absurd events and trends. What really worried the perpetrators was the fact that the planet had entered a cooling cycle in 1998.
At the heart of the hoax was the claim that carbon dioxide (CO2) was causing the Earth to heat and that CO2 emissions must be reduced to save the Earth. Next to oxygen, CO2 is vital to all life on Earth as it sustains all vegetation which in turn sustains every creature that depends on it as a source of food. It represents a mere 0.033% of the Earth’s atmosphere and is referred to by warmists as a “greenhouse gas.” It is, as any meteorologist or climatologist will tell you, the atmosphere that protects the Earth from becoming a dissociated planet like Mars.
The New York Times article is a case study in bad journalism and bias on a scale for which this failing newspaper is renowned. The Times reported that “Leaked documents suggest that an organization known for attacking climate science is planning a new push to undermine the teaching of global warming in public schools, the latest indication that climate change is becoming part of the nation’s culture wars.”
Wrong, so wrong. Polls have demonstrated that global warming is last on a list of concerns by the public. It barely registers because the public has concluded that it is either a hoax or just not happening. Teaching global warming in the nation’s schools constitutes a crime against the truth and the students.
The Times article makes much of the amounts some donors to Heartland have contributed, but in each cited case, with one exception, the donations had nothing to do with its rebuttal of global warming science.
“It is in fact not a scientific controversy”, said the Times article. “The majority of climate scientists say that emissions generated by human beings are changing the climate and putting the planet at long-term risk, although they are uncertain about the exact magnitude of that risk.”
The exact magnitude is zero. Thousands of scientists have signed petitions denouncing global warming as a hoax. The Times lies.
A post at The Daily Bayonet on February 14th said it well, “What the Heartland documents show is how badly warmists have been beaten by those with a fraction of the resources they’ve enjoyed. Al Gore spent $300 million advertising the global warming hoax. Greenpeace, the WWF (World Wildlife Fund), the Sierra Club, the National Resources Defense Council, NASA, NOAA, the UN and nation states have collectively poured billions into climate research, alternative energies, and propaganda, supported along the way by most of the broadcast and print media.
The Times will continue to publish lies about global warming, as will others like Time and Newsweek magazines. The attacks on Heartland and the many scientists and others like myself who debunk this fraud will continue, but their efforts are just the dying gasp of the greatest hoax of the modern era.
There’s a reason the theme of Heartland’s sixth conference in 2011 was “Restoring the Scientific Method.” Real science does not depend on declaring “a consensus” before the hypothesis has been thoroughly tested, a process that often involves years of effort. Meanwhile, the planet continues to cool.
Tom_R says:
February 16, 2012 at 9:06 pm
R. Gates says:
February 16, 2012 at 7:57 pm
Hey, I asked an honest question about the truth and reasoning being Heartland’s positions
Why not comment on the original topic, namely the fabrication of a memo? Are you one of who approves of such tactics? Are you saying it’s OK to fabricate evidence if the institute in question ‘deserves it’ in your opinion? Is that the reason behind your questions?
____
I don’t support any dishonest acts or tactics. Any lies, falsehoods, or other sorts of actions by anyone toward anyone else has no foundation no matter how much one might perceive that a group or individual “deserves it”. I honestly wanted to know something which is true about the Heartland Foundation considering how much which is clearly false and potentially false had been spread. Having personally been the victim of a rather nasty and nearly career destroying smear campaign several years ago, I know how damaging this can be for an individual or organization, and certainly how unjustified it is for any reason. Fortunately, I was completely exhonerated, and those who attacked me were completely, and rather devistatingly, discredited and “run out of town” so to speak. I would wish the same kind of fate for those who would commit any similar dishonest acts toward the Heartland Foundation, or any other person or group.
R. Gates and others of like mind may wish to attempt to answer this question. If no one does, then I’d say it’s cutains for AGW.
It is a fact that about half of the Sun’s incident radiation is in the infra-red spectrum. Carbon dioxide absorbs some of this incident IR radiation and sends at least half back to space – OK so far?
So this will prevent some radiation warming the Earth’s surface – just like the whole atmosphere does – so that the surface does not warm to over 100 deg.C like the Moon’s does. – Still OK so far?
So why don’t you deduct this cooling effect of carbon dioxide from the assumed warming effect?
PS At least one scientist calculated the cooling effect of carbon dioxide as about 7 times the assumed warming effect.
The Pompous Git says:
February 16, 2012 at 8:02 pm
My response was badly worded; I should have said I didn’t mind if you called me a fool 😉 However, we do disagree on the accepted definition of socialism. I can live with that. I do agree that socialism is an economic disaster. I do not agree that Australia’s conservative coalition are socialists, but they are welfare statists. Welfare statism is also an economic disaster. Tweedle Dumb and Tweedle Dumber.
###
I am thinking of abandoning the term socialist in preference for the term statist because that is actually much closer to what I mean most of the time.
Ric Werme says:
February 16, 2012 at 11:14 am
True. And to its detractors who spread falsehoods, it petrifies.
William Astley says:
February 16, 2012 at 8:21 pm
R. Gates,
I would recommend that you do not bet your life savings on the extreme AGW paradigm. It appears that there are cycles in the paleoclimatic record of warming followed by cooling and occasionally by extreme, rapid cooling events, that following a 1470 year pattern. The sun does appear to be acting strangely. If you are interested in the science this book is a good introduction.
________
I have read this book and am quite familiar with Bond events, the 1470 year cycle, astronomical cycles, and so forth, and, as I’ve stated many times here on WUWT, prior to the last century, and specfically prior to the last 50 years or so, I certainly am of the opinion the Sun played a major role in modulation of shorter-term, non-Milankovtich induced climate variability. But the composition of the Earth’s atmosphere is now like nothing certainly we’ve ever seen as homo sapiens, and probably like nothing the planet has seen since the mid to early Pliocene.
The next few years will be most interesting, as I’ve also stated here, this is probably the most interesting time imaginable to be a student of the climate. We’ve got front row seats to one of the most unique set of circumstances one could imagine (quiet sun vs. highest level of greenhouse gases in at least 800,000 years), and we’ll all be so much wiser 20 years from now, and I am very confident, one way or another, this bickering between warmist and skeptic will be quite over. But of course, some of us will find something else to argue about (though some of us won’t care to, or won’t have the ability to argue for multiple and obvious reasons).
One more question.for R.Gates et al …
Suppose you pass radiation from a slightly cooler object (surface area 5 sq.m, temperature 300 K) through a reflective funnel which concentrates the radiation onto a slightly warmer object (310 K) with the same absorptivity and emissivity of, say, 0.9 but surface area only 0.5 sq.m..
Please explain with suitable calculations how the Second Law of Thermodynamics would actually apply to ensure thermal energy only transferred from the warmer to the cooler object.
I will also post this on several other forums to see if anyone has a correct solution other than mine, which you should know by now if you’ve read my posts.
The publication of the book Die Kalte Sonne was a devastating blow to the AGW pyramid scheme. This followed a series of other devastating blows; The Delinquent Teenager, CG2, CG1, Glaciergate, and all thoser publications that all proved how and or why the AGW scam was being pushed down our collective throats. The HI and the GWPF, together with blogs such as WUWT and all the other blogs that continuously keep informing us on developments, scientific and politicial, have been in the forefront in the war against the Lie; and the Truth has won. The dragon has been mortally wounded and it can now only kick its strong dangerous tail while in its death throes. But die will.
Fake-gate is just part of the tail-kicking while the dragon is bleeding to death.
Thank you HI, thank you GWPF, thank you WUWT, thanks to all those who are dedicating themselves to the truth.
DesertYote said @ur momisugly February 16, 2012 at 9:46 pm
I think I guessed that. The spectrum between libertarian and authoritarian seems more important to me than the left/right spectrum.
R. Gates says:
February 16, 2012 at 10:04 pm
So you say that the atmosphere was ‘there’ 800, 000 years ago? And what happened then? Where did you get that information? And, I’d like to know, are you a ‘student of the climate’? And about this ‘bickering’: do you think it will take 20 years for it to ‘end’? We’ve got a front-row seat, without a doubt, but the performance is not what you think it is!
Bart says:
February 16, 2012 at 4:20 pm
RobRoy says:
February 16, 2012 at 3:58 pm
“380 molecules get so heated up by reflected infra-red that they heat up the other 999,620 molecules.”
This is an argument from incredulity, like when the warmists sneer that there would have to be a vast conspiracy in order for the science to be so wrong. But, there doesn’t have to be a vast conspiracy, and besides, conspiracies do exist – that’s why there is a word for it.
The element you are missing in your argument is that of time. How long does it take for one of those 380 molecules to absorb and emit radiation? Microseconds? Then in one second, you have effectively millions of absorbing and radiating molecules.
——-
Wow, you have a perpetual motion machine there boy,
>>>Yesterday it was announced that the BBC need not disclose
>>>a report which the Corporation itself commissioned into the BBC’s
>>>anti-israel bias.
Amongst others, that was the infamously biased Orla Guerin, the BBCs Israel correspondent. She used to black up her eyes and cry into the camera with soppy-dog expressions, when Palestinians were killed. But when Palestinian suicide bombers killed hundreds of Israelis, she used to shrug her shoulders and the body language clearly said ‘they deserve it’.
Hers was the most outrageously biased reporting since PRAVDA or the media reporting for Pol Pot. After a campaign of complaints we got her shipped off to Afghanistan, where – try as she might – she could not find a single Israeli to blame for the mayhem. So as a second best, the Americans were to blame for everything.
As an aside – after headlining every explosion in Baghdad for 10 years, and blaming it all on the Americans ‘occupation’, the BBC have suddenly stopped reporting the continuing explosions and deaths in Iraq. Suicide bombings that cannot be blamed on America are just not in the BBC’s world view – it is just not possible that the Middle East is inheritently unstable due to its religio-political systems.
The BBC is now the most disgustingly biased media outlet in the world, and cannot be trusted in any of its reporting. Happily, pulling the plug on the BBC would be very easy – just get a government to reduce the licence fee by 50%, and stand back and watch the fun.
.
>> “The claim was *global* cooling.”
> Looks down to me.
Because you carefully avoided adding the trend line. Do so, and you’ll see that you’re wrong.
> The net effect being that the *global* temp anomaly has been trending down gradually for a decade, steeply for the past few years, and currently is lower than it has been in a decade or more.
Only if you ignore the data; see for counter example http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/01/21/2011-temperature-roundup/
> For the real data for the last 10 years see the downward trends
Only by very carefully selecting your dataset and time period. Try http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1980/plot/uah/from:2001/trend instead. Having a warming series with enough variability to show occasional cooling periods is nothing strange: its a feature of the real climate that the GCMs reproduce.
Doug Cotton> Please explain with suitable calculations…
There is no point asking for explanations if you’re not prepared to read the answers. You asked much the same on my blog; I answered you. You didn’t reply, you just asked the same question again. The basic maths behind (a simplified version of) the greenhouse effect aren’t difficult; they are outlined in my reply to you here.
> At least one scientist calculated the cooling effect of carbon dioxide as about 7 times the assumed warming effect.
Sounds deeply imaginary, but since you provide no cite it can’t be checked.
Doug Cotton said “so that the surface does not warm to over 100 deg.C like the Moon’s does”
Are you reading Rosco now? He already pretty much answered his own question. It has nothing to do with CO2 absorbing the Sun’s IR. Please tell me what causes cloudy nights to be warmer.
Doug, sorry, I didn’t see your other comment above namely: “And, by the way, if all other things are equal (including relative humidity and pressure) I see no reason why cloudy nights should be cooler or warmer than clear nights.”
That is not true. Clouds will almost always keep one station warmer than others in the DC area (DCA, IAD, BWI) if there are clouds at that station and not the others (based on many personal observations). For even more empirical results, see http://www.ba-pirc.org/pubs/nightcool/ where they show that cloudy night reduce the effectiveness of a passive radiative roof cooling system (essentially the roof cools more slowly based on the percentage of clouds).
William Connolley (and others):
I’m sorry I missed your reply at first, but, whilst I note you think my point 4 is wrong (and I’m sorry but I don’t accept Wikipedia as authorative on this issue) it is in fact right and proven computationally.
You cannot explain why the Second Law of Thermodynamics applies in all cases between any two points (containing matter) if you do computations with two-way radiation.
Maybe it all needs more explanation for some of you ….
Only radiation from hot to cold has any effect because it contains frequencies (in the upper extremes of its spectrum) which are above those that can resonate with the target when the target is cooler. The energy in radiation with these frequencies is thus retained and must be converted to thermal energy.
In contrast, radiation from a cooler source always contains frequencies which can resonate with a warmer target and thus be scattered without any energy left behind to be converted to thermal energy. So it does not warm anything which is warmer than its source.
The above can be easily seen from the first plot on this page http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/WiensDisplacementLaw.html
As you can envisage from this plot, as the temperatures approach each other the amount of overlap increases and so the rate of heat transfer decreases until it ceases when the temperatures match.
I know that you may get similar results making calculations with two-way radiation, but situations can be hypothesised which would lead to invalid results.
Consider my funnel experiment concentrating radiation from, say, a large but cooler surface of 5 sq.m onto a smaller but slightly warmer surface of 0.5 sq.m. Even when temperatures become equal you would then have 10 times as much radiation in one direction, or a net of 9 times – all without warming because, if it did warm, the Second Law would be broken..
Thus only the passage of radiation from hot to cold is relevant and it fully explains all that happens in regard to heat flow and temperature changes. More importantly, it explains how and why the Second Law is valid for radiation.
You simply cannot refute this example – equal temperatures and yet net radiation in one direction. Why no further warming?
It is little wonder that Claes Johnson was able to prove this computationally in his Computational Blackbody Radiation.
William M. Connolley says:
February 17, 2012 at 1:39 am
Sounds deeply imaginary, but since you provide no cite it can’t be checked.
_____________________________
http://www.amazon.com/Slaying-Sky-Dragon-Greenhouse-ebook/dp/B004DNWJN6 Chapter 20
@William Howard M. Connolley says:
a link to the Daily Mail? Come now, the Daily Mail is a joke. No-one is silly enough to get their science from newspapers, particularly tabloids, are they?
===============
Fair comment on the link to the Daily Mail but do you see no irony in rebutting by linking to the assertions of an anonymous blogger? (Most of whose claims can be no more verified than the comments sections of climate blogs 😉
Although indirectly this blogger does link to:
Global temperature evolution 1979–2010
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022
But isn’t the point of this paper to demonstrate that natural variability overrules the effects of CO2? The paper states:
“When the data are adjusted to remove the estimated impact of known factors on short-term temperature variations (El Niño/southern oscillation, volcanic aerosols and solar variability”
Or in other words, when we remove significant parts of the climate system and only measure *part* of the climate system that is warmer than the parts we exclude, this *part* of the climate system is still warming. Isn’t that… very very silly? And even if we put that point aside for a moment, is that consistent with the IPCC AR4 claim that CO2 drives climate? Is it consistent with data sets such as RSS or HadCRU or UAH which show little or no statistically significant warming for periods up to 15 years? There have been no major volcanic eruptions during that period. ENSO shows no long term trend. Solar activity only accounts for 0.1C amount of variability anyway…
Man Bearpigg says:
February 17, 2012 at 12:23 am
The element you are missing in your argument is that of time. How long does it take for one of those 380 molecules to absorb and emit radiation? Microseconds? Then in one second, you have effectively millions of absorbing and radiating molecules.
___________________________________________
Yes but you forgot to leave any energy for all that backradiation which, from the energy diagrams, considering half goes to space, has used up more than all the radiation they show coming from the surface. So there’s none left to warm the atmosphere as it all has to go back to the surface – and a bit more than all actually.
You see the IPCC gave up trying to claim that warmer air (ie less cold air) up there in the atmosphere somehow warms the surface. It doesn’t and they had to accept the empirical evidence that it doesn’t, so you’re behind the times.
What they now conjecture is that backradiation from a cooler atmosphere breaks the Second Law of Thermodynamics and adds thermal energy to a warmer surface, even while the Sun is warming it up every sunny morning. Wow. Net flux into the surface, and still more from a cold atmosphere causing all the … er .. cooling.
Actually, carbon dioxide does have a cooling effect because it absorbs some of the incoming IR radiation from the Sun and sends it back to space. The IPCC “forgot” to mention that about half the Sun’s insolation is in the IR spectrum.
But then you’d need to forget such things when you’re spinning a hoax.
Aussie says:
February 16, 2012 at 4:54 pm
@myrrh, you are incorrect with regard to photosynthesis.
Plants breathe in carbon dioxide and they breathe out oxygen which is then breathed in by humans, who then breathe out carbon dioxide.
This is what I was taught in science class almost 50 years ago. The science has not changed since then!!
====================================
Aussie – that photosynthesis is plants breathing in carbon dioxide and breathing out oxygen is a simplified version of the process, the second half of the equation doesn’t get mentioned – except through old wives tales, as I was taught it, not to keep plants in your bedroom…
Photosynthesis is not a continuous process, mostly happens in the am, the plants create their dinner of sugar out of carbon dioxide by converting the red and blue wavelengths of visible light to to chemical energy do so. The rest of time they breathe in oxygen and breathe out carbon dioxide, just like us. Remember, photosynthesis is using visible sun light – without that there is no chemical energy for food production.
I’ve just had a look for a better explanation of this and I tend to read as many links as I can, the first turned up a variation on the old wives’ tale I gave, not to sleep under trees. Why not? you may ask, because carbon dioxide is heavier than air and will displace oxygen..
How dangerous this actually is, plants in the bedroom competing for the oxygen supply and trees exhaling enough carbon dioxide to form a pool on the ground and suffocating you is a moot point, an open window and a breeze in a forest enough to disperse, but what these tales do is wait for the question, why not? The other half of the process and the danger of carbon dioxide pooling in the answers.
That carbon dioxide is heavier than air and can suffocate you is actually a danger in some industries, mining and brewing, so if you go for a p*ss up in a brewery don’t fall asleep on the floor, and something that people living around venting volcanoes will have been taught, to stay out of dips in the ground around the vents.
You can easily find pages which give the science behind this, but the old wives’ tales aspect is interesting, the page which gave the don’t sleep under trees tale here: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070411014235AAFfFbd
and here’s another which which suggests that the old wives’ tales began from experience, we only now have the science to explain them: http://science.jrank.org/pages/1209/Carbon-Dioxide.html
“Like animals, plants breathe, using up oxygen and releasing carbon dioxide. But plants also have the unique ability to store energy in the form of carbohydrates, our primary source of food. This energy-storing process, called photosynthesis, is essentially the reverse of respiration. It uses up carbon dioxide and releases oxygen in a complex series of reactions that also require sunlight and chlorophyll (the green substance that gives plants their color). In the 1770s, Dutch physiologist Jan Ingen Housz established the principles of photosynthesis, which helped explain the age-old superstition that plants purify air during the day and poison it at night.”
Doug Cotton says:
February 16, 2012 at 9:41 pm
R. Gates and others of like mind may wish to attempt to answer this question. If no one does, then I’d say it’s curtains for AGW.
______________________
So far no one on any forum has been able to explain computationally why the Second Law of Thermodynamics applies for radiation when they assume that calculations should include two-way radiation. The simple funnel experiment I described produces net radiation in one direction even when temperatures are equal. Yet we know there can be no heat transfer in such circumstances.
So, it seems, you should all accept my explanation that only the (one way) radiation from hot to cold should be taken into account in the calculations.
But I’ll wait another week and make a point in my book if no one proves me wrong.
William M. Connolley says:
February 17, 2012 at 12:47 am
You two should stop arguing about trends. The long-term trend is a part of a ~1000 year natural cyclic pattern which may yet take another 200 years or so to reach a maximum. The rate of increase in moving 30 year trend gradients was about 0.06 deg.C / decade around 1900 to 1930, but is now less, namely about 0.05 deg.C / decade as at the foot of my Home page.
This would indicate a maximum of about 0.7 to 1.0 deg.C above the current trend within 200 years.
Meanwhile the 60 year cycle (superimposed) causes a very slight decline until about 2028, but rises will occur for 30 years after that, as in the 30 years up to 1998.
Perhaps someone should remind Mr Connolley of the difference between cherry picked data and a counterexample.
Hint: Cherry picked data does NOT prove a theory is true. A single counterexample DOES prove that a theory is false.
William M. Connolley says:
February 17, 2012 at 1:39 am
Doug Cotton> Please explain with suitable calculations…
There is no point asking for explanations if you’re not prepared to read the answers. You asked much the same on my blog; I answered you. You didn’t reply, you just asked the same question again. The basic maths behind (a simplified version of) the greenhouse effect aren’t difficult; they are outlined in my reply to you here.
> At least one scientist calculated the cooling effect of carbon dioxide as about 7 times the assumed warming effect.
Sounds deeply imaginary, but since you provide no cite it can’t be checked.
=================
Whether the 7 times is accurate I don’t know, but since carbon dioxide is fully part of the Water Cycle any contribution it makes to ‘warming’ is in that process, which is the main greenhouse gas water vapour taking away heat from the surface and releasing it in the colder heights of the troposphere when it condenses out to water again and comes down as rain, all pure rain is carbonic acid. Carbon dioxide thus in warming becoming less dense will join with the rising water vapour and this makes greenhouse gases the cooling mechanism for the Earth. Without water the Earth would be 67°C – think deserts – greenhouse gases cool the Earth bringing the temps down to c15°C.
The basic maths behind (a simplified version of) the greenhouse effect aren’t difficult; they are outlined in my reply to you here.”
The basic maths of an imaginary greenhouse effect in an imaginary world where visible light heats land and oceans and the invisible heat from the Sun doesn’t reach the surface, are for science fiction fans. Any taking that seriously have zilch hope of understanding the real world around us.
Any pushing the meme that the AGWSF world is real while knowing the real physics, the real physical properties of light and heat and gases, are shysters.
@Ron House says: Trolling etc
Ron, my point is most of the content on WUWT – most notably that written by Anthony – steers clear of this kind of petty bitchiness. And that’s what sets it apart from the rest. When WUWT descends to the level of being a political advocacy forum, and kneejerks itself in alignment with an end of the political spectrum it loses credibility and alienates those who for whatever reason align themselves with another.
Heartland is clearly an extreme right wing advocacy group. When I say “far right” I mean small Government, but I also mean “USA Republican” and that brings with it a certain ill feeling from many who can only see that end of politics for its Christian Conservative and talk-radio ranting element.
The last thing we who believe in moving the science along need is to overtly align ourselves with groups that are easy to smear because of their dirty connections such as Tobacco companies and the morons who think having a public health system or being European makes you somehow a Communist.
If you jump into bed with the likes of Newt Gingrich expect about the same level of support, and the same level of hostility towards yourself.
I’m grateful Heartland is contributing to moving the science in more than one (settled) direction, but I can’t help but find it creepy.
The only way we can move the science forward is to keep up the fight to unbuckle it from partisan politics. When you stoop to belittling “Alarmists” or “Warmists” you merely sink to the lowest level.
WUWT when it works is above that.