By Christopher C. Horner
First published in the Washington Examiner, reposted here with permission
Not long ago, the American Tradition Institute initiated a transparency campaign using federal and state freedom of information laws to learn more about how taxpayer-funded academics use their positions to advance a particular agenda. On its face, this should have been welcomed by the Left, which often lays claim to the “transparency” mantle. It is instead causing great angst.
Our project would compile the context to the “Climategate” scandal, which, as activist academics central to its revelations assured us, was really an out-of-context misrepresentation. Curiously, the same people think this project a very bad idea.
So do the media and environmentalist establishments. Of the latter, the Union of Concerned Scientists became particularly exercised, mobilizing left-wing groups to urge universities not to satisfy our requests for public documents.
None of these groups, incidentally, was troubled by a series of similar requests by Greenpeace, whose effort we replicated. They only became opposed when we sought the emails of the sort of activists with whom they work.
Some of these, recently obtained from Texas A&M University, provide one explanation for this reversal.
For example, they reveal a sophisticated UCS operation to assist activist academics and other government employees as authorities for promoting UCS’s agenda. This includes “moot-courting” congressional hearings with a team of UCS staff, all the way down to providing dossiers on key committee members, addressing in particular their faith, stance on gay marriage and stimulus spending. Of course.
This also includes directing the taxpayers’ servants to outside PR consultants — apparently pro bono or else on UCS’s dime. Keep this last point in mind.
They also expose the New York Times reporter who covers the environment, science and specifically the global warming issue, Justin Gillis, as being no disinterested party.
Gillis wrote a piece in May laboring to undermine one of the most highly credentialed and respected climate “skeptics,” the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Dr. Richard Lindzen. This front-page article prompted my request for information reflecting how the A&M professor and activist whom Gillis quoted was using his taxpayer-funded position.
The specific correspondence began when Gillis wrote that interviewing Lindzen for a piece on his area of expertise was “unavoidable,” and “[s]o I need a really good bibliography of all the published science” countering Lindzen’s position on cloud feedback — “that is, anything that stands as evidence against Lindzen’s claim that the feedback has to be strongly negative.”
Remember, this was a reporter for the New York Times writing this. In the released emails, Gillis comes off as an activist posing as a journalist, sneering at Lindzen. Of another prominent skeptic, Gillis wrote, “I sense you’ve got him in a trap here … can’t wait to see it sprung.” (Ellipses in original.)
Our transparency campaign caused much wailing and gnashing of teeth among academia and its affiliated societies, the Washington Post, and the American Constitution Society. They joined UCS to attest that these sacrosanct exchanges of ideas would be fatally chilled if not granted an unlegislated exemption from freedom of information laws.
So you might be surprised to learn that the Texas A&M email production shows the academics actually forwarding their email discussions outside their circle. To New York Times reporters, for example. They even often copy reporters on the very exchanges they otherwise insist represent an intellectual circle that must remain free from violation by prying, nonacademic eyes. Awkward.
Following my Texas A&M request, a producer contacted me from “Frontline,” a PBS program known for grinding liberal axes. She wanted to discuss our Freedom of Information Act litigation. As we are currently only involved in the high-profile case involving the University of Virginia’s Climategate records, I referred her to lead counsel.
It turns out she was really interested in records requests with two different, more cooperative schools: the Texas A&M request, and one I filed at Texas Tech University. The latter sought a professor and climate activist’s correspondence about a chapter she was writing for Newt Gingrich’s upcoming book. (Naturally, this Texas Tech professor who opposed providing me the emails had already provided them to a Los Angeles Times reporter.)
Now, you might ask, how would two otherwise fairly obscure Texas activists become the subject of interest to “Frontline”? That brings us back to UCS.
One of the emails produced by Texas A&M shows its activist contacting, and being given advice by, a D.C. media consultant, Richard Ades of Prism Public Affairs, “a strategic communications firm that operates at the intersection of public policy and the media” according to its website. The professor says he was referred by Aaron Huertas of UCS.
I have sent two other public records requests following up on these points. Expect the usual suspects to respond in their usual way. The media, academia and environmentalist pressure groups share an agenda, and work closely together to advance it. Remember this when these interests assail efforts to obtain public records shedding light on these activities.
Christopher C. Horner is director of litigation for the American Tradition Institute and author of the forthcoming book “The Liberal War on Transparency: Confessions of a Freedom of Information ‘Criminal’ ” (Threshold).
==============================================================
It should be noted that the Union of Concerned Scientists requires no scientific qualifications whatsoever for becoming a member of the organization. In fact, as demonstrated by the UCS membership granted to my family dog, all that is required to be part of UCS is a valid credit card, and they don’t even check if the member and the card match. – Anthony
If they actually practiced transparency then everybody could see through them.
They can’t have that!
Beware Anthony, if the UCS ever gets taken to court on these matters, Kenji, being a member of that august body (lol) may be called as a star witness, or may even face litigation.
I see a conflict of interest looming !!
As a member of UCS, Kenji ought to request copies of Executive Board meeting minutes.
Exactly what, aside from being capable of canine membeship, is a “union of concerned scientists”? I picture many nerdish people milling around in a dither with furrowed brows, wringing their hands and muttering about stuff. Institutionalized neurosis, as it were. Really, now, concerned about what? The concept is lost on me! I’m a scientist. Now and then I get concerned about some things. But do I reach out, Koombayah, seeking other scientists with similar concerns? Not! If something is that obvious, the concern about it will never materialize, or at least, it will be sort of self-correcting. Seems to me that if there needs, somehow, to ba a UCS, it is to create a sort of ‘brownshirt’ mentality to mash and crush those ‘concerns’ that have dick-all to do with science. Woof!
Is UCS K9 stripped-bark really worse than his lost-bytes?
Assuming that Kenji is so exercised about CAGW denial why doesn’t he submit his own paper for peer-review. Seems that he is as well qualified as the rest of the pack!
Correction:~
Tree-pee’er review
“context” is all, we are told, regarding Climategate….. the public is not permitted to assess that precious context. Kudos for Horner and ATI for working to provide more transparency. Show us our tax dollars at work, please!
Well we have seen enough, thousands of emails plus so many deplorable public statements and deeds by numerous climatologists and their activist buds, to have a good grasp of that context.
In fact, in every case I can think of more context makes The Team look worse not better! (no wonder they are fighting FOI tooth-and-nail). The activist scientists and journalists have spent years building their record of collusion — of course they want to keep it under wraps.
p.s. an idea: Kenji is more qualified to be put forward for the Board of UCS than Mooney is to be on the Board of the AGU. In fact, Kenji would actually bring some quality and distinction, rather than (ala Mooney) propaganda and notoriety! Maybe a write-in campaign is needed….
So, what has your dog told the reporters? Interested canines want to know!
Well, transparently dishonest” is a *form* of transparency.
To paraphrase Douglas Adams, I trust reporters about as far as I can comfortably spit out a rat.
Shortly before Climategate became public, I heard from an American journalist that the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit had been deleting data. As I live in East Anglia and am concerned about the anti-scientific and anti-democratic “concensus” on climate change, I phoned to ask why. I was passed around from extension to extension until I finally got somebody who identified herself as the manager of the press unit, who said the data were deleted because of copyright issues. A few days later the scandal broke.
We have to be careful with abbreviations here, because UCS is also The Utah Computer Society, and it wouldn’t do to inadvertently defame the innocent.
In any case, the expertise of the Union of Concerned Scientists (hereinafter UnCnedSci, to spare the Utahians) concerning AGW-science is foretold by the number of physical scientists in its governing positions: none.
The director of Policy on this organization of scientists, Alden Meyer, has an education perfectly suited to an environmental lobbyist, and completely lacks the science background necessary to rational policy-making on any issue so science-based. Their other policy-maker, Peter Frumhoff, is hardly more qualified to evaluate climate science (see below).
That said, meet the UnCnedSci leadership:
Kevin Knobloch, President, “holds a master’s degree in public administration from the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, with a focus on natural resource economics and environmental management, and a bachelor’s degree from the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, where he concentrated in English and journalism.”
Dr. Kathleen Rest, Executive Director, “earned her Doctorate in health policy from Boston University and her Masters degree in public administration, with a focus on health services, from the University of Arizona.”
Dr. Peter Frumhoff, Director of Science & Policy/Chief Scientist and also chief scientist of the UCS Climate Campaign, “holds a Ph.D. in Ecology and an M.A. in Zoology from the University of California, Davis and a B.A. in Psychology from the University of California, San Diego.
Alden Meyer, Director of Strategy & Policy/DC Office Co-Director, “received his undergraduate degree from Yale in 1975, concentrating in political science and economics. He received a master’s degree in human resource and organization development from American University in 1990.”
Here’s a list of their experts on, “Global Warming-Science and Impacts.” This list should provide the expertise in physics and physical climatology to ensure a scientifically valid position.
Dr. Brenda Ekwurzel, Climate Scientist, Assistant Director of Climate Research and Analysis, “holds a Ph.D. in isotope geochemistry from the Department of Earth Sciences at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory and conducted post-doctoral research at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, in California.”
Dr. Peter Frumhoff, Director of Science & Policy/Chief Scientist, we’ve already met him.
Dr. Todd Sanford Climate Scientist, “received a PhD in physical chemistry from the University of Colorado and a Bachelor of Science degree in chemistry from Purdue University.”
Erika Spanger-Siegfried, Senior Analyst, Climate & Energy Program, “has a master’s degree in energy and environmental analysis from Boston University and a bachelor’s degree in fisheries biology from the University of Massachusetts at Amherst.”
Jalonne L. White-Newsome, Kendall Science Fellow in Climate Change and Public Health, “holds a master’s degree in environmental engineering from Southern Methodist University and a bachelor’s degree in chemical engineering from Northwestern University.”
So, not one physicist or climate physicist. We have two physical scientists, or three depending on the content of Erika Spanger-Siegfried’s Master’s degree (the BU program has plenty of bio-options), and an engineer with pretty good degrees.
But this is not an obvious go-to list of people to validate a stance on the impact of CO2 on climate. All of them except Peter Frumhoff should be directly capable of the basic analysis that would quickly tell them the science supporting AGW rests on a complete neglect of physical error. But either they’ve not done the analysis, or they’re not talking about it.
The UnCnedSci Board has some worthy scientists, notably Richard Garwin, but he advises UnCnedSci on nuclear weapons, not on climate.
Of course, the examples of Michael Mann, Kevin Trenberth, and others is enough to forewarn us that even having a physicist on your staff will not ensure an objective evaluation of the science. Still, the UnCnedSci could have done better, even if only for expertise show-boating.
I should think your dog was probably over qualified for the ‘Union of Concerned Scientists’, I presume it is ‘house trained’? : ) Although I suppose dogs are generally known for obedience to their masters which is probably a prerequisite to joining. How embarrassing for the dog – I hope you have apologised.
Tomorrows headline – Mann Bites Dog?
Hoax, scare tactics, collusion… when does it become fraud?
Gary says: July 7, 2012 at 7:21 pm
If that doesn’t yield the desired results (which experience suggests it may well not), one could always enlist the “services” of Peter Gleick, who seems to have perfected the art obtaining that which he has no damn business acquiring and subsequently distributing to his “trusted” fences 😉
Kentti Linkola.
The extreme AGW movement has a significant logical problem and a media message problem. Unaltered data and unbiased analysis does not support the extreme AGW paradigm. Lindzen and others, have unequivalically shown that the planet resists warming due to increased CO2 in the atmosphere by increasing cloud cover in the tropics thereby reflecting more sunlight off in to space, which is called negative feedback. If there is negative feedback as opposed to amplification (positive feedback) a doubling of atmospheric CO2 will result in less than 1C warming. The IPCC have stated that there goal is to limit the planet’s warming due to atmospheric CO2 increases to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 to 2C. Mission accomplished. A doubling of at atmospheric CO2 will result in less than 1C warming.
It gets better. CO2 is not poison or a dangerous greenhouse gas. Plant`s eat CO2. Commercial greenhouses pay to inject CO2 into the greenhouse, to increase yield and to reduce growing times. The ideal level of atmospheric CO2 from the standpoint of plants is 1000 ppm to 1200 ppm. Why has the extreme AGW movement remained silent on the fact the increases in the atmospheric Co2 is beneficial to the plants and the biosphere. If increased C O2 results in slightly warming temperatures with most of the warming at high latitudes as the growing season is limited by the number of frost free days, there is not global warming crisis. Increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere is beneficial to the biosphere. There are other environmental problems to address. There is no problem with increasing atmospheric CO2.
It gets better. C3 plants (trees, grains consumed by humans including wheat and rice) loss roughly 50% of the water they absorb due to trans-respiration. When atmospheric CO2 rises, C3 plants reduce the number of stomata on their leaves which reduces the loss of water from their leaves to the atmosphere. This enables the C3 plants live with less water and leaves more water to remain at the plants roots for synergstically beneficial nitrogen affecting bacteria.
The problem for the extreme AGW supporters is they have called those who question the fundamental science supporting the dangerous warming prediction by the IPCC as “deniers“. If it become evident that the “`deniers“ where correct, the extreme AGW paradigm would be shown to be propaganda as opposed to science.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
Abusive ad hominem (also called personal abuse or personal attacks) usually involves insulting or belittling one’s opponent in order to attack his claim or invalidate his argument, but can also involve pointing out true character flaws or actions that are irrelevant to the opponent’s argument. This is logically fallacious because it relates to the opponent’s personal character, which has nothing to do with the logical merit of the opponent’s argument, whereas mere verbal abuse in the absence of an argument is not ad hominem nor any kind of logical fallacy.[6]
http://www.johnstonanalytics.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/LindzenChoi2011.235213033.pdf
On the Observational Determination of Climate Sensitivity and Its Implications
Richard S. Lindzen1 and Yong-Sang Choi2
1Program in Atmospheres, Oceans, and Climate, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, U. S. A. 2Department of Environmental Science and Engineering, Ewha Womans University, Seoul, Korea (Manuscript received 23 February 2011; revised 22 May 2011; accepted 22 May 2011) © The Korean Meteorological Society and Springer 2011
Abstract: We estimate climate sensitivity from observations, using the deseasonalized fluctuations in sea surface temperatures (SSTs) and the concurrent fluctuations in the top-of-atmosphere (TOA) outgoing radiation from the ERBE (1985-1999) and CERES (2000- 2008) satellite instruments. Distinct periods of warming and cooling in the SSTs were used to evaluate feedbacks. An earlier study (Lindzen and Choi, 2009) was subject to significant criticisms. The present paper is an expansion of the earlier paper where the various
criticisms are taken into account. The present analysis accounts for the 72 day precession period for the ERBE satellite in a more appropriate manner than in the earlier paper. We develop a method to distinguish noise in the outgoing radiation as well as radiation changes that are forcing SST changes from those radiation changes that constitute feedbacks to changes in SST. We demonstrate that our new method does moderately well in distinguishing positive from negative feedbacks and in quantifying negative feedbacks. In contrast, we show that simple regression methods used by several existing papers generally exaggerate positive feedbacks and even show positive feedbacks when actual feedbacks are negative. We argue that feedbacks are largely concentrated in the tropics, and the tropical feedbacks can be adjusted to account for their impact on the globe as a whole. Indeed, we show that including all CERES data (not just from the tropics) leads to results similar to what are obtained for the
tropics alone – though with more noise. We again find that the outgoing radiation resulting from SST fluctuations exceeds the zerofeedback response thus implying negative feedback. In contrast to this, the calculated TOA outgoing radiation fluxes from 11 atmospheric models forced by the observed SST are less than the zerofeedback response, consistent with the positive feedbacks that characterize these models. The …
…The heart of the global warming issue is so-called greenhouse warming. This refers to the fact that the earth balances the heat received from the sun (mostly in the visible spectrum) by radiating in the infrared portion of the spectrum back to space. Gases that are relatively transparent to visible light but strongly absorbent in the infrared (greenhouse gases) interfere with the cooling of the planet, forcing it to become warmer in order to emit sufficient infrared radiation to balance the net incoming sunlight (Lindzen, 1999). By net incoming sunlight, we mean that portion of the sun’s radiation that is not reflected back to space by clouds, aerosols and the earth’s surface. CO2, a relatively minor greenhouse gas, has increased significantly since the beginning of the industrial age from about 280 ppmv to about 390 ppmv, presumably due mostly to man’s emissions. This is the focus of current concerns. However, warming from a doubling of CO2 would only be about 1oC (based on simple calculations where the radiation altitude and the Planck temperature depend on wavelength in accordance with the attenuation coefficients of well mixed CO2 molecules; a doubling of any concentration in ppmv produces the same warming because of the logarithmic dependence of CO2’s absorption on the amount of CO2) (IPCC, 2007). This modest warming is much less than current climate models suggest for a doubling of CO2. Models predict warming of from 1.5oC to 5oC and even more for a doubling of CO2. Model predictions depend on the ‘feedback’ within models from the more important greenhouse substances, water vapor and clouds. Within all current climate models, water vapor increases with increasing temperature so as to further inhibit infrared cooling. Clouds also change so that their visible reflectivity decreases, causing increased solar absorption and warming of the earth. Cloud feedbacks are still considered to be highly uncertain (IPCC, 2007), but the fact that these feedbacks are strongly positive in most models is considered to be an indication that the result is basically correct. Methodologically, this is unsatisfactory. Ideally, one would seek an observational test of the issue. Here we suggest that it may be possible to test the issue with existing data from satellites.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/05/030509084556.htm
Greenhouse Gas Might Green Up The Desert; Weizmann Institute Study Suggests That Rising Carbon Dioxide Levels Might Cause Forests To Spread Into Dry Environments
The Weizmann team found, to its surprise, that the Yatir forest is a substantial “sink” (CO2-absorbing site): its absorbing efficiency is similar to that of many of its counterparts in more fertile lands. These results were unexpected since forests in dry regions are considered to develop very slowly, if at all, and thus are not expected to soak up much carbon dioxide (the more rapidly the forest develops the more carbon dioxide it needs, since carbon dioxide drives the production of sugars). However, the Yatir forest is growing at a relatively quick pace, and is even expanding further into the desert.
Plants need carbon dioxide for photosynthesis, which leads to the production of sugars. But to obtain it, they must open pores in their leaves and consequently lose large quantities of water to evaporation. The plant must decide which it needs more: water or carbon dioxide. Yakir suggests that the 30 percent increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide since the start of the industrial revolution eases the plant’s dilemma. Under such conditions, the plant doesn’t have to fully open the pores for carbon dioxide to seep in – a relatively small opening is sufficient. Consequently, less water escapes the plant’s pores. This efficient water preservation technique keeps moisture in the ground, allowing forests to grow in areas that previously were too dry.
It gets better. Slightly warmer temperatures in the tropics results in increased rainfall which changes the Sahara desert into a productive grasslands, savanna.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/07/090731-green-sahara.html
This desert-shrinking trend is supported by climate models, which predict a return to conditions that turned the Sahara into a lush savanna some 12,000 years ago.
Green Shoots
The green shoots of recovery are showing up on satellite images of regions including the Sahel, a semi-desert zone bordering the Sahara to the south that stretches some 2,400 miles (3,860 kilometers).
As I commented on a related thread recently:
“And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light because their deeds were evil.” John 3:19 KJV
This ought to be particularly convicting for the said Texas Tech professor, who represents herself as an evangelical Christian. Time to come clean, sister! WWJD?
gerrydorrian66 says:
July 7, 2012 at 8:04 pm
“Shortly before Climategate became public, I heard from an American journalist that the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit had been deleting data. ”
In the name of transparency, this American journalist was … ?
Yes, Don! (@9:39). I like it! Them’s what lives in the caves with their Precious, we’s don’t like the torch, no no no! We hates’s the torch. The torch burns us. Must kill the torch bearers!
(Apologies to J.R.Tolkein)
If the Sahara and Sahel greens up substantially, this will lead to a decline in dust sweeping across the tropical Atlantic in early and mid-summer resulting in perhaps increasing the Cape Verde portion of the hurricane season with more long running storms in the earlier part of the season (June, July). Just a long term concern.
Rational Optimist on rising CO2 and Plant adaptation and substitution: http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/two-rival-kinds-of-plants-and-their-future.aspx
“Can rice match maize’s yield?”
William Astley says:
July 7, 2012 at 9:38 pm
“Greenhouse Gas Might Green Up The Desert; Weizmann Institute Study Suggests That Rising Carbon Dioxide Levels Might Cause Forests To Spread Into Dry Environments”
An enviro journal has a different take on this issue:
“… researchers have found that savanna wildfires could be heavily influenced by factors such as climate change, road construction and fire-prevention measures. Less rainfall can result in an uptick in fires that can transform a forest into a savanna, just as breaking up the landscape through road construction and fire control disrupt natural blazes and allow a forest to sprout where there once was a savanna. Because of these factors, large stretches of South American and African forest and savanna could degenerate into chaotic mutual encroachment.”
http://theconversation.edu.au/climate-change-brings-savanna-and-forest-into-battle-4103
We don’t need that! Heaven forbid that anything would “degenerate into chaotic mutual encroachment”!
Isn’t the precautionary principle simply “fear”, itself?
The Union of Concerned Activists is concerned because the subject of their activism is taking an awful beating by Mother Nature, Goddess Gaia, and Hoi Hot Polloi. He may be more up to speed now, but when I first ran across Aaron Huertas a while back in a discussion on a non climate blog, he was apparently ignorant, but a fast learner. Arguments which foxed him at first were the subject of a more informed response later, presumably after consultation with more knowledgable confreres. He’s a communicator, once as ignorant of the science as Joshua still is.
================
Some of these, recently obtained from Texas A&M University, provide one explanation for this reversal.
No reversal here, merely the Usual Suspects exercising their Usual Double Standard.
When Bradley Manning leaked classified DoS documents, they rejoiced.
When “Harry” leaked publicly-funded documents, they screeched.