NOTE: This op-ed was rejected by the New York Times. It was submitted as a response by The president of The Heartland Institute in reply to Fred Krupp’s Wall Street Journal essay. I reproduce it here in hopes of it reaching a wide audience. Feel free to reproduce it elsewhere. – Anthony
by Joe Bast
Dear Fred,
I read your August 7 opinion piece in The Wall Street Journal, “A New Climate-Change Consensus,” with great interest. As you know, The Heartland Institute is a leading voice in the international debate over climate change. The Economist recently called us “the world’s most prominent think-tank promoting skepticism about man-made climate change.”
First, I welcome you to the effort to bring skeptics and alarmists together. We need your help. We have been trying to do this for many years.
For example, we ran more than $1 million in ads calling on Al Gore to debate his critics. He repeatedly refused. We hosted seven international conferences on climate change and invited alarmists to speak at every one, the most recent one held in Chicago on May 23-24. Only one ever showed up, and he was treated respectfully.
Regrettably, your colleagues in the liberal environmental movement responded at first by pretending we don’t exist, and when opinion polls and political decisions revealed that strategy wasn’t working, by denouncing us as “deniers” and “shills for the fossil fuel industry.”
Most recently, your colleagues on the left went so far as to break the law in an attempt to silence us. Prominent global warming alarmist Peter Gleick stole corporate documents from us and circulated them with a fake and highly defamatory memo purporting to describe our “climate change strategy.” Gleick confessed to stealing the documents on February 20.
Greenpeace is using the stolen and fake documents to attack climate scientists who affiliate with The Heartland Institute, while the Center for American Progress and 350.org are using them to demonize corporations that fund us. No group on the left, including yours, has condemned these activities.
In your opinion piece, you say “if both sides can now begin to agree on some basic propositions, maybe we can restart the discussion,” and you end by saying “it is time for conservatives to compete with liberals to devise the best, most cost effective climate solutions.”
Reconciliation will be difficult so long as you and others on the left fail to express doubt or remorse over the errors, exaggerations, and unethical tactics that continue to be used against skeptics.
For example, it is impossible for skeptics and alarmists to come together so long as alarmists pretend – as you do, Fred, in this very essay – that recent weather trends in one part of the world lend proof to their theories and predictions. Anyone familiar with the science knows this claim belongs in the kindergarten of the climate science debate.
Another basic error you repeat is that surface-based temperature data validate or prove that human greenhouse gas emissions affect the climate. They cannot, first because they measure temperatures on only a small part of the Earth’s surface, second because they are notoriously unreliable, and third because they tell us nothing about what is causing warming or cooling.
You are asking, in effect, that skeptics simply “shut up and sit down,” that they concede as being true the most flawed and unlikely assumptions of the alarmist movement, and that they endorse policies that are wholly unnecessary and extremely costly.
While I cannot presume to speak for all global warming skeptics, I think I can channel the opinion of most when I say, “hell no!”
Your overture comes at a time when the science backing global warming alarmism is crumbling, as amply demonstrated by the reports of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate change (NIPCC). International negotiations for a new treaty are going nowhere. Public opinion in the U.S. and other countries decisively rejects alarmism. Politicians here and abroad who vote for cap and trade or a carbon tax rightly fear being tossed out of office by voters who know more about the issue than they do.
Your appeal to “restart the discussion” would have skeptics snatch failure from the jaws of victory. I’m sure you understand why we won’t go there.
I have a counter proposal. Let’s restart the discussion by agreeing on these basic propositions:
First, people and organizations that break the law or use hate language such as “denier” should be barred from the global warming debate.
Second, recent weather and temperature anomalies have not been unusual and are not evidence of a human effect on climate.
Third, given the rapid and unstoppable increase in greenhouse gas emissions by Third World countries, it is pointless for the U.S. and other developed countries to invest very much in reducing their own emissions.
Fourth, tax breaks and direct subsidies to solar and wind power and impossible-to-meet renewable power mandates and regulatory burdens on coal-powered electricity generation plants have been disastrous for taxpayers, businesses, and consumers of electricity, and ought to be repealed.
Fifth, the world is entering an era of fossil fuel abundance that could lift billions of people out of poverty and help restart the U.S. economy. We have the technology to use that energy safely and with minimal impact on the environment and human health. Basic human compassion and common sense dictate that fear of global warming ought not be used to block access to this new energy.
Agree to these five simple propositions, Fred, and we can begin to work together to address some of the real environmental problems facing the U.S. and the world.
Eric Grimsrud;
While I agree for the most part with your last response to Greg House, I can suggest from extensive experience that he will either no longer respond at this point, or reply with his dogmatic “that’s not an actual experiment, I asked for an actual experiment”. Given the number of physicists, engineers, chemists and other scientists he has already engaged with, who have presented information similar to your own, I can only assume that he believes the earth to be flat (there being no peer reviewed experiments to the contrary) that the sun circles the earth (there being no peer reviewed experiments to the contrary) and that internal combustion engines are impossible (there being blah blah blah) and the same would go for televisions, radios, telephones, photocopiers, and fax machines. Perhaps even the internet doesn’t exist by Greg House’s standards. That said, I shall attempt to assist you in the matter by providing the very experiment that Greg House insists upon.
http://www.john-daly.com/artifact.htm
ulate
On the one hand, I disagree strongly that this experiment falsifies the order of magnitude effects on temperature that a doubling of CO2 would cause because it fails to simulate the scale of the atmospheric column, and hence produces a measurable effect that is orders of magnitude too small for the purposes of understanding effect on climate. That said, what the experiment does conclusively show is that doubling of CO2 in an atmosphere exposed to LW of the frequency emitted by earth surface would cause a measurable temperature increase in dirfect opposition to Greg’s position.
I’ve suggested this experimment to Greg before, which he believes to be a “trick” of some sort on my part. Please feel free to make use of it in your explanation to Greg as you see fit.
ericgrimsrud says:
August 16, 2012 at 10:56 am:
“OK, Greg House, this is a better experiment that you need to do…”
====================================================
Eric, do you really think that if you make an assertion, it is not your job to prove it? I hope you do not.
It looks like you can not present any link to a real scientific experiment proving the alleged warming or reduced cooling by back radiation or by a colder body. Why not admit it?
I mean, no warmist can probably do that, it is not just you.
Greg House;
Paper reduces convection thus reducing cooling. If you mean that it is radiation from the colder paper too, you need to prove it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Surely you don’t mean to suggest that a thin sheet of paper hung in the vertical plane (we use the expression “paper thin” for a reason) would suppress convection by an amount significant to the proposed experiment?
Greg House;
It looks like you can not present any link to a real scientific experiment proving the alleged warming or reduced cooling by back radiation or by a colder body. Why not admit it?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Thank you sir for stepping up as predicted and proving my prediction to be accurate. Much appreciated.
davidmhoffer says:
August 16, 2012 at 4:30 pm:
“Eric Grimsrud; While I agree for the most part with your last response to Greg House, I can suggest from extensive experience that he will either no longer respond at this point, or reply with his dogmatic “that’s not an actual experiment, I asked for an actual experiment”. Given the number of physicists, engineers, chemists and other scientists he has already engaged with, who have presented information similar to your own, …”
=================================================
Exactly, davidmhoffer, they have presented “information”, “explanations” and suggestions I should conduct an experiment, but no link to a real scientific experiment proving the alleged warming or reduced cooling by back radiation or by a colder body.
You can take any science fiction novel and find a lot of “information”, too.
A “paper-thin” substance affecting convection?
Absolutely.
ANYTHING (even a spider web, tissue paper, or aerogel) that is between a surface (of one temperature) and the gas (or fluid) around it that is a different temperature (or touches a substance of a different temperature) will reduce convection heat transfer.
Now, how effective that paper-thin substance becomes depends on the geometry of the heat transfer problem: where the hot substance is, how much distance is between the two materials, what the material is made of, how much gas (or fluid) can be exchanged, where the cold temperature is, etc. …..
davidmhoffer says:
August 16, 2012 at 4:47 pm:
“Surely you don’t mean to suggest that a thin sheet of paper hung in the vertical plane (we use the expression “paper thin” for a reason) would suppress convection by an amount significant to the proposed experiment?”
=============================================
That depends on where you place your paper or whatever. And he did not present an experiment meaning exact data etc., it was just a sort of a hint, it can not be taken seriously in the context of this debate. Let us talk about real experiments that already proved the core assertion of warmists. I mean, we have been talking, and the result is zero.
Now, how effective that paper-thin substance becomes depends on the geometry of the heat transfer problem:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The experiment proposed made use of a sheet of paper hung in the vertical plane “alongside” the object. That said, paper would actually not be the best material for this. Aluminum foil would have a much larger and more easily measured effect.
Greg House;
Let us talk about real experiments that already proved the core assertion of warmists. I mean, we have been talking, and the result is zero.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I respectively surrender the field to Dr Grimsrud.
richardscourtney says:
August 15, 2012 at 1:12 am
Gail Combs:
At August 14, 2012 at 2:04 pm you make the blatantly false assertion:
It is Al Gore and other politicians on the left who made CAGW a political football not skeptics.
No! It is Margaret Thatcher and other politicians on the right who made CAGW a political football not skeptics.
___________________________________
Actually it was the politicians who were all for increasing the power of the United Nations (Left or right)
Well before Margaret Thatcher
So the issue was on the floor of the UN from 1972. It is also interesting to see what else Maurice Strong was up to:
davidmhoffer says:
August 16, 2012 at 4:30 pm:
“Eric Grimsrud;…I shall attempt to assist you in the matter by providing the very experiment that Greg House insists upon. http://www.john-daly.com/artifact.htm ”
===============================================
I remember that link. And you still assert the proved the point in question there? Look how this assertion can be easily debunked. Any layman can do that. The method is simple: a search for a key word. In this case it is the word “temperature”. Because if they really experimentally proved warming or reduced cooling, they would use the word “temperature”.
So let us open your link and look for the word “temperature” using the CTRL+F…
OMG! The word “temperature” is there! But it occurs only 2 (two) times in the whole text. That’s a bad sign, davidmhoffer. Let us see then, what they mean by that. This is the one occurrence: “One problem is that the radiative transport depends on the temperature gradient in the atmosphere – but this cannot be preset but ought to be calculated.”. Well, nothing about what you mean they proved. The other one is this: “Every scientisct who is familiar with basic IR spectroscopy from analytic chemistry would agree that there is a noticeable temperature increase for a CO2 doubling.” So, they assert that what is to be proven is a fact. Very nice.
Do you still insist that your link presents an experiment proving the alleged warming or reduced cooling by back radiation or by a colder body?
Greg House;
Do you still insist that your link presents an experiment proving the alleged warming or reduced cooling by back radiation or by a colder body?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
As I already said, I have surrendered the field to Dr Grimsrud.
Greg House, I have been doing my best to relate some basic principles of physics along with an some classic examples. IF you think all of what I have said is non-sense believed only by “warmists”, have a look at:
t”http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/07/yes-virginia-cooler-objects-can-make-warmer-objects-even-warmer-still/
Roy Spencer is skeptical of AGW and a professional physicist who understands the basic principles of physics. In addition, like me, he has worked with vacuum chambers and is all to well aware the problems that can be caused in experiments by the heating of objects in vacuum chamber by the colder walls of the vacuum chamber.
Now I don’t care at all if your admit that you are wrong and if you want to continue to discuss this point, please take it up with Roy Spencer who does not appear to be a “warmist”.
ericgrimsrud says:
August 15, 2012 at 7:41 pm
And to Gail, let me explain at bit more my previous response, which was….
We now have 393 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere, rising at the rate of 2 ppm or more each year.
All I can say from my own limited knowledge on this point is that the ice core record indicates that we had about 180 ppm CO2 in the global atmosphere during the long glacial periods that separated relatively short interglacial periods. To my knowledge the vast unglaciated regions of the world (including all that south of Kansas into Central America and most of South America – just to mention the Western Hemisphere) still had plants.
_______________________________
And that is just the point. The ice core measurements of 180 ppm CO2 during glaciation are falsified by the continuing presence of trees. At 180 ppm, especially anywhere above sea level, trees could not reproduce because they are C3 and 180 ppm is starvation level. (Original data was 200 ppm but that has disappeared from the internet because it made the discrepancy too noticable)
Here is a newer paper: Carbon starvation in glacial trees recovered from the La Brea tar pits, southern California
Even though the CO2 is now at ~400 ppm that does not take into account the sharp decrease in CO2 during glaciation when plant productivity will be the most critical for the survival of human civilization. During Glaciation the atmosphere is also much drier and higher levels of CO2 help “Drought proof” C3 plants. (Much of our food plants and livestock fodder is C3 and not C4)
No one, warmist or skeptic disagrees that we are near the end of the Holocene interglacial. Some warmists think the increase in CO2 has prevented a descent into glaciation that otherwise should have occurred.
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution warns we may be looking at warming when the danger is actually cooling.
There is also a well known 1470 year cooling event due soon. Bond Event Zero
Some warmists think we will have a “Double Interglacial” but that has been ruled out.
Even NOAA supports the Milankovitch theory.
So we are NOT going to escape the next glaciation and if we by some miracle do it will be because of our increasing CO2. Also any increase in CO2 will also mean healthier more productive plant life during the next glaciation.
If you weight the options producing MORE CO2 has less downsides then not producing CO2. Returning to a major Ice Age with the CO2 levels much reduced due to cold ocean is going to be a real bummer compared to a couple degrees higher temperatures with flourishing plant life.
ericgrimsrud says:
August 16, 2012 at 5:41 pm:
Greg House, I have been doing my best to relate some basic principles of physics along with an some classic examples. IF you think all of what I have said is non-sense believed only by “warmists”, have a look at: ”http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/07/yes-virginia-cooler-objects-can-make-warmer-objects-even-warmer-still/
================================================
Maybe you should read it again. It was not a real experiment, Eric. It was a so called “thought experiment”, I hope you understand the difference.
@ur momisugly richardscourtney:
Interesting stuff about Maggie! I think I’ll look into that more.
This blog, which provides much valuable scientific discussion and lots of resources, is also, unfortunately, a magnet for libertarian-conspiracy theorists who see the black boot of totalitarianism in any sort of rule or regulation. We have Thomas Jefferson and others to thank for that particular strain of political delusion (although he was no slouch at hefting state power when it suited him).
Well, as Stephen Decatur said, although ‘conservatives’ who quote him never fully quote him:
“My country – may she always be in the right – but, my country, right or wrong.”
ericgrimsrud says:
August 16, 2012 at 5:41 pm:
“IF you think all of what I have said is non-sense”
================================================
I have never used this term in my discussions here. Why nonsense? I see it as unproven, because the “explanations” are based on an assertion that is not proven experimentally. There is a lot of science fiction stuff that is even logical in itself, but unproven, that is the point.
Lichanos says:
August 16, 2012 at 7:01 pm:
“… is also, unfortunately, a magnet for libertarian-conspiracy theorists who see the black boot of totalitarianism in any sort of rule or regulation.”
==============================================
Totalitarianism happens and not just like that. Communist totalitarianism was based on regulation too. They regulated profits, earnings and economy. A lot of people were considered to be an obstacle and therefore killed.
Some Greens are talking about reducing population, what do you think this concept can lead to?
Dr Grimsrud;
So, how have you enjoyed your “discussion” with Greg House? By now you may have surmised that I goaded you into explaining some rather elementary physics to him. You may have surmised that I knew in advance how the conversation would go.
Did you enjoy having your carefully worded explanations simply dismissed with a wave of his hands and a perfunctory “that’s not proof”? Did you appreciate having the time and effort you put into examples and explanations simply dismissed out of hand? Did you find it frustrating that he made no attempt what so ever to even begin to understand the very well verified facts that you put before him? Was your discussion with him nothing but a complete waste of your time? In fact, it was a waste of your time, and I knew what the outcome would be, which is why I goaded you into it. So let us both put Greg House on ignore, and instead talk about you.
What is the difference between Greg House’s behaviour on this thread and your own on the Inhofe thread? I shall answer the question for you. Your behaviour was worse.
In addition to dogmatically asserting the same information over and over again, refusing to so much as acknowledge, let alone discuss the explanations and references provided to you by myself and richardscourtney, you repeatedly attempted to belittle us by demanding our credentials, suggesting that we were not scientists and so had no business commenting at all, and rubbing your PhD in our faces. I told you to discuss the science or STFU and my position on that has not changed.
You compounded your arrogance by continuing to call myself and richardscourtney quacks and charlatans, and so focused were you on denigrating us in that fashion that you even attempted to do so in the thread dedicated to the remembrance of Robert E Phelan. You ought to be ashamed of yourself, and it is a tribute to Anthony’s patience and diplomacy that he simply snipped the the offensive remarks and left the balance of your remarks intact. I doubt that I could have done the same, but I’m willing to bet that if REP had to deal with the matter himself, he would have shown the same diplomacy and tact. Part of me wonders if perhaps REP guided Anthony’s hand.
So, I ask you again, to discuss the science. If you would like, I shall explain the critical errors that you have made in your explanation to Greg House. I’ll show you that the very warmist scientific literature you purport to explain doesn’t agree with your explanation and why. I’ll even entertain any comments you wish to make in rebuttal, consider them seriously, and respond to them. But at the first sign of you trying to rub your credentials in people’s faces, or belittling them for not having any, the discussion is over.
The smartest man I ever knew was a guy named John Carlson, who has long since passed on. He built a piece of equipment that was of immense value to the oil companies back in the late 70’s. But John was also a very religious man, and just before his invention could be put into production, he had a vision in which his deity told him that the invention was evil. The next morning we found the prototype cut to pieces in the back of my dad’s shop. I remember to this day engineers with Phd’s from Esso, Shell and Husky Oil trying to figure out from the pieces how it worked. One of them showed me a steel ball which the engineer had cut in half to reveal channels that had been drilled through the ball and which flared in the centre. He remarked “it is bad enough that I can’t figure out what it is supposed to do, even if I did, I cannot understand how the h*ll he machined it.”
John Carlson had a grade 8 education.
So it is your call Dr Grimsrud. Are you prepared to discuss science or not?
Gail Combs:
Thankyou for your reply at August 16, 2012 at 5:28 pm to my post at August 15, 2012 at 1:12 am.
Firstly, I draw your attention to my post replying to James which I posted at August 16, 2012 at 2:14 am which says
(Emphasis added: RSC)
And, with respect, I answered your point about Maurice Strong et al. in my reply to Mr Lynn at August 14, 2012 at 12:51 pm. I said there:
As you rightly say, the likes of Strong were ready to grab the opportunity when Thatcher provided it. They would have created the opportunity themselves if they could have created it, but they could not so they did not. And then along came Thatcher.
After that, many jumped on the bandwagon she created. And I explain this at
http://www.john-daly.com/history.htm
One curiosity – which many now forget – is that AGW did not start as an environmental issue. Indeed, Greenpeace initially opposed the AGW-scare because it was a distraction from the ‘acid rain’ scare which was then their major preoccupation. But AGW was soon adopted by environmentalists when it became clear it was useful to them.
Richard
Lichanos:
Thankyou for your post addressed to me at August 16, 2012 at 7:01 pm.
It includes:
Sadly, I have to agree. And there was one thread where some ‘lefties’ like me joined in but were driven out of WUWT. I urge you to stick with it despite the provocations of ‘lefties’ on this thread being trivial compared to some that happen on WUWT.
All of us who value freedom need to oppose totalitarianism so we need to unite in opposition to AGW-scare and its accompanying Lysenkoism. History shows that failure to defeat these evils has terrible consequences.
Richard
davidmhoffer:
David, as you requested, I was “patient” and – as you predicted I would – I now understand. I hope you are successful.
Richard
davidmhoffer
Hats of for an excellent education provided to Eric Grimsrud. It was priceless.
The Bomb exploded in Hiroshima, because during World War II, there was no possibility for even a contact between two Japanese and American chefs.
1-There are no signs of weakness in Krupp’s remark, on the contrary, some of Joe Best conditions are not convincing.
2- Fortunately, there is no room here for boring scientific discussions. Some friends still continue the same non-constructive procedure. If this was efficient, it was not necessary to insist on preconditions for negotiations.
3- We still have trouble taking the first step. Black is the consensus? And white is the debate? The first step is to reach a consensus, which results in the desired Debate. Without passing through this stage, we’ll go nowhere.
4- Look at the second, third and fourth items made by Joe Best. Joe Best did not pay attention to Fred Krupp who says: -“One scorching summer doesn’t confirm that climate change is real any more than a white Christmas proves it’s a hoax.” And about the third item; the world is one world not U.S and the others. Atmosphere is border-less and it has one scientific definition nothing less/more. And about the forth item, we want Joe Best to reduce TAX? Is he the right individual to ask for it? After the Debate, policy makers would be convinced to do what we need.
In regards to the fifth Item, we are not asking the world to enter chaos, yet Joe Best is right,He says: ” we have the technology to use that energy safely and with minimal impact on the environment and human health. ”
The technology here means ALL THE TECHNOLOGIES. We are asking for breaking subsidies on all energy sources, we leave the technology itself and the market to decide when and where their use is beneficial.
Greg House @ur momisugly August 16, 2012 at 7:21 pm said:
Some Greens are talking about reducing population, what do you think this concept can lead to?
This calls to me a joke. Orthodox Jews do not permit mixed dancing, i.e., men will not dance with women at weddings, etc.
An orthodox man goes to his rabbi and asks him whether the Talmud (the commentary on the Bible) permits various positions during sex with his wife.
-Is sex with women on top permitted?
Yes, this is permitted.
-Is sex with the man behind the woman permitted?
Yes, this is permitted.
-Is sex while lying on the side permitted?
Yes, this too is permitted.
-Rabbi, is sex while standing up permitted?
No! This might lead to dancing.
Anyway, reducing the worlds population is a good thing, but obviously, forcing reductions is not. Personally, I feel the attention to population growth (and immigration) by environmental groups frequently treads into racist-nativist territority.
You can never tell what a good idea will lead to.