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.
ericgrimsrud;
Keep calling richard and me FECES. It says much about you.
ericgrimsrud;
Please note that when I expanded upon your explanation to Greg House and added the additional detail that you neglected, I included a single, and obvious to anyone with a grounding in physics, error. This was a test to see if you would pick up on it. With your massive intellect and boundless knowledge, and clear and obvious intent to discredit me in every possible way, I was certain that you would leap upon it. Once again ericgrimsrud, FAIL.
But I won’t explain it right now, I’ll give you a second chance to go back and find it. Or, you can choose to FAIL again.
davidmhoffer:
David, please note that I am sincere in this post. I mean exactly what I am saying.
I remind you of the following.
1. When you invited the discussion between House and Grimsrud I wrote to say I hoped that discussion would not happen because it would – I thought – be likely to do much harm and no good.
2. You asked me to be patient, and you reminded me of that request when you thought – rightly – that my patience may be being stretched.
,
3. I was patient, and eventually it became clear that you were creating a chance for Grimsrud to redeem himself. I then wrote to say I hoped your attempt would be successful (those who know my main activity will recognise why my hope was genuine).
4. Unfortunately, Grimsrud has responded with his usual arrogance, self-imposed ignorance and bigotry.
(a) Arrogance.
Not content with having claimed superior knowledge to Lindzen on the Inhofe thread, on this thread he claims superior knowledge to the IPCC.
(b) Self-imposed ignorance.
On this thread he ignores repeated requests to substantiate a blatantly wrong assertion he has made: I lost count of such errors he refused to justify on the Inhofe thread.
(c) Bigotry.
He attempts to justify his arrogance and self-imposed ignorance by abusing people (e.g. saying they are “feces” and lack “ethics”) when they dare to question his assertions or to provide information which refutes his assertions.
So, I respectfully suggest that your attempt to offer Grimsrud a way to redeem himself has proven to be a failure. And I conclude that your attempt is doomed to failure because redemption can only be found by those who want to be redeemed.
Hence, I am writing to suggest that your time and your contributions to WUWT are much too valuable for you to be wasting them on Grimsrud.
Richard
richardscourtney says:
August 18, 2012 at 6:21 am
Could you, perhaps, utilize cloud cover for the same effect of rapidly switching the Sun “on” and “off”? I’m thinking maybe a tethered balloon with sensors spaced along the tether for different altitudes. Or, is that effect over too localized a space for your calcs?
ericgrimsrud says:
August 17, 2012 at 6:59 pm
“He does not seem to realize that the IPCC number includes fast feedback effects, only, while that of Hansen included both fast and slow feedbacks.”
That makes a nice soundbite, but what is the evidence for such long term sensitivity? Upon what hard experimental evidence is it based? Can YOU explain it simply and directly, without redirecting to a source which you claim backs you up, but offers little genuine insight?
Less chest thumping and more detail would do your cause good. It took a long time myself to realize when posting here, but you are not simply arguing with a couple of other guys and trying to establish who has a larger tool. You are playing to a larger silent audience, which is tossing away the immaterial jibes, and looking for meat in your argument. When, instead, we find “feces”, the dinner tends to become distinctly unappetizing.
richardscourtney;
So, I respectfully suggest that your attempt to offer Grimsrud a way to redeem himself has proven to be a failure.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Agreed. I was very surprised that he failed to look himself in the mirror, I genuinly thought I could get through to him. We’ve seen a lot of trolls come and go over the years at WUWT, but I don’t think I’ve ever seen one so completely pummeled into the ground yet leap back to his feet and declare himself victorious. I’m done with him save for correcting my error once I’ve left enough time to show that grimsrud is incapable of finding it. This thread is pretty much dead but I wouldn’t want to leave the error uncorrected in the long term and inadvertantly leave some innocent reader with a wrong impression.
Bart:
Thankyou for your interest in my aside at August 18, 2012 at 6:21 am. In your response at August 18, 2012 at 9:52 am you ask:
No, that is not the problem with cloud cover. Low clouds themselves provide backradiation and cirrus reflect sunlight but are high altitude. Importantly, radiation is scattered in the atmosphere so solar radiation is not ‘cut off’ when a cloud occludes the Sun, and effects of this scattering at low level are greatest when the clouds are high.
Simply, I don’t have a clue how to deconvolute the radiation sources unless the Sun is ‘cut off’.
Ferdinand Engelbeen was a useful foil to help me understand what I could and could not analyse: he disagrees with me about almost everything – I sometimes think he disagrees with me on principle (joke) – so I found his criticisms especially helpful.
Please tell me if you have any other ideas. I really, really would welcome a new one so it does not matter if I have heard many of the suggestions.
Richard
To Bart and Richard,
Energy transmission by radiation is “fast as light and line of sight”. Every night the sun is “cut off” except at the poles where a day is a year long. We can calculate an estimate of the outbound longwave radiation (OLR) from the rate of fall in the surface air temperature on clear winter nights when dew points are low. I’ve been working with the hourly data from Luke AFB, Arizona. I am comparing January, 1960 data with January, 2012 data to see what effect the difference in CO2 may be. You can not get this kind of information from global monthly averages except possibly at the poles.
davidmhoffer:
re. your reply to me at August 18, 2012 at 10:15 am.
I want to make it clear that I admire your attempt to “get through” to Grimsrud. I lack the patience to have made such an attempt. And it would have been wonderful if you had managed it. But that’s life.
Richard
richardscourtney;
Please tell me if you have any other ideas. I really, really would welcome a new one so it does not matter if I have heard many of the suggestions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I think the idea is sound, it is your approach to the grant application process that appears flawed 🙂
You can’t get money to prove something that the money granters don’t want to hear, so don’t ask for it.
Just write it up as “the hypothessis being that current estimates of global warming are too low due to low latency feedback mechanisms that mask instantaneous equilibrium response, the proposed experiment will allow for these to be eliminated from the data and the hypothesis that global warming potential of GHG’s is higher than the current consensus literature allows for to be confirmed”
Then publish whatever the data is. Nothing in the grant process says you cannot publish if your hypothesis turns out to be “wrong”.
richardscourtney says:
August 18, 2012 at 12:51 pm
I’m just throwing out stuff here to try to be helpful, with only a sort of a vague impression of what you are trying to do because I’m not able to look too closely right now, so if this is dumb, I apologize in advance. But, I was just thinking, is it possible that the measurements are scalable so that you could make them using low levels of solar input? There are some artificial sources of low level insolation which turn on and off fairly rapidly.
David, Fred and Bart:
Thankyou for your helpful suggestions. I hope none of you is offended that I respond to them all in this one post. Also, I may not be able to reply to any responses to this post until tomorrow evening (it is approaching 11.30 pm here as I write this, and it is Sunday tomorrow).
David, yes, you are right.
I tried to get the grants in a manner similar to your suggestion, but to no avail. Please remember that I was probably the very first ‘climate realist’ so my desire to find whatever I find without ‘adjustments’ is known to all. This is not cynicism: it is merely facing facts.
Fred, yes, such estimates exist.
However, with respect you miss the point of the intended determination. This surprises me because the intention is to determine an effect that you mentioned. The effective emission height to space varies with temperature and GHG concentrations. At time scales less than a few seconds the GHG concentrations (including humidity) approximate zero at each altitude. But temperature drops rapidly when an eclipse totality occurs. Hence, the measurements would determine variation of effective emission height for the ‘same’ conditions and at a range of temperatures when the radiation sources are (a) Sun and Earth surface, and (b) Earth surface alone. Thus, effect of temperature on effective emission height can be directly measured for temperatures throughout the measured range. Hence, effect of GHG concentration on effective emission height for constant temperature can be directly calculated for temperatures throughout the measured range. Indeed, this is why scattering is such a problem if one uses localised solar obscuration (e.g. by clouds or an artificial mask at altitude): the additional variable prevents deconvolution of the radiation sources such that the only environmental variable is temperature at each measurement height.
Bart, you make an interesting suggestion about low levels of solar input. Sorry, but that does not work for the reasons I explain to Fred in this post. However, to avoid you spending time on the proposal which usually arises from your suggestion, I also address that proposal. In principle a large diameter opaque vertical tube could be used instead of a tethered balloon. In that case, obscuring (but not sealing) the top of the tube would switch the Sun off and on inside the tube. However, both the costs and the technical difficulties of building such a tall tube would be severe.
Again, I thank you all for your suggestions. Please throw any more ideas at me if you get them. I strongly want to find an empirical approach to determination of the radiative greenhouse effect as distinct from climate sensitivity (although that datum would probably ‘fall out’ from the determination).
Richard
Oops!
Of course, in my reply to Fred I intended to write
At time scales less than a few seconds the VARIATIONS IN GHG concentrations (including humidity) approximate zero at each altitude.
Sorry.
Richard
richardscourtney;
David, yes, you are right.
I tried to get the grants in a manner similar to your suggestion, but to no avail.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Unfortunate, because this would be a rather cool experiment.
Do you still have the apparatus? If so, can I assume that the major cost is travel to a location on earth where a solar eclipse is going to happen in a timely fashion?
Someone on this threat has the impression that I used the IPCC as a reference for information. What that person said exactly is:
“Can you provide a cite for the claim you made about what the IPCC includes in their sensitiivity calculations or not? THIRD REQUEST.”
Since I never did use the IPCC as a source of information (the current literature is much better and much more up to date), I suspect that the person who that is, shall we say, “full of it” as I have pointed out previously now on several previous occassions. Now if, on the other hand, I am the one that is “full of it”, it will be a simple matter for the person who wrote those words to prove that possibility by pointing us all to the claim that he aledges I made. But agian, don’t hold your breath on that one. You are not likely to be shown that evidence. As usual, he just seems to makes “stuff up” and apparently has a green light to do so at WUWT..
What you are likely to see instead is simply more “stuff” (where stuff = crap). I can only guess why he and his buddy regularly shared this “stuff” with us. I presently does appear to be for the purpose of saving face before the peanut nut galleries of WUWT. I am told by WUTW that WUWT is the “most watched” web site in America – so there undoubtedly is a some “show money” at stake here. WUWT probably does not want their in-house “climate experts” to be shown up by some old retired guy who lives on the fringes of civilization up in MW Montana whose advisors include only his scientifically untrained (but scientifically unbiased!!) wife and dog.
When I first posted on this sight, I didn’t realize that my two buddies where so tightly connected to the WUWT web site in which they so regularly pontificate. I have now come to suspect, however, that they might actually be paid by WUWT to do there best to undermine our country’s confidence in our scientific communities. If so, that would explain why these scientifically uneducated and inexperienced vermin have not yet been reigned in with respect to their domination of threads at WUWT.
(Note to the boss of WUWT: the two gentlemen being discussed here do make a very poor impression on educated and experienced scientists, you know. Condescension, sarcasm, and wit is indeed entertaining for a while, but rapidly wares thin when there is no substance. As revealed on the Inhofe threat, neither of them can discuss the basic science involved at a level that is understandable to the lay public. I challenge you to go to it and compare what they said with what I said. They simply “blast’ your audience with “stuff” that no one understands even though it might sound “impressive” to some. Now, with REP gone, these inhouse goons could run amock at WUWT and completely destroy whatever credibility WUWT previously enjoyed. By the way, all of this advice is free of charge. My only motivation is to improve future living conditions on this planet for my grandchilden.)
Sincerely, Eric Grimsrud (website ericgrimsrud.com)
To Venter, you asked: What’s this fast feedback and slow feedbacks stuff?
These terms concern the net temperature increase expected to be caused by increased levels of atmospheric CO2.
First, let’s consider a doubling of atmospheric CO2 – if nothing else also changed. By straightforward calculations, we believe this would cause a temperature increase of about 1.0C.
But other things would also happen with this 1.0 degree increase in T. One of these would be an increase in water vapor in the atmosphere. Another would be a change in clouds. Another would be a decrease in sea ice. Another would be a change in the nature of landscapes. All of these changes would also affect the net T change caused by a doubling of CO2 (due to their GH and albedo effects) and these changes in T would be apparent in the short term – say a decade or two. These are called the “fast feedback” effects of CO2 change and are generally thought to increase the T effect of a CO2 doubling to about 3 C.
Now if CO2 is doubled and remains at that level for several centuries, then we must also be concerned with expected “slow feedback” effects. These are due primarily to changes in the land-ice of the plant – such as that on Antarctica and Greenland. There is little theory that has been developed, to date, for explaining the slow feed back effects. Perhaps our best indication of its contribution is that suggested by the ice core record. It suggests that the sum of the slow and fast feedbacks over the glacial / interglacial periods resulted in a total CO2 sensitivity of about 6C. This would suggest that the slow feedback effects contribute about 3C to the sensitivity while fast feedbacks also contribute about 3C.
Note that it is the exact magnitude of these sensitivity terms that much of the scientific research is focussed on today.
Hope this helps with your question. If interested in learning more, see the short course on my web site: ericgrimsrud.com.
ericgrimsrud;
Since I never did use the IPCC as a source of information
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I quote your words from your comment of August 17, 2012 at 6:59 pm
“He does not seem to realize that the IPCC number includes fast feedback effects, only, while that of Hansen included both fast and slow feedbacks”
And for now the FOURTH time (or is it 5th?) I ask you to provide the evidence to substantiate the claim you have made in regard to the IPCC number.
eric grimsrud has lost a lot of credibility here.
ericgrimsrud:
“I have now come to suspect, however, that they might actually be paid by WUWT to do there best to undermine our country’s confidence in our scientific communities”.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>”
ROFLMAO
Here is a most complete representation of my post referred to by DH above:
” To All:
There is someone on this blog who is posting “stuff” that is generally incomprehensible and when comprehensible, is either inaccurate or misleading. For example when he recently said:
“the IPCC estimate of sensitivity, to 2.6 degrees or less, and completeley tossing out Hansen’s 6.5 degrees as unsupportable.”
He does not seem to realize that the IPCC number includes fast feedback effects, only, while that of Hansen included both fast and slow feedbacks. This point is very important, of course, because the first applies to the short term (the next couple decades) while the latter applies to the longer term (next couple centuries). ”
Note that I did not quote the IPCC estimate of sensitivity – he did. I merely pointed out that the IPCC number included only fast feedback effects and did not appear to know that (I suspect he might not have even known the difference).
If DH wants to contest this point, bring it on!! I love to discuss science.
I have sometimes suggested that DH does not communicate in a manner that is easily understood by the public. If incorrect, my applogies. ROFLMAO!!! to you all !
(note to the Boss, we sure do miss REP on the thread).
ericgrimsrud says:
August 18, 2012 at 4:48 pm
“There is little theory that has been developed… suggested by the ice core record. It suggests …This would suggest …”
And, the mottled visage of the Moon suggests it is made of moldy cheese.
When you have something more than suggestions, please let us know.
ericgrimsrud;
Note that I did not quote the IPCC estimate of sensitivity – he did. I merely pointed out that the IPCC number included only fast feedback effects and did not appear to know that (I suspect he might not have even known the difference).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
If you could be so kind as to substantiate your claim that the IPCC only includes fast feedbacks, I would be most appreciative. FIFTH REQUEST
First off, a very Well Done! to Mr. Bast. I can’t say I’m too surprised at the lack of publication though. My general success in getting letters to the editor published in papers on smoking ban type issues has been about 1 in 4. Over the past fifteen years or so I’ve written close to sixty to the NY Times without a single publication. I believe the same mechanism was at work here: if a letter challenges a strong editorial stance *too* successfully, and makes its case *too* well, it will generally be passed over in favor of letters that may espouse the same “opposing view” to the Times’ position… but perhaps just not do it as well.
Of course there’s also the question of simple “amount” of opposition allowed by the Times. It would seem to be a fairly obvious piece of research, but I don’t recall ever having seen it done: a simple analysis of the numbers of letters published (and perhaps their word count and some sort of measurement of informative content) on opposite sides of contentious ideological issues that the Times has strong stands on? I’m not talking party politics or war-supporting/opposing type equilibrium here — I think that the balancing there would be more carefully done as it would be more carefully watched over — but of issues like global warming, drug legalization, smoking bans, church/state funding/separation: issues where the Times might have a strong position and it which there are major “power players” and closely reasoned arguments and factual disagreements and presentations out there in addition to grass roots activists’ simple desire to have their feelings heard.
Is there a resource that would put such research within reach of people without extensive grant support? Something perhaps that would let one gather together ALL the letters published in the Times over a ten year period that addressed a particular topic without having to separate them from all the stories published on those topics? Has such research ever been done that anyone knows of? The same sort of research might be worthwhile on their Op-Eds as well: how well do they ACTUALLY serve as a balance to the paper’s editorials and editorial positions?
– MJM
Bart, What do you think science is? Since I don’t do religion, I’ll will not be “letting you know”. Eric
Bart
Welcome to the world of ericgrimsrud, where opinions are science and facts are religion.
ROFLMAO
For anyone who would like to know what the IPCC report in 2007 included in their estimates of CO2’s sensitivity, see:
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Climate Change 2007, Solomon , et al. (eds), Cambridge Univ Press: New York, 2007; pp. 996.