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.
Bart, My point is that there is no such thing as absolute certainty in our determinations of scientific concepts, ideas, and theories. There are only observable facts from which we do our best to draw our conclusions and personal opinions. This is how its always been and always will be. Even the best theories of science are continuously being modified by new discoveries and insights. While ultimate truths are the goals, all we can ever achieve is our very best approximations of them. Again, I am speaking here in scientific terms and make no claim to the understand or know anything about the power of religion to achieve certainty in these issues. So, yes, welcome to the real world of science – indeed, as I have learned it.
ericgrimsrud;
Nice try. No quote from the material as to what it actually says, nor a link to it so we can read it for ourselves. Is this what you call providing a reference to support your assertion?
Here, let me help you out. The last IPCC report in fact includes both fast and slow feedbacks. They tend to focus on the next three hundred years only though, here is a graph predicting future temps that goes out 300 years. You can find it in IPCC AR4 WG1 Chapter 10:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-10-4.html
Now I’m guessing that ericgrimsrud will argue that taking into account the full effect of slow feedbacks requires a longer timeframe still. The reason that IPCC doesn’t do this is fully visible in the graph I have linked to above. The response after the first 300 years tails off to a nearly flat line and is pretty much negligible after that. He’ll no doubt argue also that AR4 is obsolete and that newer literature should be used instead. On that point I agree. The newer literature supports an even lower and flatter curve than the one adopted by AR4 and this will be reflected in the publication of AR5 based on early releases of the text. Sensitivity estimates, based on the most current literature available, will be reduced even further and Hansen’s 6.5 degree paper from 2008 is pretty much being ignored.
ericgrimsrud;
Now that we see WHY you tried to weasel out of providing a reference to support your claim, and then made matters worse for yourself by posting a reference with no link and no quote (oops! I forgot to say when exposing you on that one FAIL!) we can turn our attention to the error in my expansion of the explanation ericgrimsrud wrote for Greg House. Have you found the error yet ericrgrimsrud? You know so much about this topic, you have a PhD in Chemistry, you’ve written and published dozens of peer reviewed papers, you are a SCIENTIST and I am not. Surely finding this error ought to be trivial for you.
Or are you going to FAIL on that issue as well?
ericgrimsrud;
Sorry, I was wrong. Turns out that the IPCC does include projection on a 1000 year time scale. My apologies, my fault, it has been some time since I read the document and I’d forgotten about that section. Here ya go.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-10-34.html
You’ll notice that not only do they include slow feedback responses, they are nearly negligible after the first 300 years. No don’t whine to me about more recent papers, the Hansen paper you keep referring to has been soundly rejected and AR5 will feature even lower estimates than this one.
As for your assertion that the IPCC doesn’t include slow feedbacks…
FAIL
ericgrimsrud says:
August 18, 2012 at 7:05 pm
“Bart, What do you think science is?”
Science is what I do every day, when I sit down at my desk and derive new equations to describe physical processes, then send my info down to the guys in the lab to test on equipment built to my specifications. I never assume I know things for which there is as yet no information available, and the equipment I design assumes the worst possible outcome in such situations, or things could end in a catastrophic fireball.
Science is, or should be, about labeling as “tentative” those things which we do not know for sure, and pursuing the loose ends in the vein of a working hypothesis until discrepancies are resolved, or a new understanding emerges which moves the theory forward from a new starting point of established fact (which, incidentally, happens frequently). It is not about plowing on heedless of consequences or contrary data, assuming one is right until catastrophe strikes and forces a rethink.
It is NOT about advocacy. It is especially not about advocating a cure which is worse than the disease. The first rule is always primum non nocere.
‘Since I don’t do religion, I’ll will not be “letting you know”.’
I think you do, you just won’t allow yourself to acknowledge it as such.
davidmhoffer says:
August 18, 2012 at 7:31 pm
“Welcome to the world of ericgrimsrud, where opinions are science and facts are religion.”
I must admit puzzlement at the insinuation that I am a religious fruitcake. I don’t think I’ve said anything which would suggest that I have even vaguely religious tendencies. As it happens, and for the record, I am a devout agnostic, which is in keeping with my scientific philosophy as described above. When you do not, cannot, know something for certain, why do people insist nevertheless that they do?
Bart, I was clearly telling you that I don’t use religion in scientific discussion. Of course, I have no idea what your religious views are and do not care what they are. Your suggestion that I did know anything about your religious views has no basis. Thus you can relax your sense of puzzlement.
To All:
For some reason I am hestitant to “play the games” that DH likes to set up for us all in this threat.
Nevertheless, I hope that all of you have read the various references to the 2007 IPCC report provided above and, thereby, have learned what feedbacks the IPCC report used for their projection. While they provided projections out to several centuries, the type of feedbacks they envisions where only those that could be included in their models.
Now I also hope you have all also read more modern literature such as the Hansen et al article in the Open Atmopsheric Science Journal 2008 vol 2 217-231.
{{{{{Time out: Note that DH has claimed that this article is the “most debuked” in the literature. Therefore I asked him to provide some references for that statement. This article is coauthored by almost 20 other scientists from some of our top universities and research institutions. I have found no such “debunkiing” myself. So while DH loves to send us off on missions to “prove” our statements, he does not “play these games” when he is asked to do so }}}}}
Now note that the main point in the Hansen et al article was to point out that models, such as used in the then outdated IPCC 2007 report had no way of including the real slow feed back effects that are apparent over the time periods of several centuries and millenia. If you look back at the 2007 report you will note that the authors might have thought they were including them and probably were – to the best of their abiltity. But it is unlikely that they could because we do not even now understand the science of land ice breakup.
In the Hansen article they did not claim that they did either, but argued that the Ice core record indicates what the sum of fast and slow feedbacks really are. This led to their estimate that the total was closer to 6 C than 3C.
So in the light of the most modern literature the IPCC report really has relatively litte to say about the long term feedbacks as have been subsequently revealed by Mother Nature within here ice core sample. Their assessment could only include factors the could be reliably modelled.
IF the readers of WUWT don’t mind too much, I will stop there and not include cute little “put downs”.
davidmhoffer:
David, I am replying to your post at August 18, 2012 at 3:58 pm. I am ignoring Grimsrud because he exhausted my patience on the Inhofe thread and my tolerance is now lower than usual because of a slanderous troll on another thread.
You ask me
Sorry, but no, I don’t have the apparatus except for a few wires and an outdated computer. I hired or borrowed most of the kit.
Expedition cost is the major cost. Travel was a large part of that when going to Africa but not Cornwall. Employing assistants was a small cost in Africa but a large cost in Cornwall.
Richard
ericgrimsrud
Now note that the main point in the Hansen et al article was to point out that models, such as used in the then outdated IPCC 2007 report
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
1. ericgrimsrud appears to be relying upon what a report by Hansen says about the IPCC report rather than having any first hand knowledge of what the IPCC reports actually say. FAIL
2. ericgrimsrud assumes that IPCC estimates of sensitivity rely exclusively on models. FAIL.
Slow feedbacks taken into account by the IPCC a few examples:
Surface Mass Balance
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-6-4-1.html
Ice Sheets
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-6-4.html
Glaciers and Ice Caps
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-6-3-3.html
And many others. The IPCC reports are not limited to the models alone, they take a much bigger view of things than that. The reason you were unable to answer my question is that you clearly haven’t read them, or even a fraction of the literature upon which they rely. You rely instead on what you are told by the Union of Concerned Scientists, and read only the literature that supports that point of view. You seem to believe everything in Hansen’s paper because you haven’t read it with a critical eye, nor have you sought out contrary literature, nor have you even thought about why it is that AR5 will reject Hansen’s paper.
You are living in an echo chamber of your own creation.
August 18, 2012 at 6:56 am
To All:
“ ….IF the readers of WUWT don’t mind too much, I will stop there and not include cute little “put downs”.
________________________
Simple Facts:
You can argue till eternity, but here you do not earn anything.
You think the thread is about “Why We Need Debate, Not Consensus, on Gravity“?
You believe Global Warming is real, even though the current value is negligible. But here nobody believes in Global Warming, unlike, everybody thinks about Global Cooling.
Just return to the topic; Debate or Consensus on Global Warming.
Fred Krupp said something in two items; in return, Joe Bast submitted a proposal in five items.
It is useless to focus on scientific persuasive controversies. It’ not the right time.
Say how we can start the Debate. Everybody should keep the documents ready when the Debate takes place.
Ericgrimsrud says:
August 18, 2012 at 6:56 am
To All:
“ ….IF the readers of WUWT don’t mind too much, I will stop there and not include cute little “put downs”.
________________________
Simple Facts:
You can argue till eternity, but here you do not earn anything.
You think the thread is about “Why We Need Debate, Not Consensus, on Gravity“?
You believe Global Warming is real, even though the current value is negligible.Here nobody believes in Global Warming, unlike, everybody thinks about Global Cooling.
Just return to the topic; Debate or Consensus on Global Warming.
Fred Krupp said something in two items; in return, Joe Bast submitted a proposal in five items.
It is useless to focus on scientific persuasive controversies.
Say how we can start the Debate. Everybody should keep the documents ready when the Debate takes place.
CORECTING MY ERROR
In my expansion of ericgrimsrud’s explanation I said:
“Further, the upward LW and the downward LW, while exactly equal and opposite across the atmospheric column, are not exactly equal and opposite in any given one of your layers.”
Since the focus of the discussion was the absorption and re-emission of photons by CO2, this statement is an over simplification and technicaly inaccurate. To understand what is happening from a LW perspective in any given “layer” we must break the LW down into several categories:
1. Photons emitted from CO2: Some of these will be up and some down, and if we were to measure up versus down, they would in fact be equal and opposite.
2. Photons in transit; At any given layer, the bulk of the photons are simply passing through. For the troposphere, this will invariably result in more photons going up than photons going down. The sum total across all layers from surface to TOA of photons going up less photons going down will result in a w/m2 total exactly equal to the incoming w/m2 from insolation.
3. Photons being absorbed; Since there are more photons going up than down in any given layer, more upward bound photons will be absorbed than downward. However, since the re-emission of these results in an equal number of up and down, the ratio of up vs down in any given layer will be slightly altered in favour of down.
4. All of which alters the temperature gradient from surface to TOA such that increased temperatures in some layers high enough to generate additional upward LW emissions such that they equal the shift in downward LW noted in 3. above, What is important about this, and which I shall repeat again, is that this achieves a maxima at some point ABOVE the surface rather than the surface itself because water vapout at low altitudes is as high as 40,000 ppm and just as it resists the attempt of photons emitted from the surface to travel upward toward TOA, it also resists photons absorbed and emitted above it from travelling downward toward the surface.
And now Dr Grimsrud, I am done with you and this thread. You will no doubt use my absence to pee all over me, further insult me by calling me “feces” or worse, and declare yourself the brilliant victor in our little debate. You’ve accomplished nothing but to demonstrate the futility of discussing science in an open and honest debate that Joe Bast called for in his article above.
dropping thread
ericgrimsrud says:
August 19, 2012 at 6:07 am
Eric – your definition of “science” is not science. It is a grotesque, self-serving mockery of science. Science is not about assuming you are right until proven wrong. It is about searching for answers and holding off judgment until the answers become clear.
Your “science” is medieval, of the kind which bled patients to eliminate bad “humours”, or tossed virgins into volcanoes to appease the gods. You have convinced yourself that Nature is beneficent, so long as we do not anger her, as we are wont to do. And, therefore any rank speculation floating along which supports that point of view, you snatch up and thrust forward as scientific “truth”, perversely placing the burden of proof upon those who would question your biased intuition and defining “science” as the unassailable standard of your views against which they must labor.
With nary a shred of confirming evidence for your divine inspiration, you seek to compel the tribe to take actions, courting the anger of the Gods if they disobey. All I can say to you at this point is, not in the 21st century. Take a hike, and take your primitive superstitions along with you. We’re not listening.
And, bye the bye, welcome to the REAL, real world of science.
smipp:
At August 19, 2012 at 9:55 am you say
I like your sentiment but it seems few want the debate. If you check the thread you will see I tried to start discussion of how to start the debate on three separate occasions (first at August 14, 2012 at 7:38 am).
But people wanted to discuss politics and later science. Also, the thread was interrupted by a paid troll, but that was not a major reason why the thread has been almost entirely off-topic. The major reason is that few if any have much interest in the thread’s topic.
So, when the thread offered David a chance to gain interaction with Grimsrud (i.e. a self-professed sock-puppet for the Union of Concerned Scientists) it seemed that attempt at interaction was the nearest to the thread’s topic which was likely to occur. And if that interaction were achieved then its process could have been informative of how to obtain ‘the debate’. Sadly, David’s attempt proved too ambitious.
This failure to interact with Grimsrud does not prove the debate cannot happen. Grimsrud is such an extreme case (his behaviour on the Inhofe thread was worse than on this thread) that any sensible interaction with him was unlikely to occur.
If the debate cannot happen then it is because so few people want it to happen.
Richard
Note to All:
While Davidmhoffer is has now exited from this tread, you will note that he never did provide those references that support his claim that the Hanson et al 2008 paper is the “most debunked” paper in the literature. If it was, in fact, “the most”, one might have thought that he could at least have pointed to “just one” peer reviewed paper that “debunked” it. It would appear therefore that might simply have been something he made up – he is very good at that. To bad he’s now gone (I am afraid that my last response concerning his aledged discrepancy between the 2007 IPCC and the Hansen et al paper of 2008 might have caused him to run for the exists). In any case, Goodby Davy, we will miss your clever barbs, however void of substance they might have been.
And concerning that recent conversation I had with DH concerning the sensitivities claimed in the 2007 IPCC report and the 2008 paper by Hansen et al, note that DH did not even seem to realize that in Hansen et al’s paper, the authors were specfically claiming that the IPCC estimate was probably too low because the IPCC could not possibly have correctly modeled all of the slow feedback effects in 2007. We cannot still do that today because we don’t have a quantitative understanding of them yet. Yes, it is true that Hansen’s estimate of about 6C for total feedback – which was obtained entirely from observations of the ice core samples – is about double that obtained from the models of the 2007 IPCC document – and they were saying that for very good and defensible reasons. Thus, DH apparently did not understand what Hansen et al were saying in their landmark paper – even though DH assured us here that he had read it. Given this lack of understanding of the key point in the Hansen et al paper, one wonders why DH thinks it should be “debunked” (again DH whereever you are hiding – references please)
At any rate, DH is gone now and his politically correct and amazingly self righteous buddy, RC, claims that he is also “done with me” – even though he repeatedly comes back again just to throw in a few more jolly good “put downs”. That’s OK with me, Old Sport – In the extended exchanges I frequently have with other scientist, I usually come away with having learned something at least slightly new or interesting. In this case, I can not think of anything whatsoever that I have learned from either DH or RC. Almost all of their efforts have been expended to either “put down” or “save face”, all done with an impressive string of “sweet knowthings” or intentional (and even admitted) deceptions. I can not see why the WUWT boss would think that they have anything to teach anyone about the science of climate change.
REPLY: Well I could make the same argument about some of your posts, but I try to give everybody a fair shake here, until such time that they start violating site policy. For the majority, that never happens, but a few hit it on the first few comments. You’ve been fine. so have they. But, your last sentence needs some attention.
Just because you think they have nothing to add is no reason for me to ban them from debating you, nor do I understand why you think that by allowing them the forum to debate in, that somehow I’m endorsing their position over yours. You might want to check that ego at the door sir, because I think perhaps it won’t fit through it. Cheers, Anthony
Yo Bart, Sorry you feel that way about me. With this setback, I’ll have to be content with the admiration of Kathy and Bek. Have a nice day. Eric
richardscourtney says:
August 14, 2012 at 7:38 am
“Anyway, that is my suggestion, and I would welcome other suggestions of possible starting points for dialogue which do not require either ‘side’ to capitulate before the dialogue can start.”
and
richardscourtney says:
August 19, 2012 at 11:48 am
“..If you check the thread you will see I tried to start discussion of how to start the debate on three separate occasions…But people wanted to discuss politics and later science. ….. The major reason is that few if any have much interest in the thread’s topic.”
_______________________
Richard,
You got the point earlier. It is a strange buzz. If the topic is “Milk “and “Onion”, likewise, discussions are misled to CO2, solar activities, sea ice etc. Here is like a conference with no subject. However the problem is; how we can manage and lead the case to enter CONSENSUS on “Start the Debate”. We have Fred Krupp and Joe Bast written proposals on the table. All our friends argue about in this room is useful for when there is a debate. This topic is to determine the scientific war which is already underway. Take care.
Note to Anthony, I understand about deleting that last sentence – please do so if your wish. Concerning my ego, I generally like it. It comes in handy when I am dealing with certain individuals. As a rule I treat people like they treat me – but sometimes, unfortunately, no better. I agree that this is a problem that I should work on. Thanks for your comment. You (as well has REP) have treated me very fairly and I really do appreciate that. Sincerely, Eric
REPLY: OK, fair enough – Anthony
Anthony,
I know you can’t possibly read every comment so I think it fair to advise you that ericgrimsrud has:
o accused richardscourtney and me of being paid by you to derail the science discussion
o accused you of taking money from big oil
o in the Inhofe thread he was repeatedly snipped by REP for various site offenses including if memory serves insulting you
o subsequent to which he has claimed that it was REP controlling myself and richardscourtney when in fact neither one of us was snipped in that exchange a single time.
I admire your patience with people like ericgrimsrud (and with me) but it will only be a matter of time before his arguments by assertion, authority, and less than clever ad hominem attacks (he characterised richard and me as “feces”) wears thin. My vote (yeah, I know, WUWT isn’t a democracy) depsite all that is to keep him around. He exemplifies everything that is wrong with the debate.
Very good Davidmhoffer, But please do not forget to provide us with the evidence behind your claim that the landmark and crititically important paper by Hansen et al in 2008 has been the “most debunked” in the literature (need go back and show your exact statement?) Sure, policitical correctness has its place in the public square, but basic honesty and credibility does also. In my “‘humble” opinion, the latter is even more important. So lets see those references, please! If you can produce them, my impression of you will be improved. (And by the way, it did not say you are feces – I just simply shared a thought that is very well known out here in Montana). Eric
Since it is referred to in this and the Inhofe thread so often, I should tell you about my association with the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). About three or four years ago they invited me to be on their “science team” (ST). They essentially wanted me to continue doing what I has already doing – that is writing op eds to newspapers and posting comments to the e-versions of newspapers.
They did not provide me with any specific messages to relate. In fact, they wanted me to simply act on my very own as before – which, of course, I was happy to do. The very useful role they played for me was to give me a heads up whenever there was an article or opionion in one of our country”s major newspapers on which I might like to post a comment.
After less than one year of being on that ST, they decided to discontinue that “heads up” function I mentions. Of course, I have continued as always with my op eds and comments to as many newspapers as I can.
Thus my association with UCS has actually been very minimal. As one reader on the Inhofe threat noted, I do not even know where their headquarters are. Thus I will revise that reference to my connection with UCS on my website to make clear that my association with them was only in the past – just to be absolutely correct on a very minor point that some seemed to think was a big deal.
Oh David, There you go (at 2:52), “telling” on me again – most of which can be easily seen to be BS, lifted out of context. A little brown-nosing to the boss sometimes does help, however. Good luck. Eric
ericgrimsrud,
You are in good intellectual company. Anthony’s DOG, Kenji, is a member of the Union of Concern Trolls. You are his equal. I have no doubt.
Thanks Smokey, I have the highest regard for dogs and accept your compliment. But also please tell me what you guys mean be your frequent use of the term, Troll. Really, I don’t know. So please do “let me have it” as I am requesting. If its worse than feces, let it fly. I have thick skin. Eric