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.
Smokey;
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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Smokey! Shame on you! Insulting Kenji like that! I am shocked that the mods let it through.
ericgrimsrud:
At August 19, 2012 at 4:09 pm you say
I could not agree more. And I am sure I am not alone when I say I would appreciate your adopting these principles.
Richard
richardscourtney says:
August 20, 2012 at 4:46 am
ericgrimsrud:
At August 19, 2012 at 4:09 pm you say
Sure, policitical correctness has its place in the public square, but basic honesty and credibility does also.
I could not agree more. And I am sure I am not alone when I say I would appreciate your adopting these principles.
________________________________
I however completely disagree. Political Correctness should be booted out the door. Drawn and Quartered, tarred and feathered. I HATE Political Correctness!
Political Correctness is the opposite of free speech and is now used to shut up and punish those who do not fall in line especially in schools.
Gail:
Sorry I offended. But you may care to notice that I was commending the principles of “basic honesty and credibility”.
Grimsrud’s mention of “political correctness” was an attempt to justify his insults, ad hominem and abusive (e.g. feces) language. A call to political correctness is irrelevant to this: common courtesy is all that was required.
Richard
Gail,
Concerning political correctness, I completely agree with you that it should not carry so much weight in the public square as it often appears. For one, it is too commonly used as the last refuge of the scoundrels of the world when they find that they cannot carry the day with the substance of the argument. Even though they repeatedly heap personal abuse on their oppositions, they then cry foul to the “authorities” when the opposition responds in kind. They might even go so far as the plead with the moderator to not allow the opposition to participle (as RC did twice to REP on the Inhofe thread, for example).
Having spend many years in the university scene, I have witnessed all sorts of PC that gets in the way of open and fair dialog. It is a very good thing that the moderators at WUWT (both REP and Mr. Watts) also recognize this misuse of PC when it occurs and have not let their “regulars” use it inappropriately against newcomers to this website.
Gail Combs says: [I got screamed at for 15 minutes for saying “two pretty little black girls” last week ~G. C.]
As the grandfather of a “pretty little black girl(s)” I see nothing wrong with that. I tell her she is pretty all the time.
I fully agree with your comments regarding PC. It is stiffling. Keep up the good work.
To Davidmhoffer, Alas, it appears that you are still here – at least in order to post comments concerning dogs – one of my favorite supjects also. But since you are here, let me remind you (for the nth time) that back on the Inhofe threat you said:
on August 5, 2012 at 1:22 pm on the Inhofe threat you said, “Grimsrud’s cite turns out to be Hansen et al 2008 which is one of the most debunked papers in history”.
On that and this threat, you have sent me on countess missions to provide references for things I have said while I have sent you on only one. That is, again for the nth time, please provide the references for your “fact” that the Hansen et al (including about 20 authors from numerous top ranked universities and research institutions) article, has been “debunked” in the literature. Not only are you calling into question the reputations of these scientists and institutions, you are also claiming that the ice core record, on which that paper is primarily bases, does not provide a valid source of information. While that latter possibility might be correct, your suggestion merits at least a reference or two or even many, as your suggest there are, that back up your very, very significant claim.
So David, please come out of of your hiding place just long enough to provide those references !!! Surely you realize the very central importance of your claim with respect our understanding of the science of climate change.
ericfgrimsrud;
On that and this threat,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I did not threaten you, not even once.
erigriumsrud;
you have sent me on countess missions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
What you do with a countess is entirely your choice.
ericgrimsrud
to provide references for things I have said while I have sent you on only one.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I asked you for a single cite. Please substantiate your claim that I asked for more than one by quoting the exact words and comments including time and date, else please retract your accusation which I suggest to the readership is a blatant falsehood.
Guys… With apologies to Monty Python, this thread is dead. It’s passed on. This thread is no more. It has ceased to be. It’s expired and gone to meet its maker. It’s a stiff. Bereft of life, it rests in peace. If you hadn’t nailed it to the perch it’d be pushing up the daisies. It’s metabolic processes are now ‘istory. It’s off the twig. It’s kicked the bucket. It’s shuffled off its mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin’ choir invisible. THIS IS AN EX-THREAD!
Let it go…. Eric isn’t worth it.
richardscourtney;
Forgive me!. He makes it so easy!
Bart;
LOL
Bart:
re your post at August 20, 2012 at 9:59 am. I entirely agree.
In fact, the thread never ‘got off the ground’ as I explained to smip at August 19, 2012 at 11:48 am.
Now, the thread is interacting with Grimsrud and I have been ignoring him except to try to give him kindly advice (which rolls off him like water from a duck’s back).
Richard
richardscourtney;
Now, the thread is interacting with Grimsrud and I have been ignoring him except to try to give him kindly advice (which rolls off him like water from a duck’s back).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Whoa! Maybe he’s a duck? We thought he was a troll, but given the quality of trolls around here, that’s probably unfair to the rest of the trolls. Made all the more amusing by the fact that he appears to not know what a troll is. Yes, I think we can confer upon him the rank of duck, for quackery appears to be his strong suit.
Ok, NOW I am going to drop this thread for real. The last time I said I was dropping it was a ruse to see what ericgrimsrud would do, and as I expected, he jumped in nearly immediately with a string of insults and bs. He didn’t even manage to come up with something I wasn’t expecting. He is highly predictable and easily manipulated, this latter trait clearly having been taken advantage of by the UCS and others. He truly does believe his own drivel, and worse, he truly believes he scored some kind of victory. He deserves, I suppose, some level of pity rather than scorn.
richardscourtney says:
August 20, 2012 at 6:55 am
….Grimsrud’s mention of “political correctness” was an attempt to justify his insults, ad hominem and abusive (e.g. feces) language. A call to political correctness is irrelevant to this: common courtesy is all that was required.
No problem. “Political correctness” is a hot button. You are correct common courtesy is all that was required, but with the ever changing “politically correct” language that has become difficult. I resent having traps laid so I can then be verbally abused for being “Racist” or whatever. It has happened several time lately and I am downright sick of it.
richardscourtney says:
August 18, 2012 at 6:21 am
“Several people have argued that night-time and day-time measurements could be compared to obtain the similar determinations, but so many changes occur at any locality over very short times that valid comparisons are not possible by this method. An eclipse ‘switches the Sun off’ and ‘switches it back on’ in seconds.”
Richard, I’d love to have you look over the work I’ve done with Min/Max temperatures (follow the link in my name). While I agree that your experiment is unique, and worthwhile, I think by looking at a large number of day/night cycles you can average out changes and mine useful data.
And what I’ve found is that there’s no loss of daily cooling as CO2 has gone up.
richardscourtney says:
August 20, 2012 at 11:13 am
An essay you might find of interest.
I think the decoupling you desire is more or less futile. There is a game theoretic aspect to it, akin to the classical Prisoner’s Dilemma. The side which seeks accommodation first will get hammered.
“The side which seeks accommodation first will get hammered.”
Which is not to say that the sides are morally equivalent. I think I hardly need to specify which side I believe is the least deserving of trust.
By a rather wide margin.
Oh Davy, Davy, come out, where ever you are. This threat is not done until you have provided the evidence for your quote:
on August 5, 2012 at 1:22 pm on the Inhofe threat Davidmhoffer said, “Grimsrud’s cite turns out to be Hansen et al 2008 which is one of the most debunked papers in history”.
The 20-some authors of that landmark paper which along with its companion and exceedingly extensive “supporting material” paper has significantly altered and affected our long and short term view of climate science. Wouldn’t you think that the person, David M. Hoffer, who trashed it on this website by making the statement provided above would agree to either provide references that support his statement or retract and apologize for it? Has he no respect for anyone who happens to have an advanced degree and many years of professional experience?
Perhaps the behavior of Davidmhoffer is a reflection of the politicial correctness influence we have also been discussing on this thread. That is, perhaps he thinks that because I have told him a sage bit of Montana wisdom concerning feces (Oh my goodness!! that awful word again!!), this allows him to trash the reputations of the authors of this paper – who have not said anything on this thread.
Whatever it is. Davy, Davy, please come out of your PC refuge and provide those references (or apologies). What minority class do you belong to that makes you think you are not responsible for holding standard levels of respect and decency for others? Or perhaps you are a white male anglosaxon who just happens to be a bit more “sensitive” that the rest of us – I certainly don’t know – on the Imhofe threat you repeatedly refused to tell us all you your are.
Since I really am coming to believe that the bit of Montana wisdom I shared – concerning what happens when one plays with feces – applies in this case, I don’t really expect that either DH or his psuedo science tag team partner, RC, will provide any evidence at all for their disrespectful remarks concerning the work of the reputable scientists who contributed the Hansen et al 2008 paper.
Hope you both enjoy that PC refuge of scoundrels.
David, Gail, MiCro and Bart:
I hope you forgive this single answer to you all. It is nearing midnight here and I only checked this thread to see if it is really dead before going to bed. One post is quicker – which is why I am doing it – but I do not intend to demean anyone.
David, thankyou. I enjoyed the duck-quackery joke as I suspect you knew I would.
Gail, I take your point about ‘political correctness’. I, too, was accused of “racism” a few months ago and I was shocked that anybody could say such a thing in the light of my history. Strange world now, isn’t it?
MiCro, I have not yet followed the link on your name and will not until tomorrow night. I am appreciative of your interest in the matter and will follow the link, but it is now late and there are other priorities tomorrow. Sorry. I will get the old computer out of the garage and try to recover the old data, but it is useless because of the clouds in Cornwall and the failure to record anything in Zambia. I am really, really interested in seeing your work: if we can obtain effective emission height as a function of GHG concentration from it then that would be a wonderful end to what I consider to be one of my great failures.
Bart, thanks for that. I am familiar with ‘Prisoners Dilemma’ and several other game strategies: we Preachers have to learn them as part of philosophy and human behaviour studies. Having said that, I noticed you saying you are an agnostic which I consider to be an honourable position (in contrast to proselitysing atheists who claim to not have a religion while promoting their religion). Also, I enjoyed the discussion on Curry’s blog which you linked: I used to go there to engage but concerted troll attacks made it not worth the bother.
Goodnight all.
Richard
Eric:
I made a post and intended to go to bed (it is past midnight here) but upon posting I then discovered your most recent post.
I beg you to consider what you write. Your abusive, ranting posts are doing you harm and no good.
I hope you have a close friend in whom you can confide and whom you trust. If so, then perhaps you could show him or her what you have been writing here so they can explain to you the impression you are presenting of yourself.
Please do try to understand that I am trying to be helpful.
Richard
Bart,
Once again, you cut to the quick when you say “Eric isn’t worth it”. Oh, how that hurts. But even though I have no idea who or what you are, I suspect that you are right and appreciate your advice. And I do agree with you that his threat is dead – except for that one important unresolved point – that is, the evidence owed us by DH for his unkind and so far unsubstantiated trashing of the authors of that Hansen et al paper of 2008 .
I will try to sign off now on this treat – as you suggest I should, But since we have become such good buds in our initimate communications, can I ask you to encourage DavyH to come out of his PC refuge. You should assure him that it is always OK actually to do the right thing and that there are more important things in life that just “saving face”. With your help, perhaps he could also be encouraged to sign off in a manly and responsible manner.
All the Best, Eric
richardscourtney says:
August 20, 2012 at 4:01 pm
I hope I didn’t create false hope, my work was in calculating how much temps went up during the day, and then how much they fell that night and the difference between these values.
I see this as a key issue/confirmation of the AGW position.
That said, I’m looking forward to your review tomorrow though.
davidmhoffer says:
August 20, 2012 at 9:39 am
ericfgrimsrud;
On that and this threat,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I did not threaten you, not even once.
==============================================
davidmhoffer, Eric has used the word “threat” meaning “thread” 10 times on this thread. It is impossible that you have not noticed that. What you are doing using his spelling error is really nasty.
Richard,
Please do go to bed and enjoy your dreams. In the morning, however, you should try to get your buddy, David, to come out of his PC haven and provide the evidence we owes us for his disrespectful statement concerning the authors of the Hansen et al paper. And please do cut the crap concerning your concern for my welfare. We all saw how deep that concern went went you tried twice and failed to get REP to kick me out of the Inhofe thread – and that was even before I related the sage Montana advice concerning the perils of playing with feces.
And how many times do you have to say “I am done with this thread” before you actually do us all the favor of stopping your face saving efforts.
Eric