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.
richardscourtney says:
August 20, 2012 at 4:01 pm
“…in contrast to proselitysing atheists who claim to not have a religion while promoting their religion,:
A loathsome and obnoxious species, indeed. Worse than Bible thumping fundamentalists, in my book. They’ve killed far more people in (mostly relatively recent) history than all the crusaders and jihadists combined.
MiCro:
I have failed to find the data on your fine blog. I am sure the problem is my incompetence but would be grateful if you were to direct me to the data and your analysis of it..
Richard
richardscourtney says:
August 21, 2012 at 11:30 am
“MiCro:
I have failed to find the data on your fine blog. I am sure the problem is my incompetence but would be grateful if you were to direct me to the data and your analysis of it..”
Sure Richard. Start with the following link to get an idea of what I was doing.
http://www.science20.com/virtual_worlds/blog/global_annual_daily_temperatures_19292010-81063
But over the months I worked on it, I figured out I was truncating the data, here are updated charts:
http://www.science20.com/virtual_worlds/blog/updated_temperature_charts-86742
But I really like this chart
http://www.science20.com/files/images/1950-2010%20D100_0.jpg
Which is the daily average difference from 1950 to 2010
There is no loss of nightly cooling as CO2 increased from the 50’s on.
ericgrimsrud says:
August 20, 2012 at 4:13 pm
“for his unkind and so far unsubstantiated trashing of the authors of that Hansen et al paper of 2008 . ”
Eric, have you traced back the origin of the Climate Sensitivity value added to GCM’s back in the early 80’s(?) ?
MiCro:
Thanks. I have copied the links and hope to study them tomorrow. I will get back to you.
Richard
To Davidmhoffe (where ever you are):
Apparently this threat is still going. So please do come out of your PC refuge and provide that reference or apology concerning what you said about the Hansen et al paper of 2008. As I recall, you said it was the “most debunked on history”. For the (n+1)th time, either references or apologies, please. Or, alternatively, perhaps you don’t think that the operational standards of WUWT require that we stand behind our statements when asked to do so. Buck up, Dave, you can do this. Doing the right thing has its merits. If you need verification, perhaps the moderator might be able to help you.
Sincerely, Eric
To Richardscourney:
Let me return the favor here that you have granted me repeatedly by offering you some of my advice to you concerning the maintenance of your excellent reputation.
First, concerning some terms sometimes used my country: the USA, of course, is not nearly as mature and sophisticated as is your country. In the USA , yes, we still use some terms that appear to have horrified you. For example, we do probably too often refer to animal emissions when denigrating some idea or even some person. Thus, in addition to my use of the word, feces, (which I thought was an improvement over a more commonly used term that starts with the letter, s), one also sees that a more recent thread on WUWT has been centered on the words, poo and poop. And another even more recent thread has focused in the verb “pissing on”.
I can understand how all of this must be most distressing to someone of your sensitivities and abhorrence against violations of political corrections that routinely do seem to occur in the USA. At the same time, however, I should think that many people of the UK might also think you are just a bit too wimpish in this respect. I suspect that even Winston Churchill might have considered you to be “a sheep, in sheep’s clothing” (an assessment he once made of Neville Chamberlain).
My evidence to for that comment: at a cocktail party, the story goes, a sophisticated lady came up to Winston and, while poking him on his massive protruding belly, said “what are you going to name it, Winston?” Winston then thought for a moment and responded “If it is a boy, I shall name it after my paternal grandfather, the Duke of Wellington. If it is a girl, I shall name it after my maternal grandmother, the Countess of XXXXXXX. But if, as I suspect, it is just gas, I shall name it after you!”
And while I have your attention, let me also ask you, Sir, did you urge DH to step up to the plate and “finish his business” as I asked you to do? (now, please Sir, pardon that bit of bathroom humor, also. I just couldn’t resist. We are indeed a bit on coarse side over here and, like Winston, also sometimes suffer the consequences of having a sense of humor.
Eric:
Your continued posts indicate you are hurting. I don’t ignore that. I am responding to it.
I understand you think people are “trying to save face” in response to you. And I recognise there is nothing I can say to help you understand nobody is “trying to save face”. But I have severe worries about your posts.
I again ask you to seek advise from a friend whom you trust. Indeed, I plead with you to do it. Show him or her what you have been writing here. And get his or her opinion on what you need to do in your own interest.
I sincerely hope you do have such a friend. If not, then seek advice from a counsellor or a minister of religion. I beg you to do this as a matter of urgency.
I know it is hard for you to understand, but I am writing this FOR you and not against you. Please, please try to accept this.
Richard
[Reply: Not aimed at your comment, Richard, just this is the last comment in the chain so I’m using it as a vehicle. I’m sure you are sincere. Can all of you (you too, Eric) cut the ‘mutual assassination society’ behaviours and get less bathroom and more content? I just had to read this whole comment thread to figure out what was going on and I’m not liking the ‘tone’ of it. -Mod]
Eric,
As Anthony is typically too polite to ‘defend himself’ ( or perhaps just too busy with things that matter) I’m going to point out a couple of things you said that are, er, “an issue”.
Moderation at WUWT is in accord with Site Policies. Those do not prevent anyone from “making stuff up” including you. Moderation is done “lightly” and with an eye more to tone and relevance to the thread / topic than to stopping anyone from making a fool of themselves. Even you.
WUWT has no in-house anyone near as I can tell, other than Anthony. The moderators are all volunteers and the articles are contributed. There are some advertisements, but WordPress has control of them and they get inserted into blogs that have enough volume. I was reading here when the ads first started and it was explained.
So many errors… so little time…
It’s a ‘site’ not a ‘sight’; but I assume you are typing phonetically… and I’m prone to it too. Oh, and “were” instead of “where”?
To the best of my knowledge (and I’ve been here about 5? years) the “two” in question have no particular greater ‘connectedness’ than other posters. Lots of folks here pontificate quite a lot. Even you. Nobody is paid to post. (Heck, folks aren’t even paid to moderate or write articles…) There is no ‘money tree’ on the skeptics side. All the loot is in the Government Funding and NGO troughs.
With that said, I’m surprised that you’ve been given so much leash. Direct insults “to the person” with names like ‘vermin’? Don’t know who was ‘moderating’ that one, but I’d have snipped it on my site. If anyone needs some ‘tighter leash’, I’d apply it there.
There is no “Boss”. Just Anthony, who’s a generally nice guy and way too busy to babysit. BTW, good advice you gave. You ought to follow it… Oh, and does “wares” mean “wears”?
As noted before, everything here is ‘free of charge’. You want money for your “advice”, look to a “Warmers” site…
WIth that said: There are no “in-house goons”. (I’d have snipped that one too…) But the participation of folks with strong opinions (from both sides) is what makes WUWT as interesting as it is. Even yours (sometimes…)
I would suggest that you drop the references to REP. We all miss him. But there are many moderators who all do very similar work. Taking his name in vain is tiresome at best and poor form… Rejoice that he lived and participated, and let the past go. Please.
A general comment:
You do often act in a “troll” like manner. But also said you don’t know what a Troll is. Here’s a link to one definition:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29
My working definition is that it is someone more interested in stirring up trouble and tossing insults than in contributing to polite discussion. But it can include more.
Often characterized by tossing out lots of requests for pointers, links, or information, while refusing to actually follow them or read them. Asserting inflammatory and then sitting back to watch the results of the pot stirring.
While Anthony has a large tolerance for Trolls, others have less, so sometimes “flame wars” break out between the Netizens here and the sporadic Trolls.
As there is so much slush money on the AGW side, there are paid trolls from that side. (Not to mention all the folks with cushy government and NGO jobs that spend their days Trolling and posting on the Taxpayer Dime.) So sometimes we get tired of them. Sadly, there is no money for Skeptic trolling. (I guess too many of us comment for free 😉
So I would strongly suggest that you drop the accusatory phrases aimed at Anthony, and at the site in general. It does you no good (and mostly makes you look silly – as it’s pretty well known around here that things are unpaid and open to both points of view.)
Oh, and I’m not likely to return to this thread. I don’t have much time for any given thread these days. Too busy trying to find a way to make the rent…
To All and especailly Mr. Smith.
Fine, very good, points taken, I am new to WUWT – thanks for the clarifications concerning its commendable operational principles. And I look forward to finding out hat a Troll is – since I have been called one here so many times.
And since we are disclosing financial assistance, let me repeat what mine are. I have none (as in zero). My wife and I have spent a bunch, however, in the self publication of my book and a host of volunteering services. We could have left our grandkids lots more $$ when we are gone, but have the notion that our efforts concerning AGW might provide a far better gift to them.
But also please note, Mr. Smith, when I said
” As usual, he just seems to makes “stuff up” and apparently has a green light to do so at WUWT ”
That comment was directed – for the n+1)th time – at Davidmhoffer. Thus, once again, for the (n+2)th time, please do come out of your PC refuge, David, and provide that reference or apology concerning what you said about the Hansen et al paper of 2008. Again, you said that that paper, authored by almost 20 very credible scientists, was the “most debunked on history”, so either references or apologies, please. Again you apparently do think that standard operational standards are not at play at WUWT – which would require that we stand behind our potentially slanderous statements when asked to do so. So please read the statement by Mr. Smith which suggests that WUWT does have such standards. Thanks for your help, Mr. Smith – perhaps you should also have a word with Mr. Hoffer about this point.
To All:
Now that Mr. Smith has provided me with a definition of the word “Troll”, I should defend myself against the numerous accusations directed at me on this and the Inhofe thread that I am one. This is easy to do.
First, go to my web site, ericgrimsrud.com, and read it’s contents. My entire life and work is related there.
Then take my short course that is available free of charge on it.
Read the few comments I have posted so far on my new blog – it is partnered with my website.
Finally, purchase a copy of my book (the e version if really cheap and can be obtained instantly on your Kindle) and read it from cover to cover.
Look at the several extended conversations I have had with several persons on this and the Inhofe thread and ask yourself if I did not treat the people, in general, with the greatest of respect and give them a great deal of my time and energy. (Note also: I was not awarded the major teaching awards of Montana State University for being a smart-ass).
Now look back at both threads from their beginnings and ask yourself, was I treated with a descent level of respect initially that one might expect at WUWT by the two regulars (RC and DH) at WUWT? (Sorry, but I do not regard RC’s more recent expressions of his great concern for my welfare to be much more face saving for his previous behavior – in the words of Hercule Peroit, ” I was not born on the previous day”).
After doing that, read further and observe another characteristic of EPG – I do also tend to treat people like they treat me – especially when they are being sarcastic and pompous.
In addition, I have a great propensity to expose the scientific illiteracy of self righteous pontificators who come on very strong in their own criticisms of bona fide professional scientists (such as that criticism lobbed at the 20 authors of the Hansen et al paper) and then cannot even tell us what their own credentials are or where their past contributions to science can be found. And cannot provide reference in support of their criticism of others. If something quacks like a duck (or say a psuedo scientist) it usually is a duck (or you know what).
In short, I do not think I am a Troll (as defined in that reference that Mr. Smith provided). I am, however, as Scientist, Citizen, and Grandpa who does his very best to Bridge the Gap Between Scientific and Public Opinion of the subject of Climate Change.
It is because of the great urgency of the action that is need on this issue, that I will do my very best I can while I am still living to influence public opinion of that subject. It is at the public interface that most of the uncertainty still exits. The ball is clearly now in the political court and, as a retired scientist without a “day job” I have the time to enter that fray and will continue to do so. And I am appreciate the general inclination of the leadership of WUWT to allow me do that here.
Eric
Eric:
I think I need to state that my concerns both for you and about you are completely sincere and genuine. I have repeatedly attempted to give you kindly advice and I don’t do that unless it is genuine.
Richard
ericgrimsrud says:
August 22, 2012 at 6:39 am
“We could have left our grandkids lots more $$ when we are gone, but have the notion that our efforts concerning AGW might provide a far better gift to them.”
That’s really not healthy. This site itself has a large overall impact because it reaches so many people. But, individual posters to comments should have no illusion that what they write here will have anything but a minimal impact at best. Even writing a book, unless it garners a large readership or provides information otherwise inaccessible to researchers, will have minimal impact.
As far as your grandkids are concerned, the lottery would be a better investment – the odds of a payout are higher. My advice, and I would offer it equally to someone sympathetic to my viewpoint who started displaying obsessive-compulsive tendencies, is: STOP. Step back, and look at the larger picture with a reasonable sense of proportional to your place in it. And, take care of your grandkids, because proportionally speaking, that is where you will have the greatest impact on the future.
Bart,
The only problem with your advise is that we can not wait until my grandkids are adult enough to see what their ancestors have done to them and their planet. It is entirely possibly that by the time they reach the age of 20 (all 5 of them are now under 5), that the planet will have shifted off its previous stable posiition and will be moving irreversibly to a much warmer and less human-friendly state. The real bummer there would be that nothing could then stop that drift no matter how forcefully corrective measures are then taken.
I do not want the legacy my generation leaves to their grandkids to be a world without hope. I realize that much of this sounds like non-scence to folks that have the impression that Man has been around a long time and, as before, will always to able to solve most any problem as it becomes clear. The fact is, however, that on the geological time scale man just got here and does not seem to realize how he has already caused enormous changes our planet’s chemistry.
Nevertheless, your advice that we also spend time now with our grandkids is excellent. You can be sure that we do.
Eric
ericgrimsrud says:
August 22, 2012 at 3:07 pm
Take a pill, Eric.
A) The planet’s not in any danger.
Really. The worst case scenario is fairly benign compared to the things humankind has had to endure in the past, and we can easily adapt to it. Strolling the historical family gravesites, I am always amazed at how many of the children died from one thing or another before even reaching adulthood, or how many of the wives died in childbirth. I’m far more concerned, e.g., about drug resistant strains of disease than I am about anything to do with the climate, whether human induced (personally, my actual concern about that is zero) or entirely natural (actually, there’s plenty to be concerned about there!).
B) You and I couldn’t stop it if it were.
If I were as concerned about an asteroid impact, you would justly conclude that I was worrying myself silly over something over which I have no control. And, you would be right.
Your grandkids will revere your memory a great deal more if you leave them with some competitive advantage in this dog-eat-dog world, versus whether you made some miniscule impact on a debate which would have been decided one way or the other anyway without you.
OK Richardscourtney,
Guess what? I will hereafter do my best to consider you to be a sincere and honest person.
We got off to a distinctly bad start when Davidmhoffer tried to belittled my thoughts and credibility and you chimed in. Our downward spiral then continued until it reached the bottom. OK, so now let’s pick up the pieces and move on from there.
But now, also very SERIOUSLY, there is a very IMPORTANT bit of business that is still on the table and it should be resolved ASAP. For the (n+3)rd time, where is the evidence in support of Davidmhoffer’s claim that the Hansen et al paper of 2008 has been “debunked” in the literature? Since DH himself is hiding somewhere, perhaps you can help verify that claim.
That claim is, indeed, of the greatest importance because, if correct, it’s consequences concerning our understanding of the future effects of our ever increasing CO2 levels would be enormous. That is, if CO2’s sensitivity does not gradually increase with time from less than 3 to 6.5 C, that insight, if true, would be extremely important. Also, if Hansen et al’s interpretation of the ice core record is flawed or if the ice core record, itself, does not provide valid information, it is most important that we all know that ASAP.
So for very good reasons, I ask again, where in the literature has Hansen et al’s paper been debunked, as Davidmhoffer has claimed. I have been unable to find such papers.
Of course, if the Hansen et al paper has not actually been debunked then it would appear that Davidmhoffer’s claim was little more than an unjustified and irresponsible attempt to “kill the messenger”. If that is the case, it would then be helpful for the readers of WUWT to be informed of that also.
Bart, Sorry, but only the bit about taking a pill sounds good to me. Perhaps I am cursed with too much knowledge concerning the impacts of Man on our planet. Eric
Or, perhaps Eric, you are cursed with too much disinformation concerning the impacts of Man on our planet. Just sayin…used to be right where you are.
ericgrimsrud says:
“…only the bit about taking a pill sounds good to me.”
That could explain a lot.
Anthony, That would be great if my “knowledge” turned out to be merely “disinformation”. For that reason, I am always looking for some “good news” indicating that our leading scientist’s understanding of climate science is significantly in error. For that reason, perhaps you could also encourage Davidmhoffer to provide us with that good news concerning the debunking of the paper by Hansen et al. Would love to learn how wrong I have been and thus not be so cursed. Eric
Eric,
I would like you to review some of my analysis that I have been doing for about five years. http://www.kidswincom.net/climate.pdf. http://www.kidswincom.net/CO2OLR.pdf. You can post your comments on my wordpress blog. http://www.retiredresearcher.wordpress.com. I will respond to them objectively as long as you want.
ericgrimsrud says:
August 22, 2012 at 4:09 pm
“Perhaps I am cursed with too much knowledge concerning the impacts of Man on our planet.”
Having grown up in the Bible Belt, I’m pretty familiar with that kind of expressed sentiment. Hope it provides you comfort. Sayonara for now.
ericgrimsrud says:
August 22, 2012 at 4:47 pm
“I am always looking for some “good news” indicating that our leading scientist’s understanding of climate science is significantly in error. ”
I brought this up in earlier posts, but didn’t get a reply. You should look into the genesis of the climate sensitivity value inserted into GCMs. What I’ve read, was that Dr Hansen, when they could not get GCM’s to replicate measured temperatures trends, added a fudge factor to CO2’s influence, and have spent the last 20-30 years trying to justify the value.
I have 15+ years professionally supporting modeling and simulators, and while these types of adjustments aren’t uncommon (the same thing was done to identify Dark Matter), they must be physically validated. I’ve been following this debate for more than a decade, and as far as I can tell all of the validation is based on proxies of some kind or another. No actual physical verification has been done.
This is why I started analyzing nightly cooling, and from the measured data, there is no loss of cooling.
MiCro says:
August 23, 2012 at 2:43 pm:
“…and while these types of adjustments aren’t uncommon (the same thing was done to identify Dark Matter), they must be physically validated. …No actual physical verification has been done.”
==============================================
Speaking of physical verification, do you have any problem with the apparent absence of physical verification of the “back radiation warming effect”? I mean real experimental verification, of course.
150 years of absence of experimental physical verification of the “back radiation warming effect” does not sound good to me.
Greg House says:
August 24, 2012 at 10:38 am
“Speaking of physical verification, do you have any problem with the apparent absence of physical verification of the “back radiation warming effect”? I mean real experimental verification, of course.”
All objects warmer than absolute zero radiate heat. There’s nothing stopping a warmer object absorbing photons radiating from a colder object. But you must account for the amount of energy these photons carry. For instance if you have two black bodies, one radiating at .5u and the other radiating at 10u, it takes 20x the time at 10u to radiate some amount of energy.
This is what happens here, we get IR at .5u from the sun, the joules absorbed in 1 hour will take 20 hours to radiate away at 10u (~61F). Factor in the density of the air, and the back radiation can’t carry much energy.
I think this is apparent if you measure air and ground temps over a 24 hr period with clear skies.
Greg, if you haven’t read my blog, you might find it interesting.
MiCro says:
August 24, 2012 at 12:29 pm
Greg House says:
August 24, 2012 at 10:38 am
“Speaking of physical verification, do you have any problem with the apparent absence of physical verification of the “back radiation warming effect”? I mean real experimental verification, of course.”
All objects warmer than absolute zero radiate heat. There’s nothing stopping a warmer object absorbing photons radiating from a colder object. But you must account for the amount of energy these photons carry. For instance if you have two black bodies, …
==================================================
I see. This a well known tale and you apparently can live happily without a real experimental physical verification. It looks good on paper, right?
The tale about a famous Baron Munchausen pulling himself out of a swamp by his hair sounds good, too.
Greg House says:
August 24, 2012 at 12:54 pm
“I see. This a well known tale and you apparently can live happily without a real experimental physical verification. It looks good on paper, right? ”
This (Stefan-Boltzman law) has been well tested, here’s a useful link http://www.kilty.com/freeze.htm This law has been well tested. While the law is well tested, the parameters as they apply to the earth and sky need to be measured. I think this is what you’d like to see tested, as would I.
Another observation, I live in the midwest, and during the spring and fall, you can have a clear warm day, followed by frost, followed by the same clear warm day. Consider the amount of heat that must be radiated to go from the 50’s to water vapor freezing on your grass. So not only is the heat of about 20+ degrees, you also have 2 state changes on the water vapor.