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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
August 14, 2012 at 4:21 am
The New York Who?
__________________________
You get a “Gold Star” next to your name.
I’m not a lefty, and I totally agree with you. This, as well as other issues, is being used to create a wedge (well, an even bigger wedge) between people. It helps to create entrenched positions and prevents the useful dialog that could lead to compromise and real solutions to real problems.
Mr. Bast was doing well until point number five. He is dead wrong about future fossil fuel abundance. Neither conventional sources, nor newer unconventional sources save the planet from absolute aggregate production declines in petroleum (about 2020), natural gas (by about 2040), and coal (between 2040 and 2060). This means two things. First, independent of climate models and sensitivity, none of the SRES high emission scenarios are possible. Second, to avoid future economic disruption starting with liqid transportation fuels, conservation measures need to begin since the have such long lead times. This is shown in detail in my e-book Gaia’s Limits. Since that was published (with numerous peer reviewed references), there is another new study (unfortunately pay walled) by Maggio and Evans, When will oil, natural gas, and coal peak?, Fuels 98: 111-123 (2012). The charts accompanying the public abstract suffice to underscore the point.
There’s a nice response to the EDF screed at the WSJ:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443991704577579951766037924.html
— by Cohen, Happer & Lindzen. Stronger than Heartland’s (imo), and definitely worth reading.
I would have rejected this piece by the time I got through the second paragraph. One, it is poorly written in terms of standard English writing conventions required in for-profit media venues. Odd and contorted sentence structures and mechanics are everywhere in this work. Two, it is poorly reasoned in terms of the standards set for argumentative/opinion modes of writing. The organization of his points of contention wander all over the piece, showing no signs of focus or cohesiveness. The New York Times made a wise choice in preventing this piece from harming the writing standards the editor must shepard.
@JamesNV says:
August 14, 2012 at 2:23 am
I’m a lefty and I get annoyed when the debate is framed in political terms. I understand that many are polarized because of their politics, but this issue isn’t supposed to be about political affiliations.
++++++++
Thanks for piping up, James. There is not enough balance voiced by different political stripes on the scientific subject of how the climate behaves. The Earth does not give a hoot which party you vote for or support or switch to. It does what it does.
I understand, of course, the inclination to blame whatever person is in ‘power’ for any and everything that bugs people, but that ‘Buck stops here’ stuff is belied by a cursory examination of power broking and smokey back rooms. It is true that politicians can waste vast sums of money on half-baked ideas but opposition to bad science misrepresented as fact knows no party allegiances. Junk is still junk, and historically there is plenty of blame to dish out to all parties.
The unifying component of resistance to junk science should be the facts of temperatures, physics and methods of analysis. The 5 preconditions seems to have been shaped to assure rejection. That is my assessment. If a discussion was to start it will not be following capitulation, it will start with an agreed time and place.
The NYT will never allow an open debate with a guaranteed right of reply – they have too much invested in the alarmism that has become their bread and butter. Further, they would be attacked in a coordinated manner by the Team with the stick of political correctness. This reality means that the proper place for sharing opinions and comparing results is on blogs like this.
There is nothing to prevent Anthony forming a peer review committee (perhaps in the name of REP)then tag acceptable articles with a Seal of Review. The resulting on-line Journal can easily become a significant resource for people who want to know ‘everything’ not ‘some’.
“He hee, I found point #1 especially comical considering the consistent use of the term “alarmist”. No wonder it was rejected.”
Those who spread alarm might well be called alarmists (definition: “Alarmism is excessive or exaggerated alarm about a real or imagined threat”). Surely, even most who believes in CAGW will agree that the alarms have been either excessive or exaggerated (no, Manhattan is not under water, nor are Himalya melting…). You can be alarmist about something that is real. But you cannot “deny” something that is simply not true.
Harry Huffman: totally agree with your statement above. The lay public is smart enough (as an entity) to see that the science trotted out to either ‘prove’ or ‘disprove’ the theory of CAGW is not going anywhere, fast. This is why ‘global warming’ and ‘climate change’ is falling off the opinion plates. People (voters) have simply stopped listening to either side and have moved on. My opinion, can’t back it up.
Joe Bast:
“First, people and organizations that break the law or use hate language such as “denier” should be barred from the global warming debate.”
That your opponents has stooped to name calling, should be a debating point, not an excuse to bar them from debate. It’s like the alarmist ducking debate because of their claims of consensus and settled science. If these are true, they should be debating points too.
First and foremost, this is no longer about the science of Climate it has become a question of control of billions of dollars in research funding and hundreds of billions if not trillions of dollars of GDP. It is 100% political. To ask those advocating AGW to agree to your “terms” would be like asking US Democrats to abandon support of Abortion and adopt the Republican Platform. Its just not going to happen and certainly not as a precondition to any “discussion”. Politics is warfare without guns. You can not defend yourself half-heartedly when the objective of your adversary is to silence you and take control of huge portions of economies.
Although its a nice letter I’m not surprised it was not published. Why would those who consider you a “denier” give you a free shot at undercutting their power or position?
Arguing CAGW within the current state of climate knowledge is not unlike arguing planetary motion in classical Greece. We haven’t developed the basic tools that can be agreed as a basis for argument. Tree rings? Which trees? Any trees? Paleoclimate data? 1972 to 2000 data? Adjusted, homogenized, averaged data? Raw data? Which adjustments? Western European historical records? What defines “Global Climate”?
Considering that we are said to be facing the an existential crisis for all of humankind, the lack of basic, robust scientific inquiry is the reason that the argument has become a political discussion.
With a lack of falsification because the science, regardless of internal conflicts between theory and data, is “settled”, we end up with a “don’t just stand there, do SOMETHING” approach.
Unfortunately, SOMETHING has real world, unintended, effects.
I don’t know if Joe Bast did this intentionally or not, but, I like it.
As some readers here have noted, there’s not an alarmist out there who would or could agree with the five points Joe wishes them to agree upon. It attacks their self-definition. Joe correctly lays his foundation on political premises. It is, after all, a political question. Any “science” towards alarmism was abandoned long ago.
I like for this reason alone. No alarmist would agree. If one ever finds himself in agreement with a totalitarian Malthusian Marxist, you know you’re on real shaky ground and have likely lost the plot.
Political agendas are controlling the lack of scientific debate. In the U.S., this can be changed by electing members of congress and the administration who do not have an agenda for controlling the use of fossil fuels for what ever reason or by what ever method. Funding of politically motivated subjective research has almost destroyed the scientific method of objective research.
http://www.theconservativevoices.com/_/energy/why-we-need-debate-not-consensus-on-climate-c-r55
if reposting like this is not allowed please let me know.
either comment here so I see it or reply there and I will check back.
thanks
Why was this response to a Wall Street Journal op-ed submitted to the New York Times? Makes no sense.
/Mr Lynn
“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.”
How about we agree on the basic proposition that bad measurements with worse adjustments equal bad science. Then we devise a new measurement system free of UHI effects, I think it would be the most effective climate solution as once we remove the contamination from the temperature record we will have eliminated global warming.
A further comment back to Valerie, I would suggest that you consider the biological ramifications of what you said. Creatures take in nutrients and sustenance of many forms and continue to grow for so long as they do so. They grow and grow until such a time as they reach their “maximum” size (dependent upon their surroundings, and physical constraints of their life-form). After that, they die outright, or continue to take in reduced quantities of resources as they slowly shrink and fade, ultimately to their demise. There are some mosses and plants I’ve heard of (I’m not in the field of biology, I’m one of those nasty mineral extraction bunch) that continue to grow by forming a donut shape and continually expanding outwards with a newly developing front on the “outside” while the “inside” withers and dies. No organism that I’m aware of maintains a “sustainable” existence: they grow and grow until they begin the process of dying.
I’d like to think that our culture isn’t ready to die yet.
Peter Miller
1. Most sceptics accept rising CO2 levels have had a mild impact on global temperatures – these rising CO2 levels have obviously been caused by the activities of man. So we agree there is an AGW effect. However, we do not believe this effect is serious, or will ever be serious.
****************************************
isn’t the rise in CO2 the result of the warming?
iirc CO2 rise was AFTER the noted warming.
I agree with Pamela Gray. The piece was not well written and did not make its points all that well. It also seemed to be a bit on the childish side. I’ve seen you do much better, Joe. I am glad that this did not get put into the NY Times as the best case the skeptic camp can present. I would have been embarrassed by it.
Lewis P Buckingham
partly agree with you. We can only show respect for the ones arriving in stage 4 or even 5.
Before that it is denial anger and bargaining. A lot, well probably 99% are still in phase 1 and 2 and nothing says that, this article in the WSJ which seems the first one to arrive in stage 3, when bargaining is refused by the other party, they will not return to stage 2 or stage 1.
But once in stage 4 or 5, normally they should not return back then yes we should respect them.
Joe, you can’t reason with unreasonable people. Neither can you reason with people who are mentally deranged. And since the CAGW crowd are both unreasonable and mentally deranged (liberalism is a mental disease), don’t waste your time talking to the CAGW crowd. Instead, we all should continuously point out the failures of their predictions, the errors they continue to make in all their research, and heap as much scorn on them as we can.
Jay Davis
@- harryHuffman
” hand it over to non-climate scientists–preferrably physicists over the age of 60, educated before the dogma of the “greenhouse effect” was accepted as “settled science”–and anyone who respects the stable Standard Atmosphere over the hysterical “meme” of runaway climate change. ”
Actually you would need physicists over the age of 200 to predate the greenhouse theory which was established in science before Darwin’s evolutionary theory.
AGW dates from around 1900. The many objections to the hypothesis, {ocean sinks, negative feedbacks, human CO2 production rates} were all refuted by the 1950s when it became widely accepted as a good theory.
Like many who reject the GHG process you egregiously underestimate the historical depth, breadth and consilience of climate science.
Politicians are voting and will continue to vote. They will either continue to bugger our economy and civil society on the alter of CAGW or they will stop. This is a binary decision, and a death match. “Compromise” does not stop the foolishness; it merely means giving in this time for some amount of money and freedom lost, and waiting because “they’ll be back”. This will only end when the CAGW folks have the membership and credibillity of the Flat Earth Society, at which point we will be able to afford to ignore them. One hopes we skeptics will be suitably aggressive, and won’t have to wait for the next ice age for the alarmists to recede along with the temperate zone.
[Oddly, both “alter” and “altar” of CAGW are correct in your context of sacrificing the world’s economy….. 8<) Robt]
We already had the definitive ‘intelligence squared’ debate. There was Stott, Crichton and Lindzen on one side and Schmidt, Sommerville and a woman whose name escapes me at the moment, on the other. Stott et al massacred them. The warmist side saw what happened and have avoided debate ever since. They were humiliated beyond belief.
Joe:
You know I agree with your points but, with respect, I think your article goes about attempting dialogue in the wrong way.
As you say, dialogue begins by finding points of agreement. After that the dialogue moves to debate of disagreements and the reasons for them. Clearly, dialogue begins by determination of ‘common ground’.
You suggest the dialogue could start by both ‘sides’ agreeing to your propositions. But we both know that will not happen because it requires the ‘warmers’ to back-down on some of their views before the dialogue can start. Simply, you are trying to start the dialogue by asking ‘warmers’ to move onto ‘climate realist’ ground, but the ‘warmers’ are as unwilling to do that as ‘climate realists’ are unwilling to move on to ‘warmist’ ground.
So, I suggest the dialogue should start on common ground. And I offer this suggestion. The agreed common joint statement by all ‘sides’ could be
The costs of mitigation to climate change and the costs of adaptation to climate change should be comprehensively assessed and compared.
This avoids (a) dispute of the science, (b) conflicts over past misdemeanors and (c) overt opposition to dialogue from members of the ‘AGW industry’. And it gives a practical way forward.
Climate has always changed and it always will change so investigation of adaptation to climate change would be beneficial whatever the merits of the AGW-hypothesis.
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.
Richard