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.
Why should the New York Times print a reply to an Op-Ed that appeared in the Wall Street Journal? Did the WSJ refuse to print the reply to Krupp”s Op-Ed?
Please !!! Let’s be honest here. This letter is nothing more than an effort to move the scientific deliberations concerning climate change from the traditional, legitimate scientific communities to the public domain (which includes a host of self proclaimed “scientists” with modest, if any, scientific credentials usually with direct ties to commercial interests). I am impressed that the New York Times had the good sense to reject it.
As in all scientific issues, there comes a time when action is warranted. Just as we now know that we cannot afford to spread radioactive nuclides about in the process of developing nuclear power plants, real professional scientists now know that we must also stop the emissions of CO2 when producing energy. If we can do that while burning fossil fuels, fine (and good luck!). If we cannot do that, then we must not burn any more of our fossil fuels and use our brains and resources for the development of the other means of energy production, including nuclear.
Sorry to disagree with so distinguished a writer, but while the (C)AGW scare might have gotten a good leg up in the UK when Lady Thatcher used it as a stick to beat the state-run coal industry, the hoax goes back to the ’70s with Margaret Mead, Paul Ehrlich, the ironically-named Club for Growth, and other far-left miscreants, who seized upon it as an ideological tool to push for world statism (hence the agenda-driven IPCC and the subsequent perversion of climatology). See here:
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202007/GWHoaxBorn.pdf
In this radical-left, enviro-wacko history, the conservative Lady Thatcher was surely an anomaly.
/Mr Lynn
I think we should all be grateful to the New York Times for rejecting this incoherent piece. As a sceptic I simply find it embarrassing in its naivety and the fewer who see it the better. Does anyone really think that this rant could influence a neutral objective reader in any positive way?
It seems some people here do – which is the most depressing of all.
From Brian Johnson uk says:
August 14, 2012 at 2:16 am
[i]There are still humans around who think the planet was created in seven days. With mindsets like that and the likes of Hansen,Gore,Mann, Jones,Trenberth and others with direct connections to the sympathetic AGW Media nothing will change in any meaningful time scale.[/i]
Sorry, but you are attacking Christians and placing them in the same bin as Hansen, Gore, Mann and Trenberth and the biased Media? Sorry, but that doesn’t fly, nor will it be accepted.
[i]How long did it take for Dragons, Witches and Papal Indulgences to be accepted as utter rubbish? [/i]
So, you do not believe Dragons existed? Despite the presence of fossils, and for some, the presence of markings and drawings all over the world? Witches did not exist? Once again, I see that you are not a reader or believer in the Bible. Yet, you also have not looked around your world of late to see the presence of evil and people who desire to do evil. But then too, there were those we humans called Witches during the Dark Ages were mischaracterized or just practiced herbalism. Other cultures still believe that many of their leaders are Witches and thus give them that title. And, I am surprised to see that you, a non-Believer in the Bible surely do not recognize the horrific events that the Catholic Church committed during the Dark Ages and onward? Do you doubt also the lifestyle and lavish purchases by the Catholic Church?
I’m sorry, but it is you who appears to be on the wrong side, pretending to foster an open-eyed belief system while yet, your own eyes are blind.
@-“The oceans outgas as they warm and dissolve CO2 when they cool.
Correct, and given the measured amount of warming of the Oceans [~0.6degC in the last century] and Henry’s Law applied to the dissolved CO2, the HCO3 and the CO3 the amount of CO2 out-gassed by the oceans warming can be calculated at a little over 4ppm.
@-“Man made CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels (wood, coal, petroleum, NG …) is trivial compared to CO2 outgassed from the warming oceans. ”
No, the amount out-gassed in response to the warming is tgrivial compared to anthropogenic sources.
Or about 5% of the amount added to the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels.
This confirmed by the isotope ratios which show the increases is from fossil carbon with zero C14 and reduced C13.
It is further confirmed by the reduction in ph as the increase in the partial pressure of CO2 overwhelms any outgassing from oceanic warming. If all the atmospheric CO2 was from ocean outgassing the ph would have risen.
@-“If you don’t know that, suggest you go back to high school.”
Yes I knew about Henry’s Law, but unlike you had investigated whether the calculable amount of outgassing from the measured temperature change COULD be the source of the atmospheric rise in CO2.
It isn’t.
@- “My guess is my scientific training and knowledge exceeds yours. ”
Correct, at least for Aerospace engineering and mechanical process control.
@- “Processes which are dominated by positive feedbacks, as postulated by the AGW crowd for Earth’s climate, are inherently unstable and saturate at one extreme or the other until acted upon by a dominant outside forcing. But you probably don’t know that.”
I am familiar with rather more complex (biological) systems in which multiple non-linear interactions result in quite robust stability of the system, at least until the number of interactive factors falls below a threshold. I suspect that the climate may be closer to biological complexity than engineering simplicity when it comes to how its feedbacks work.
However I certianly do not KNOW that, and given the bi-modal climate of the last few million years (glacial/interglacial) in response to quite small changes in the energy balance from the Milankovitch cycles perhaps you are right and the climate is a system that ‘saturates’ to one extreme or the other.
Until there is a major change in one factor that overrides the energy balance at that extreme.
Like increasing the GHG effect by adding more CO2 to the atmosphere than has been active in the climate system for several million years…..
a response to Rud Istvan @ur momisugly 6:33:
Twaddle. I work in coal extraction. We redo our long-term plans annually based upon recent coal pricing trends and forecasts for the next 5 years, and “beyond”, based upon current demand and long range projects at an international level. The current forecasts have our existing operations running for over 80 years. If prices increase beyond the forecast (forecast prices for us are considerably lower that current spot price for metallurgical coal) then more of the resources will be pursued as possible reserves. “Resources” loosely means that the coal in the ground meets the simplest economics test of “if we move all of the waste rock above this coal out of the way, we’ll break even or make money at current price”. Our resources have jumped in recent years because of the change in prices. In my working jurisdiction “Reserves” means that a license to mine is in place and we can go in and break ground at any time (Proven Reserves) or that a plan to mine the coal (including all pit-bottom accesses) and a plan and sequence to dump the waste rock exists but that governmental approval of all aspects of the mine has not yet been granted or even pursued (Probable Reserves). Legal ownership/rights to the coal must be held before either reserves or resources can be listed.
Back to the main point: $5 a tonne selling price metallurgical coal is extinct. We may be nearing the $60 a tonnes selling price metallurgical coal limit. If we forecast $100 or $200 a tonne metallurgical coal then all of a sudden more is created, because it becomes economic. I apply the same reasoning to oil and natural gas, and am not worried about peak anything.
BillD says:
August 14, 2012 at 4:00 am
The Heartland Institute equates climate scientists with mass murders–so much for reasoned discussion….
_______________________________
Ask yourself how many have died because Heartland Institute and “Deniers” have said there is no problem?
Then ask yourself how many have died because climate scientists left science and entered the Political Arena to pursue advocacy for legislation.
Have you forgotten the death of Friday Mukamperezida? He was an ill little boy who was burned to death because They had to burn the village to save it from global warming
How many died as a result of the USA passing Bio-fuel and other laws due to climate scientists testimony before Congress?
Remember the over thirty countries having food riots in 2008?
2008: Riots from Haiti to Bangladesh to Egypt over the soaring costs of basic foods have brought the issue to a boiling point and catapulted it to the forefront of the world’s attention… finance ministers were in shock, almost in panic this weekend,
The UN secretary general has warned that millions of people are at risk of starvation as global food stocks have fallen to their lowest levels for decades…. shortages are forcing prices to rise which may have devastating consequences.. Egypt, where thousands of people have resorted to violence due to shortages…At least 10 people have died over the past two weeks, in riots…
And 2008 was not the end of food riots
2010: Six dead in Mozambique riots over food
Food Riots 2011: ….In Algeria, several protesters have been killed by police and several others have actually set themselves on fire to protest the economic conditions. In Tunisia, more than 100 people have been killed and the president of that country actually had to flee for his life.
What about the UK just this winter? Some 7,800 people die during winter because they can’t afford to heat their homes properly, says fuel poverty expert Professor Christine Liddell of the University of Ulster. That works out at 65 deaths a day.
And the riots in Europe over fuel. This is not just Third world countries being effected.
Nigerian police and protesters clash over soaring fuel prices and
two killed and dozens wounded
French fishermen protest soaring fuel prices
Police have clashed with hundreds of fishermen protesting against the high cost of fuel outside the headquarters of the European Union in Brussels… In recent days they have been joined by members of fleets from the UK, Spain, Portugal and Italy, who have blockaded ports across Europe, and truck drivers.
Riots as Indonesia restricts cut to fuel subsidy
Breaking News: 10 Hospitalized as Fuel Protests Turn Violent in Central Jakarta
THIS is the FACE of the policies advocated by Climate Scientists. It may hurt your delicate sensibilities but if the shoe fits…
Mr Lynn:
Please read my analysis at the link I provided.
It does not matter how many ‘conspirators’ plotted during the century between the activities of Arrhenius and Thatcher. It was Thatcher who started it as a political issue, and she put in the money to turn AGW from a scientific curiosity into a major research industry. She did it for the reasons I said and not those you say. And she was right-wing.
‘Divide And Rule’ is a tactic best used on enemies and not ourselves. It is an undeniable fact that AGW is not a left-right issue anywhere except in the USA. And it is sad that there are those who choose to make it a left-right issue in the USA.
Totalitarians of the left and the right support AGW because it fits their desires. All who support freedom – both left or right – oppose totalitarians. So, those who wish to engage the political (as distinct from the scientific) debate on AGW need to unite against totalitarianism and not waste efforts fighting among yourselves.
The issues are too important for silly ‘bun fights’ between left and right. Sometimes there are greater battles to be had in the here-and-now so political divides need to be put off for another day; e.g. Churchill united with Stalin in 1942. Totalitarianism is our greatest political threat at present.
And those who want to engage in the political issue of AGW need to ‘keep on board’ those of us who want proper practice in science whether we are of the left or the right.
Richard
Brian Johnson uk says: @ur momisugly August 14, 2012 at 2:16 am
There are still humans around who think the planet was created in seven days.
===============================================
James Sexton says: @ur momisugly August 14, 2012 at 5:58 am
How strange to be attacked by skeptics. Considering it was people of faith who largely carried the skepticism yoke when no one else would.
===============================================
Many people can not understand Judeo/Christians can be a very good scientists because they know the difference between belief via faith and believe via data, facts and logic. Perhaps this is one reason why the communists sought to drive out religion.
It would be a pleasant development if this Initiative could makes some serious inroads into the “climate science” community, but I don’t think i’ll be holding my breath for that.
http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2012/08/markets-in-everything-research.html
“Science Exchange, in partnership with the open-access publisher PLOS and open data repository figshare, announced today the launch of the Reproducibility Initiative – a new program to help scientists, institutions and funding agencies validate their critical research findings.
“In the last year, problems in reproducing academic research have drawn a lot of public attention, particularly in the context of translating research into medical advances. Recent studies indicate that up to 70% of research from academic labs cannot be reproduced, representing an enormous waste of money and effort,” said Dr. Elizabeth Iorns, Science Exchange’s co-founder and CEO. “In my experience as a researcher, I found that the problem lay primarily in the lack of incentives and opportunities for validation—the Reproducibility Initiative directly tackles these missing pieces.”
The Reproducibility Initiative provides both a mechanism for scientists to independently replicate their findings and a reward for doing so. Scientists who apply to have their studies replicated are matched with experimental service providers based on the expertise required. The Initiative leverages Science Exchange’s existing marketplace for scientific services, which contains a network of over 1000 expert providers at core facilities and contract research organizations (CROs). “Core facilities and commercial scientific service providers are the solution to this problem,” said Dr. Iorns. “They are experts at specific experimental techniques, and operate outside the current academic incentive structure.””
izen;
Correct, and given the measured amount of warming of the Oceans [~0.6degC in the last century] and Henry’s Law applied to the dissolved CO2, the HCO3 and the CO3 the amount of CO2 out-gassed by the oceans warming can be calculated at a little over 4ppm.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It isn’t that simple. The tropics are a net out gasser of CO2, the high latitudes are net absorbers. This is a function of their entirely different temperature profiles. You can’t just apply Henry’s law across the board, you have to look at the system as a whole.
Ron says: @ur momisugly August 14, 2012 at 6:45 am
…..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.
___________________________
A bit of an internet search would back you up.
– – – – – – – –
Gail Combs,
My understanding of the Soviet Union’s consistent intolerance for traditional religions is it did not want competition for its Marxian Statist Religion that was the ideological basis for communism in the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union wanted the state as a focus of its religion to replace the traditional supernatural being focused traditional religions. I think any rational capability of members of the various traditional religious sects had little applicability to Soviet intolerance for traditional religions. It was all about elimination of competing religions that could distract from the state focused religion of the Marxist State.
John
davidmhoffer:
At August 14, 2012 at 1:01 pm you say to izen;
With respect, you seem to have forgotten that izen has repeatedly show he is that simple.
Richard
Please send Smoky as your representative!
I quote from Fred Krupp: “That gases such as carbon dioxide and methane can trap heat is an undisputed matter of basic physics. But what is most telling is that as concentrations of these greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have increased, the global average temperature has increased in near-unison.”
Krupp is dead wrong. First, global average temperature has not increased in near-unison. Second, such increase as does exist was not caused by greenhouse gases. Lets walk it through. Starting with the twentieth century, its first ten years saw cooling, not warming. Warming started suddenly in 1910 and ended equally suddenly in 1940. There was no parallel increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide in 1910 and this rules out the greenhouse effect by the laws of radiation physics. Bjørn Lomborg attributes this warming to solar influence and I agree. By now, forty percent of the century is over without any sign of greenhouse warming. There was no warming in the fifties, sixties, and seventies either while carbon dioxide kept increasing. People were worried about a coming ice age and newspapers and magazines had articles about it. There has never been a satisfactory explanation of why rising carbon dioxide failed to produce warming for thirty years, only contorted hypotheses to try to explain it away. One of them was smoke and aerosols from war production blocking out the sun. And by now it is seventy percent of the twentieth century gone without any anthropogenic warming. The next two decades, the eighties and the nineties, had no warming either while carbon dioxide kept increasing. There were just ENSO oscillations, warm El Ninos alternating with cool La Ninas, while the average temperature remained constant. On this point satellites from UAH and RSS, Gistemp from NASA, and NCDC temperature records all agree. The next real warming arrived with the super El Nino of 1998. In four years global temperature rose by a third of a degree Celsius and then stopped. This is a substantial warming, considering that IPCC allows only 0.6 degrees for the entire twentieth century. Its cause was the large amount of warm water the super El Nino carried across the ocean. This, and not an imaginary greenhouse effect, was the cause of the very warm decade of the 2000-s. There has not been any warming since then while carbon dioxide increases relentlessly. This leaves just the Arctic warming to explain. It started suddenly at the turn of the twentieth century, after two thousand years of slow cooling. It paused in mid-century for thirty years, then resumed, and is still going strong. There was no concurrent increase of carbon dioxide in the air and this again rules out greenhouse effect as its cause. Apparently there was a change in the North Atlantic current system at the turn of the century that began to direct warm Gulf Stream water into the Arctic Ocean. Direct measurement of water temperature reaching the Arctic in 2010 showed it to be higher than any individual measurements for the last two thousand years. And here you have it: there has been no greenhouse warming for the last 100 years. Yet despite that you have the nerve to claim that “Dramatic alterations to the climate are here and likely to get worse—with profound damage to the economy—unless sustained action is taken.” This is just abject nonsense with no science behind it. Do you do this to justify your 400,000 dollar salary? It is these kinds of lies that have cost billions of dollars to American taxpayers for direct and indirect subsidies to green projects and for climate research that produces no worthwhile science. And the likes of you on this gravy train just want to keep it going.
John K. Sutherland. says: @ur momisugly August 14, 2012 at 7:35 am
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…
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Her name was Ekurzwei. Climate Audit discusses the debate here The included links to the transcript of The East Side Debate at Intelligencesquaredus.org seems to be dead.
I posted the above comment with the Wall Street Journal Op-Ed from Fred Krupp. He and others like him are way out of line with their claims of warming and somebody has to tell them off. Please note that everything I said is backed up by science while his claims are not.
Rud Istvan says: @ur momisugly August 14, 2012 at 6:33 am
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)….
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Yeah? So what.
The sky is falling cries in the media over a century ago.
You can also read The Great Horse-Manure Crisis of 1894
Yet we are not buried in horse manure, the crisis never became critical because when left free to innovate mankind will.
JamesNV says: @ur momisugly 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.
____________________________
It is Al Gore and other politicians on the left who made CAGW a political football not skeptics.
There are only two points of agreement needed, and one goal.
1. Agree to be polite
2. Agree to be honest
The Goal: Seek the truth about the state of the climate.
Mark Twain – The War Prayer
http://warprayer.org/
Arno Arrak says:
August 14, 2012 at 1:28 pm
——————————-
This is the NASA/Goddard land/ocean global temperature data.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif
While the amount of noise in the earlier part of the century makes it harder to pick out long term trends by inspection; you would need to be deliberately obtuse to miss the increase from 1970 on, especially inspecting the five-year averages which damp out the worst of the short term variation.
Richard S Courtney suggested that a point of agreement was
“The costs of mitigation to climate change and the costs of adaptation to climate change should be comprehensively assessed and compared”.
I agree that getting a friendly conservation will let us get out of this mess but this answer won’t work.
It ignores the factors of hope, fear and process in general. Time progresses.
Add something like this, “A commitment to further investment in empirical research is essential”.
It’s more subversive than at first appears (Dad)..
Nothing to disagree with there. But those who push the “global warming/climate change” agenda are almost entirely totalitarians of the left, not of the right. They are not interested in “proper practice in science,” so the facts will not sway them. Their interest is in controlling society “for its own good.” There may be totalitarians on the right (or as Jeane Kirkpatrick used to call them, “authoritarians”) but they are not Watermelons.
/Mr Lynn