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.
To Mike at AB:
It isn’t twaddle. You misunderstand peak energy production. I never said we run out then, because that point is likely at least a century away. I said we will not be able to produce more annually than in the past , and that rate will begin to fall (at any price, because is has to do with geophysics, not economics). Read the book and understand the arguments before dismissing them.
Arno Arrak says:
August 14, 2012 at 1:28 pm
—————–
You are trying to microanalyse the temperature data to explain every little change. Easier to take an energy budget approach, and try some calculation oneself.
On last week’s Sea Ice thread I used NASA’s solar data to estimate that the 0.05C per decade increase in solar output observed by their satellites had added 17% of the warming since 1979.
Similarly I calculated that the 1957 contribution of back radiation from CO2 was a conservative 33W/M2, and that the 14% increase in CO2 in the last 60 years added 4W/M2. This is enough to increase equilibrium surface temperature by 1.5C, once oceanic warming catches up with the land around 2100.
My own back-of-the-envelope calculations came closer to those of IPCC than I had expected, suggesting that the complexity you tried to read into the data is either unnecessary or self cancelling.
Perhaps you have some numbers?
Eric Grimsrud says:
August 14, 2012 at 10:10 am
Please !!! Let’s be honest here….
_________________________
Yes Eric, let us be honest.
The most critical point is
1. CO2 is a life giving gas that has become dangerously limited (Plants need >200 ppm just to survive) and the more CO2 available the better the growth and the better the drought resistance and the higher the yield per acre. (humans have DOUBLED the yield per acre in under a century)
2. Henry’s Law, CO2 solubility, biosphere flux, biosequestration… SEE: Green World Trust or The Acquittal of CO2 for a more indepth analysis.
3. The Climate Scientists have been repeatedly caught with their thumb on the (temperature) scale not only in the USA but in other countries so their credibility is now near zero.
Hansens adjustments to US temperatures: Graph All you have to do is look on WUWT to learn of the other problems with the US weather stations. link
The UK/global temperature data is “Lost”: The Dog Ate Global Warming
From the “A goat ate my homework” excuse book: NIWA reveals NZ original climate data missing
Current update on the lawsuit against The National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA): Courtroom Chaos as New Zealand Skeptics Rout Government Climatists
Australian Temperature Records found Shoddy, Inaccurate, Unreliable Surprise!
and an update on the Formal Request to the Auditor-General for Australia to audit BOM and CSIRO Climate. Threat of ANAO Audit means Australia’s BOM throws out temperature set
You do not have to be a scientist to smell the stench of backroom politicking for profit
As a hard core skeptic…..Heartland screwed the pooch with their horrible ad earlier this year. Why would any organization take their call for reasonable debate serioulsy?
Sad to say, Joe never read/absorbed the memo from Vaclav Klaus. The alarmists have moved on from debating us and may well have moved on from even discussing their fait accompli. They concentrate now on talking up solutions to the non-problem that is feathering their nests and tickling their dark fancies.
Memo to self: Never get on the wrong side of Gail 😉
richardscourtney says: @ur momisugly August 14, 2012 at 12:51 pm
….Totalitarians of the left and the right support AGW because it fits their desires. All who support freedom – both left or right – oppose totalitarians….
___________________________________
Anthony should put that under his title.
As Robert A. Heinlein stated
and H. L. Mencken got the rest of it correct.
Politicians and bureaucrats for the most part belong to the group with the urge to rule or control others.
John Whitman says: @ur momisugly August 14, 2012 at 1:22 pm
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 of course was the big reason. However we are seeing the same intolerance here in the USA.
I don;t understand the call for reconciliation or the middle way in the debate on many of the issues where one side is saying that 1 + 1 = 3 and the other side trying to point out that 1 + 1 is actually equal to 2. To compromise and say let’s start at 2.5 makes no sense. Junk science, poor calculations and caught red handed fiddling of the data should never be areas for compromise.
James Hein says:
August 14, 2012 at 3:41 pm
I don;t understand the call for reconciliation or the middle way in the debate on many of the issues where one side is saying that 1 + 1 = 3 and the other side trying to point out that 1 + 1 is actually equal to 2. To compromise and say let’s start at 2.5 makes no sense. Junk science, poor calculations and caught red handed fiddling of the data should never be areas for compromise.
————————————————–
From my viewpoint (warmist by your standards) the sceptics are the ones claiming that 1+1+0 and doing the fiddling. Since neither side trusts the other to argue the science, rather than make political points, any debate is likely to be no more productive than the discussions regarding Intelligent design and creationism.
The Heartland Institute’s call for a discussion rather reminds me of the creationists’ ploy of trying to sneak their religious views past the prohibition of teaching religion in state schools. By presenting Intelligent Design as ” science” they try to sneak religion into science classes. By portraying a political agenda as a scientific position Heartland are trying to pretend that a proper scientific debate on climate change should legitimately include them.
Entropic Man;
From my viewpoint (warmist by your standards) the sceptics are the ones claiming that 1+1+0 and doing the fiddling. Since neither side trusts the other to argue the science, rather than make political points, any debate is likely to be no more productive than the discussions regarding Intelligent design and creationism.
The Heartland Institute’s call for a discussion rather reminds me of the creationists’ ploy of trying to sneak their religious views past the prohibition of teaching religion in state schools. By presenting Intelligent Design as ” science” they try to sneak religion into science classes. By portraying a political agenda as a scientific position Heartland are trying to pretend that a proper scientific debate on climate change should legitimately include them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I hereby dub thee R.Gates II.
Sorry bud, but posing as neutral while exuding warmist propoganda in every comment has already been done here. Find a new strategy, that one already fell flat on its face. Well, repeatedly pounded face into pavement would be a better description. As for your egregious attempt to equate calls for a fair debate with Intelligent Design, well….I already dubbed thee R.Gates II, so ‘nuf said.
Gail, While I am exceedingly interested in being honest, I am not at all interested in becoming stupid. So “CO2 is a life giving gas that has become dangerously limited (Plants need >200 ppm just to survive” !!! Sorry, but I can’t even go there. Eric
Gail,
Read through the Inhofe thread. You’ll find out everything you need to know about Eric Grimsrud, sock puppet for the Union of Concerned Scientists. He’s WAY over his head on the physics and responds to every point one brings up with bloviationg about how he is a “real” scientist with a “real” degree. A PhD in Chemistry of course makes him an expert. I’m a big advocate of engaging with trolls, but there are a limited few who simply repeat their arguments from authority and/or by assertion. There’s no value in feeding this particular troll.
davidmhoffer says:
August 14, 2012 at 10:11 am
higley7: “Very simply, there is not enough heat capacity in the upper atmosphere to warm the surface, neglecting the fact that a colder gas, at subzero temperature cannot warm anything warmer than it. It’s just thermodynamically impossible.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Not only is it possible, it can be measured, and has been.
=================================================
It has been measured? Only in “thought experiments”, come on.
Maybe you should:
http://homeharvest.com/carbondioxideenrichment.htm
More CO2 is better. Greenhouses often use c. 1,000 ppm.
/Mr Lynn
A question begs to be asked:
Is man’s small contribution of C02 to the troposphere and its implicit feedback mechanism/forcing going to stop the natural oscillations that bring the planet into a glaciated state and out to an inter-glacial state?
Does anyone think that is the case, and if so, please explain?
When the planet had 2200+ ppm of C02, did it stop the next glacial advance?
When ice covered the north pacific (300+ miles) from the Alaskan coast moving south, what was the level of C02 in the troposphere?
The warmists are rewriting history quickly and now is the time to stop it in it’s tracks!
Greg House;
It has been measured? Only in “thought experiments”, come on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Oh great. He’s back. And stepping right up exactly where he left off before Anthony gave him a time out.
Tell you what Greg House, Eric Grimsrud is the guy for you. He’s got a PhD in chemistry, a membership card from the Union of Concerned Scientists, and a wonderful web site displaying his talents as a physicist. I suggest you take him on. You two deserve each other.
Well, this song just came to mind when I read this entry.
Ohhh, it makes me wonder!
Enjoy,,,,,,, I did >>>>>>>>
davidmhoffer says:
August 14, 2012 at 5:51 pm
Gail,
…… There’s no value in feeding this particular troll.
_______________________________
Agreed, anyone who will not even consider CO2 at or below 200 ppm as dangerously low should spend a couple of weeks in an entirely CO2/carbon free chamber.
The fact he claims to be a PhD chemist boogles my mind since I also have a degree in chemistry.
Mr. Lynn, The last time the Earth’s atmosphere contained 1,000 ppm, aligators lived in Alaska and sea levels were about 70 meters higher than today. Eric
Mr Lynn says:
August 14, 2012 at 6:22 pm
ericgrimsrud says:…
Maybe you should:
The amount of carbon dioxide a plant requires to grow may vary from plant to plant, but tests show that most plants will stop growing when the CO2 level decreases below 150 ppm. Even at 220 ppm, a slow-down in plant growth is significantly noticeable.
_____________________________________
I picked 200 ppm because although that will keep most plants alive (at sealevel) it says nothing of what happens to plants ABOVE sea level or about their ability to reproduce. In general humans eat the seeds/fruits/nuts of plants so a decrease in reproduction is important.
davidmhoffer says:
August 14, 2012 at 7:04 pm
Greg House: “It has been measured? Only in “thought experiments”, come on.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Oh great. He’s back. And stepping right up exactly where he left off before Anthony gave him a time out.
==================================================
Let us be serious, davidmhoffer. Things are sometimes not as they appears to be. My guess is you and others needed a break.
But let us not talk about me, let us talk about science. I hope it is not “settled”. Especially as far as those measurements concerned. Last time, as I recall, there was no “measurements” at all, it was more like “go to the library” argumentation, with some portion ad hominem.
by Joe Bast: “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, …
===================================================
Joe, I am very glad you said that. I have repeatedly touched this issue on this blog and others, and I am very surprised that people do not react.
I do not understand why they do not question again and again the issue of calculating the “global temperature”. The method used (like this one: http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1987/1987_Hansen_Lebedeff.pdf) appears scientifically outrageous to me. They admit that the data is not representative but at the same time they assign temperatures and trends to large areas with no thermometers.
I do not understand why people have been questioning “catastrophic” but not the phony “warming”.
AlaskaHound says:
August 14, 2012 at 6:34 pm
A question begs to be asked:
Is man’s small contribution of C02 to the troposphere and its implicit feedback mechanism/forcing going to stop the natural oscillations that bring the planet into a glaciated state and out to an inter-glacial state?
Does anyone think that is the case, and if so, please explain?
When the planet had 2200+ ppm of C02, did it stop the next glacial advance?
When ice covered the north pacific (300+ miles) from the Alaskan coast moving south, what was the level of C02 in the troposphere?
_________________________________
Does anyone think that is the case, and if so, please explain?
Some of the warmists do.
They say “we conclude that under natural boundary conditions the present insolation minimum holds the potential to terminate the Holocene interglacial.” That is Science speak for we are in the type of conditions that could dump us into another Ice Age if something like Joe B’s Triple Crown of Global Cooling happens. (Cold PDO & AMO, deep solar minimum and a really major volcanic eruption at the right time and place)
The Authors say there will be no returning Ice Age but that is based on the assumption of “continuously increasing anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and no change in the sun.”
Temperature and precipitation history of the Arctic is worth a read. and do not miss WUWT The End of the Holocene or how to make out Like a Madoff Climate-change Insurer
When the planet had 2200+ ppm of C02, did it stop the next glacial advance?
That is where things get tricky. If you have followed WUWT at all you are aware of the data ‘messaging’ in the temperature records. Well the same thing is true of the CO2 ice core records. CO2: The Greatest Scientific Scandal Of Our Time and another paper link It was ‘politically useful’ for the CO2 measurements of the past to be low. Older measurements showed they were actually a lot higher. Jaworowski et al. (1992 a, 1992 b) reviewed published CO2 measurements from ice cores, and emphasized that the pre-industrial atmospheric CO2 concentration, according to early accurate analyses, was many times larger (measurements up to 2450 ppmv) than the present atmospheric value.
I wish I had the link (it is in the WUWT link above somewhere) but it was mentioned that although cycling OUT of glaciation does not always happen cycling INTO glaciation does.
That is why I think the CAGW hype is insane. We can adjust to a bit warmer a heck of a lot easier that a mile of ice over much of the northern hemisphere.
Greg House says:
August 14, 2012 at 8:27 pm
….I do not understand why people have been questioning “catastrophic” but not the phony “warming”.
____________________________
It depends on the context. I think Lucy’s flick graph does a great job of pounding that nail home. link And that is without even getting into the thumb on the temperature scale problems.
Greg House;
But let us not talk about me, let us talk about science.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Eric Grimsrud
It is Greg House’s oft repeated assertion that the GHE does not exist and that it is impossible because cold things cannot heat warm things and CO2 in the atmosphere is colder than the surface. (Greg House, if I have misrepresented your position, please clarify for Dr Grimsrud).
I would appreciate it Dr Grimsrud if you would explain the facts to Greg House. I’ll just sit back and listen and learn from both of you.