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.
Reblogged this on Is it 2012 in Nevada County Yet? and commented:
As Paul Harvey use to say “The rest of the story” But, only in the blogosphere.
Gail Combs:
At August 14, 2012 at 2:04 pm you make the blatantly false assertion:
No! It is Margaret Thatcher and other politicians on the right who made CAGW a political football not skeptics.
See http://www.john-daly.com/history.htm
The US ‘came to the party late’ and Gore was (and is) an opportunist who made use of AGW when the US was starting to take notice of it. Indeed, this is a major reason why AGW is a right-left issue in the US: Gore is a Democrat and Republicans reacted to him.
The right-wing extremism on this thread is daft. AGW is a right-left issue only in the US; nowhere else. And it dilutes the effectiveness of “skeptics”.
Richard
[Snip. Read the site Policy. ~dbs, mod.]
re. Geneke11y says at August 14, 2012 at 2:31 pm
Matt:
I am grateful for your dispute of my suggestion (at August 14, 2012 at 7:38 am) and your suggested amendment to it. This thread is about obtaining “debate” between ‘sides’ of the AGW issue.
I wish others had also noticed my point and disputed/discussed it, too.
But, sadly, this thread implies few people are interested in its subject: most don’t want to determine how to achieve “debate” between ‘sides’ of the AGW issue. The thread mostly consists of people trying to push their partisan political views, people arguing their own views of AGW including cranks such as Grimsrud and House.
Also, it can be argued that dispute with one’s father is to be expected so some people may think your contribution is not as valuable as I think it is.
Dad
The Heartland Institute seems to be busily digging its own grave.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/may/20/heartland-institute-future-staff-cash
davidmhoffer says:
August 14, 2012 at 4:23 pm
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.
—————————————————————
Whatever gave you the idea that I was neutral? I prefer politeness to abuse, and evidence to armwaving denial, but that does not make me neutral.
I regard the evidence for cAGW as good, from the radiation physics, ground and satellite measurements of the greenhouse effect, through the human impact on CO2 levels, to the implications for climate and sea level change. Some of this comes from education, some from reading the literature and some from verifying conclusions by my own calculations.
richardscourtney says:
August 14, 2012 at 7:38 am
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.
——————————————–
Somebody already has. It’s called the Stern Review.
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/stern_review_report.htm
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/so-what-does-the-stern-report-mean-for-the-world-422283.html
Skeptics should be relieved that this was not published in the NYTs, since it implies that the skeptical position is that humans may have no effect on climate. Of course, that’s not what most of us here at WUWT argue.
Entropic man:
In response to my suggestion at August 14, 2012 at 7:38 am
at August 15, 2012 at 3:21 am you have replied
You forgot to add the /sarc tag after your reply.
Richard
Friends:
There may be some who do not understand my reply to Entropic Man so I write to explain it.
In 2006 the UK Parliament’s Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs published the Report of their investigation on “The Economics of Climate Change”. It is in the Parliamentary Record where it can be read at
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldeconaf/12/12i.pdf
That Report was damning of the IPCC and recommended adaptation instead of mitigation (i.e. Kyoto-type actions) in response to climate change.
The then government of Tony Blair had a Constitutional duty to respond to that Select Committee Report. But the government had a policy of supporting the IPCC and supporting mitigation options including the Kyoto Protocol and any possible successor Protocol. Hence, the government would need to reverse its policy if it were to accept the findings of the Select Committee.
The government overcame this problem by reacting to the Select Committee Report by appointing Nicholas Stern to conduct a review of possible costs of AGW. His remit was to determine all the worse-case scenarios for global warming and to assess the maximum possible costs if those scenarios (many of which were ridiculously improbable) were to come true.
Stern fulfilled his remit and provided the required political document which the government hid behind whenever the Select Committee Report was mentioned. Since then ‘greens’ have proclaimed the Stern Report to be a serious study when – in reality – it was commissioned as, and is, blatantly political propaganda.
Richard
responding to Rud Istvan @ur momisugly 2:48 pm: My apologies, I missed one of our design factors. The 80+ years of production includes annual production ramping up over the next 5-10 years to produce at a higher rate than at present or what has been achieved historically. Some capital upgrades are needed to get the target wash plant throughput. We’re increasing our production in the time period in question as a result of higher forecast prices. That is why I focus so much on prices and what’s available (reserves/resources, what can feasibly be mined), the coal fired blast furnace is still the preferred way of making the iron and steel needed to support a modern infrastructure and so is likely to still be in use. I extend what I know and work with to what/how other producers would react and estimates of what demand will be (and, following that, what trend the prices will follow).
Ian Weiss says:
August 15, 2012 at 4:43 am:
“Skeptics should be relieved that this was not published in the NYTs, since it implies that the skeptical position is that humans may have no effect on climate. Of course, that’s not what most of us here at WUWT argue.”
====================================================
As for “most of us”, I do have the impression, that warmists, both alarming and non-alarming, are very active here and dominate the commentaries.
But if asked to prove their core assertions some of them get angry and it is getting nasty and, of course, they can not prove it.
Well, the NYT does not like articles challenging warmism, OK, this is not new, we know that.
richardscourtney says: August 15, 2012 at 5:32 am
Friends:
There may be some who do not understand my reply to Entropic Man so I write to explain it.
[…]
Richard
Thank you for your elucidation.
I was entirely serious. Any sarcasm was inferred by yourself, Mr Courtney.
Reading both the Select Committee Report and the Review by Sir Nicholas Stern, the difference shows mainly in the emphasis.
The Select Committee took a pessimistic view that significant climate change is inevitable and unstoppable, so any resources spent on the problem should go towards mitigating the effect. (After all, they are practicing politicians and understand the difficulty of persuading anyone to defer a present benefit, to reduce future pain.).
Sir Nicholas took a more optimistic tone, that it is worth taking a financial hit now as the price of reducing the scale of the problem later.
With both main parties accepting the existance of climate change, such analyses are easier to do in the UK. I have seen nothing in the US to match either report; the recent Senate hearings seem more of a battleground than a way towards consensus.
Incidentally, Mr. Courtney, is it your habit to automatically assume that anything produced by governments is “commissioned as, and is, blatantly political propaganda.” Such cynicism!
Entropic Man;
Whatever gave you the idea that I was neutral? I prefer politeness to abuse, and evidence to armwaving denial, but that does not make me neutral.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You began your comment with the assertion that you were a warmist by other people’s standards. You attempted to imply something that anyone who is familiar with your comments knows is not the case. As for being polite, positing an equivalence between fair debate on climate and the tactics of Intellgient Design is a slimeball remark that is no less slimey for having been politely delivered.
I’m confused. You deny global warming exists, yet you object to being called a “denier.” You object to the tactics of environmentalists, yet you lie all the time about the data and the science. You say support is crumbling, when EVERY national science academy in the world and EVERY scientific organization in the world still agrees AGW is real.
How do you expect to be taken seriously? You ask for a debate, but you deny the existence of the topic you want to debate. It’s like asking for a debate over monetary policy when you deny the existence of money.
REPLY: My position is that GW is happening, just not the catastrophic problem it is made out to be and likely less in magnitude than measurements indicate. Heartland’s position isn’t much different. Feel free to show where they or I “deny” the GW. In the meantime, you can continue to bask in the comfort of anonymity while hurling hateful labels to lower the status of your opponent – Anthony
Moderators:
For some reason the formatting of my last post went very wrong. I am resubmitting it hopefully in corrected format. Please delete the original.
Richard
Entropic Man:
At August 15, 2012 at 7:50 am you ask me
No, it is not!
But as I explained in my post at August 15, 2012 at 5:32 am the Stern Report was commissioned as, and is, blatantly political propaganda. Are you suggesting that governments don’t produce propaganda?
The implication of your question to me is an unfounded insult which is an obvious attempt to distract from the facts which I reported; i.e. it is blatant trolling.
And your post says
Really? You think that? Then perhaps you would care to cite the comments in the Stern Report which only differ in “emphasis” from these statements in the Select Committee Report.
And I could quote much else from the Select Committee Report which induced the then UK government to commission Stern to conduct his so-called study instead of adopting the findings of the Select Committee Report.
Richard
Entropic Man;
Such cynicism!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Such naivete!
davidmhoffer says:
August 14, 2012 at 9:07 pm:
“Greg House, if I have misrepresented your position, please clarify for Dr Grimsrud.”
=================================================
Of course you have, but no problem, I can clarify that in a few sentences.
First of all, I see catastrophic warmism as a foundation for worldwide totalitarianism. Second, warmism is a foundation for catastrophic warmism, catastrophic alone can not exist. Third, it is possible to fight just the catastrophic component of catastrophic warmism without touching its foundation warmism, but it does not look efficient enough to me. Thus, fourth, it is reasonable to look more closely at warmism itself. Fifth, looking at warmism it is reasonable to look at its core assertions first, which is what I have been doing.
There are 3 pillars of the AGW concept: warming, CO2 effect and attribution. The main foundation is, of course, the CO2 effect. So, I am asking for the scientific experimental proof that CO2 works the way the warmists say it does. If there is none, then the card house of warmism collapses immediately and there is no real foundation or justification for establishing worldwide totalitarianism.
And at the moment it looks very much like there is none.
Schroedinger says:
August 15, 2012 at 8:36 am:
“…when EVERY national science academy in the world and EVERY scientific organization in the world still agrees AGW is real.”
=====================================================
This looks so much like untrue. It is practically impossible to be true. Or did all the member of the Academies voted? It would be absurd, because the most members do not study AGW and have the same source of information as others, namely TV and newspapers.
Let us take the American National Academy of Science as an example. Did all the 2,200 members and 400 foreign associates vote to approve the AGW concept or was it just the leadership (http://www.nasonline.org/about-nas/leadership/nas-council.html) ? I mean, the most members have nothing to do with the “climate science”. Even the most members of the “Leadership and Governance” have nothing to do with climate professionally.
I guess it was just the president or maybe the council and not on the basis of studying the matter.
davidmhoffer says:
August 15, 2012 at 8:26 am
“You began your comment with the assertion that you were a warmist by other people’s standards. You attempted to imply something that anyone who is familiar with your comments knows is not the case. As for being polite, positing an equivalence between fair debate on climate and the tactics of Intellgient Design is a slimeball remark that is no less slimey for having been politely delivered.”
1) By the sceptical standards of WUWT, I am a warmist.Greenpeace would regard me as far too moderate. Perspective tends to depend on where the observer stands.
2) I’m in this because I enjoy scientific debate, which is more fun if you can find someone with different views from your own. I am currently having a wonderful time on the current Sea Ice thread. Most of my comments do relate to the science, though I confess to a rather whimsical sense of humour on political issues!
3) In the US everything from science to religion seems to end up as a political debate. From this observer’s viewpoint I see little difference between the political tactics of the climate sceptics and the creationists. Both are trying to pass off what is essentially a belief system as science. If you are offended by the comparison, my apologies, but it does not change my view of the political reality.Considering the way in which the Heartland Institute is managing its affairs at present I doubt any request for open debate would be taken seriously anyway. The Unabomber poster killed that possibility stone dead, and many of their old supporters are now scrambling to dissociate themselves from the Institute.
Mr Watts is showing the proper way to debate climate change. Produce proper, publishable, science which can be seriously addressed by other scientists. If the sceptics can show interpretations of the various sets of data that provide a better fit than cAGW, they will eventually prevail. If not, then not.
Despite the repeated assertions of some posters here, there is no science conspiracy. Scientists hate to be wrong. If you can show that your approach is better, it will eventually become accepted, though you may have to wait for some of the older and more intractable of the old school to die off!
Eric Grimsrud;
Please note Greg House’ remark which said in part:
“So, I am asking for the scientific experimental proof that CO2 works the way the warmists say it does.”
I challenge you to convince Greg House as to the effects of CO2. Should be trivial for a PhD in chemistry who has written a free book on the greenhouse effect.
davidmhoffer:
As you know, I agree with you on many things, but I am fearful that the suggestion in your post at August 15, 2012 at 9:39 am may be fulfilled.
A debate between those two would consist solely of unfounded assertions which are mostly nonsense. It would fill the thread. And it would degrade WUWT.
So, I hope your suggestion is ignored by both of them.
Richard
Greg House says:
August 15, 2012 at 9:06 am
The main foundation is, of course, the CO2 effect. So, I am asking for the scientific experimental proof that CO2 works the way the warmists say it does.
———————————–Summaries are easy. Try this one or do your own web search.
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/
A fully detailed demonstration would take a lot more detail and a lot more time.
This proof would need three parts.
1) The physics of CO2
2) The energy flow towards the Earth’s surface.
3) The energy flow back into space.
If what you call the CO2 effect is to work as described , the gas would need be transparant at visible light wavelengths, absorbing and reradiating at specific frequencies in the infrared. This can be measured in the lab.
It would need to produce back radiation of appropriate frequency detectable at the Earth’s surface, increasing with increased CO2 concentration. THis would be measured looking up form the surface.
It would need to show reduced radiation back to space in the appropriate infrared frequencies, detectable in the emmission spectum measured by satellites and correalating with CO2 concentration
If you agree that this is the type of evidence you are looking for then I can start assembling data to demonstrate that these three processes happen. I ask two things.
1) Do you accept peer reviewed science papers and data derived from them? If you are a believer in the conspiracies I would be wasting my time.
2) Is there anything I’ve missed out, that you feel you would need?
I’ve other business today, but should be able to get back to you tomorrow on this.
There is no such thing as a “greenhouse effect” and here’s why.
There is no such thing as a “greenhouse effect” or “greenhouse gases” and understanding that is very straightforward.
If the atmosphere were completely transparent to infrared energy and completely incapable of absorbing or emitting infrared energy, with the planets’ surface free to radiate directly to space, the atmosphere would still warm via conduction with the planets’ surface, but the atmosphere would not possess any means of cooling to space. That energy would be trapped in the atmosphere.
Under those conditions near-surface air temperatures would be very hot, day and night, year-round.
No, the infrared activity that is exhibited by the atmosphere isn’t a warming effect at all, it is a cooling effect that keeps near-surface air temperatures much cooler than they would be otherwise. It is how the atmosphere cools to space. Without this atmospheric infrared activity near-surface air temperatures would be very hot. There wouldn’t be any ice anywhere on the planet. The infrared activity that is exhibited by the atmosphere isn’t a “greenhouse effect” at all, it is a refrigeration effect!
The warmists have the science upside-down and backwards. There is no such thing as a “greenhouse effect” or “greenhouse gases”. Humans have no effect on the weather or climate at all because, well, we are just too puny. Many people would rather believe that mankind is great and grand, capable of affecting the weather and climate, but it’s just not so.
“Anthropogenic Global Warming” is a hoax. People are being conned and this nonsense needs to stop.