Heartland Institute Creating One-Page Climate Summaries Geared Toward Policymakers and Teachers

Via press release.

ARLINGTON HEIGHTS (March 12, 2020) – The Heartland Institute is excited to announce a groundbreaking new tool for policymakers, teachers, and anybody else interested in climate change. Heartland’s new ClimateAtAGlance.com website provides powerful, concise, one- or two-page summaries of the most important topics in the climate change debate.  

Today’s climate debate is often fought over sound-bites and bullet points. Heartland has broken down 20 of the most frequently argued climate issues into short, “at-a-glance” summaries that provide the most important, accurate, powerful information. Bullet-points at the top of each summary provide quick, memorable information.

After the bullet-points, short summaries of a paragraph or two provide additional depth. Many of the summaries are illustrated with one or two memorable visual graphs. Links embedded in the summaries allow readers to verify the information and find additional in-depth information.

The Heartland Institute will be regularly adding many additional summaries, with a goal of doubling the number of summaries during the course of the year.

Some topics covered in first 20 summaries, which include PDF versions for printing and distribution:

Ocean Currents, Snowpack, Urban Heat Islands, Sea Level Rise, Hurricanes, Crop Production, Drought, Coral Reefs, and the “Consensus” on what are the main drivers of climate change and how dangerous it is.

The “Climate at a Glance” summaries are designed to provide a library of solid yet simple rebuttals so that legislators, teachers, students, and others can easily refute the exaggerations of the so-called “climate crisis.” Armed with a concise summary of the best scientific, economic, and public policy information, people can better articulate Climate Realism and fight back against the Climate Delusion.

“Starting with 20 well-known climate change topics, ClimateAtAGlance.com will continue to expand and will eventually host dozens of concise summaries of climate-related topics,” said James Taylor, Director of The Heartland Institute’s Arthur B. Robinson Center on Climate and Environmental Policy.

“The summaries will be particularly valuable to policymakers, teachers, and students, who are often thrust into the center of the climate change debate. We invite everyone to visit ClimateAtAGlance.com for a first look at this important new tool,” Taylor added.

“The climate change issue can be very complex, and in some cases, daunting to understand. This new website does a simple encapsulation of the key issues, done in a way that is a short, easy to digest way, while being firmly rooted in the science,” said meteorologist Anthony Watts, a senior fellow at The Heartland Institute, who played a key role compiling the summaries.

To speak to Mr. Taylor or Mr. Watts about Heartland’s Climate At a Glance project, please contact Deputy Director of Communications Keely Drukala at media@heartland.org and 312/377-4000 or (cell) 312/282-1390.

###

101 thoughts on “Heartland Institute Creating One-Page Climate Summaries Geared Toward Policymakers and Teachers

  1. Excellent.

    Also needed: packet that can be dropped on editorial panel’s desk when political candidates walk in for an endorsement interview.

    Challenge them to read the material. They may not, but at least there is no excuse for their ignorance.

  2. Looks great, Anthony. Good for you and for the Heartland Institute for doing this important work.

    • Is it “Great”?

      Anthony knows the News Room. He knows he was a weather bunny with insight.

      If you hope to insight, start with trash or facts.?

      Seriously, bulletponts and memorable information?

      Start with the question, as every reporter does before getting engaged, what “cross” …

      My impression, Heartland lacks media savvy!

  3. Good work Anthony. I looked at a number of the summaries and I was impressed with how concise they were while still containing a lot of good, easy to digest information. I will start referring people to the site, but I know the hard-cases will immediately reject it because of the connection to Heartland. That’s sad, but at least I’m leading them to the water.

  4. Good idea for this. How to distribute it, especially to persons now middle-of-the-road on the issues, will be the trick. Good luck with things!

      • By accurate science you mean continuation of Fourier’s legacy of geothermal denial?

        The scientific consensus is that Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune are mainly geothermal powered. Some people simply lack imagination and understanding of scale for other planets. And since some of these other planets also have GHGs, they are further tainted from common sense.

        It just boggles the mind how sheepish people are.

        • Zoe
          you said The scientific consensus is that Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune are mainly geothermal powered
          You know what “geo” mean, resp. you know what the origin of the word is ?
          What are Jupiter, Saturn and Neptune not ?

          • Krishna,
            Thanks. That is simply the best and most important criticism one can make.

            There’s no better way to get people to consider and understand geothermal than to use a different term(s) for other planets.

            Of course you are correct … and?

            Have you considered that sometimes pursuasion is more important than etymology?

        • Zoe, I don’t know and don’t really care what you think Fourier denied, nor what you think the outer planets have to do with the so-called “greenhouse effect” on Earth. But on your web site you wrote that “mainstream greenhouse gas theory lacks empirical evidence,” and ” the Greenhouse Effect… is nothing but ideological mathematics that has never been empirically validated,” both of which are nonsense.

          From your comments here it appears that either you also think that, “1) heated water CANNOT create steam, or else you think that “2) steam CANNOT heat water by preventing its cooling.” I don’t know which, but, either way, you’re wrong.

          • Your comment can be summarized as ”
            I don’t know, I don’t care, but you wrong. Now let me twist what you said and make a strawman.”

          • Forget about individual comments.
            Zoe’s entire schtick can be summarized as “Ignorance feels good, but not as good as being a sh!thead”.

            It is hard to ever be wrong when the only things that are true are the thoughts in one’s head, and “making things up as you go” counts as “knowledge”.

    • No, there are 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary, and those who don’t.

      A desert climate at 1 AM feels like you are directly exposed to the cold of outer space. A continental climate at 1 AM feels like you are being caressed by Mother Nature. I would say that the radiation from water vapor keeps me warm.

      • “I would say that the radiation from water vapor keeps me warm.”

        And you would be wrong. The issue is heat capacity.

        A desert still has a higher day&night average temperature.

        • Zoe Phin – March 12, 2020 at 1:37 pm

          commieBob“I would say that the radiation from water vapor keeps me warm..

          And you would be wrong. The issue is heat capacity.”

          Zoe Phin, ….. “heat capacity” doesn’t warm anything, ….. any more than a “gas tank” keeps your car engine running. The “heat capacity” of a molecule is equivalent to the “gallon capacity” of a fuel tank.

          And “YES”, the heat radiation from water vapor will keep you warm, but not very damn warm.

          Heat conduction from the “warm” H2O vapor molecules is what WILL keep your body warm.

          Zoe Phin –

          A desert still has a higher day&night average temperature.

          Zoe Phin, you don’t know much about ‘deserts’ around the world, do you, …. to wit:

          Antarctica: In terms of sheer size, the Antarctic Desert is the largest desert on Earth,

          Zoe, a night course at a Community College would do wonders for your science knowledge.

          • Samuel, what the point of comparing the tropics to antarctica?
            Obvious I meant a desert at similar latitude as a rainforest (lots of water vapor).

            We want to establish the effect of water vapor not insolation.

          • Obvious I meant a desert at similar latitude as a rainforest (lots of water vapor).

            “STRIKE FOUR”, ……. Zoe Phin, ….. associating “deserts” with ” lots of water vapor” is an oxymoron.

      • “A desert climate at 1 AM feels like you are directly exposed to the cold of outer space.”

        Outer space is not cold. It has no temperature- it’s neither hot nor cold.
        Spacesuits are designed to keep a human body cool.
        ISS has large radiators to keep it cool.
        Have computer running in a desert at night and it doesn’t overheat, put in space, and it will overheat {or you have design a computer so doesn’t overheat in outer space- but if computer isn’t powered/turned on, it could get very cold in outer space.
        Likewise a dead human in spacesuit in outer space will get colder than a dead human in a desert at night.

        • Contentious I agree but Space does have a temperature. It varies a little but is about 3 deg Kelvin. The supposed echo of the Big Bang can just as sensibly be be interpreted as the blackbody radiation of Space itself. (This depends on what you believe is the real nature of Space. Not all of us subscribe to the current orthodox view.)

          • Crisp is right about space having a temperature, but can anybody explain why? (hint, think about what temperature is a measurement of)

        • gbaikie,
          You do know that there is a distinction between the two concepts of “outer space”, and “solar radiation”, or no?
          Are those large radiators needed because of space, or because of the rays of the Sun?
          Does a space suit of someone doing a space walk in orbit around Pluto need to keep the astronaut cool?
          You think the environment that the space station orbits in has no temperature?
          Seriously?
          The sentence you are criticizing may be imprecisely phrased, but what you say is even worse, IMO.

          • –Nicholas McGinley March 12, 2020 at 11:58 pm
            gbaikie,
            You do know that there is a distinction between the two concepts of “outer space”, and “solar radiation”, or no?
            Are those large radiators needed because of space, or because of the rays of the Sun?–

            Dealing with the rays of the sun, would be easy, and needing a big refrigerator is expensive.
            I would say it has do mainly with the energy use or activity within ISS. Or without solar panels working, and therefore station get no electrical energy which in turn generates heat, it might get cooler in ISS. Or at least, one should design the Space Station so it would be.
            ISS is also a bit warmer because it’s close to Earth- or one should design ISS to cooler then one would design it, if it wasn’t in LEO.
            Or Apollo 13 was somewhat cold, due to lack of electrical power {because all the power they had was limited battery power and they had to shut down everything because they needed electrical power to control the spacecraft {so it could safely entering Earth atmosphere and deploy the parachute}.

            “Does a space suit of someone doing a space walk in orbit around Pluto need to keep the astronaut cool”

            You would design it so, you need to keep astronaut cool- unless you wanted spacesuit for a sleeping or inactive astronaut. Do this could be done- though feet and hands probably need heating elements {or could a easier solution to have warmed gloves, particularly if astronaut will need to handle cold things in that space environment].

        • The basic fact is the human body doesn’t cool much from radiate heat loss. What cool a human body is mostly related to evaporation cooling. Or this is why warm humid weather feels hot and why hot dry deserts are not as hot as one might imagine.
          Also human body can largely cooled air convectional heat loss. Or 15 C water will kill a human [it’s obviously not losing heat via evaporation- unless one gets out of the water] but the cold water is robbing more heat than a body can generate. And also by heat conduction- having dry {and good shoes/boots} are key to keeping warm in cold weather. And obviously sleeping directly on cold wet ground is a way to die from the cold. In cold weather don’t get wet- and don’t get wet from sweating.

          • Yes, and the space station has very good thermal insulation, so that the walls are not blazing hot in one side and frigid my cold in the other.
            Do you think a naked person in space, that was not in the rays of the Sun, would not lose much heat from radiation?
            They would not freeze to a corpsicle from conduction or convection.
            There is not one process of another going on at any given time.
            How a body cools or warms on the Earth is not an either or thing.

          • “Do you think a naked person in space, that was not in the rays of the Sun, would not lose much heat from radiation?”

            A human body will evaporate water in an very extreme way and it loses heat by breathing. And/or breathing cold air will lose heat quickly. So naked person is unconscious {if they response properly] in 30 seconds, or dead in less than 30 seconds, if doing the wrong thing. If starting with 14.7 psi {1 atm} of pressure, your lungs will “break”/be damaged at that pressure going into vacuum. Human can operate at 5 psi of pressure, and lungs probably don’t break at that pressure if going into vacuum.
            And water boils in vacuum, and water ice evaporate quite fast in a vacuum, water will evaporate and cool to about -150 C in a vacuum, though evaporate quicker at -50 C rather than -150 C.
            Even dry dead outer skin has a lot water in it, which evaporate and freeze within an hour {or within minutes] if one has a naked body in space. So assuming damp or normal outer skin at say 30 C will evaporate within a second or two.
            Or body not sweating in first couple of seconds {or ever after this} but rather it has sweated before getting into vacuum.
            Or if human body had extremely, extremely dry skin before stepping out in space, what I am saying next does not apply:
            The human body has about 2 square meters of surface area and 1 square meter which has 1 mm of water “depth” is 1 kg of water.
            The latent heat of 1 kg of water evaporating in an Earth atmosphere is about “2,260 kJ/kg” or
            2,260,000 joules of heat loss if occurs in 1 second that is 2,260,000 watt seconds of heat loss {per square meter}.
            In vacuum it’s more than this and 0 C ice is evaporating and so have latent of forming ice {added heat- added warmth if 0 C counts as warmth} but it’s also directly subliming into space {making ice colder than 0 C}.
            One also say one is freeze drying a human body faster than any freeze dry process ever used on Earth.
            Let see how fast does freeze drying work {google it}:
            “Freeze drying is a water removal process typically used to preserve perishable materials, to extend shelf life or make the material more convenient for transport. Freeze drying works by freezing the material, then reducing the pressure and adding heat to allow the frozen water in the material to sublimate.”
            So, you are freezing the skin {quickly}, but not heating the surface. So if you were in sunlight [1360 watts per square meter] the side in sunlight would like freeze drying- but you have much better vacuum.
            So in sunlight you freeze and side not in sunlight, surface get colder {dead outer skin and living skin freezes solid {and should insulate it from further extreme heat loss- though the pain from all the living flesh dying {may or may not be very painful- shock can prevent pain}.
            So if there is enough power of sunlight {Venus distance or closer} and naked body was rotating, one would freeze dry and kill the body, quicker. Or one probably save a life with rescue {the person is unconscious within about 30 seconds] and have less permanent damage- if not in sunlight. But more than 1/2 hour probably could not be rescued and medically treated- though human bodies frozen have been been restore after crazy long time periods- so it is not a certainty, though being largely freeze dried seems to be a more certain death}.

            “They would not freeze to a corpsicle from conduction or convection.”

            You have to something to keep a human in a pressurized environment, the minium air pressure is something like 2.5 psi and at pressure need highly concentrated oxygen to breath.
            So to live, one could be a plastic body bag which filled with pure oxygen at 2.5 psi. And being warm would not be the problem if at Pluto distance from Sun.
            And could design plastic bag so not too hot at Earth or even Venus distance from the Sun.
            A tight plastic suit gets more complicated {the human body has convection heat loss thru the plastic] but air particularly 2.5 psi air does not convect or radiate much heat}.
            Oh, evaporation will condense and freeze on inside of bag- but if limited to a couple hours, it shouldn’t be much of a factor- and over such time periods have add oxygen and you get a build up of CO2.

    • You know you have lost the argument when the only way you can win is by lying about what the other side is saying.

      Your point 2 resembles no argument ever made, by anyone.

      • Oh really?
        No one argues that “steam” adds 33C to the surface temperature by preventing its cooling?

        Was my allegory too difficult to understand?

        Why do I need to be in the desert at night when I can just access temperature data?

        • Your allegory was so simple that it was trivial to understand. However it’s absolutely wrong, like most of the nonsense you post.

          Since you have decided to double down on your dishonesty, I shall correct you.

          Warm air does not warm water. The sun does. The rate at which energy escapes from the water is in part controlled by the temperature of the air. The warmer the air, the slower the energy put in by the same can leave.

          Warm air does not warm water. Nobody except you and those who are intent on deceiving make that claim.

          • MarkW – March 12, 2020 at 6:05 pm

            Warm air does not warm water. The sun does..

            Warm air molecules will conduct their “heat” energy to any other cooler molecule it comes in contact with, including water.

          • I was thinking of just the IR part, which is where these arguments usually go. You are of course completely correct.

          • IOW, if you had listened to the response that was in my head, it would have made perfect sense.

          • –Zoe Phin March 12, 2020 at 6:51 pm
            OK. So you agree that GHGs do not raise surface temperature beyond what the sun alone can do?–

            A cold atmosphere will cool a ground surface- due to convectional heat loss. Or you need the surface air to be around 40 C in order to a sun near zenith to heat ground surface to about 70 C.
            This not the case with ocean surfaces, because evaporation heat loss, prevent a water surface to get much higher than 35 C.
            Or in regards to solar pond, the salty water below the surface of solar pond can reach about 80 C, regardless of surface air temperature. Or the saline gradient inhibits warmer water from rising and cooling at the surface.
            A Solar pond is a good way to store the energy from sunlight, and I would say the ocean likewise {or is similar to solar pond} is a good way to store the energy of sunlight.
            Earth’s tropical ocean is the heat engine of the world, and in terms of heating the rest of the world, the Ocean is better than solar pond. Or if replaced the tropical ocean with human made solar ponds- the tropical ocean heats the world better.
            Much of Earth’s ocean are said to be “deserts” or “sterile” by some- they lack nutrients to support life. Or one say the ocean is very transparent/crystal clear and this aspect helps the ocean be better in terms of storing energy from the sun.
            And open ocean has large rolling waves which deeply mixes the water- another factor which makes it “better”. And another aspect is the tropical ocean transports surface waters outside of the tropics. The Gulf Stream, which causes Europe to be about 10 C warmer, is well known mechanism of transporting tropical ocean heat, poleward.

            Anyways, the Ocean is the super majority of the Earth surface {about 70%}. And it controls global surface air temperature. Roughly one say the Ocean control the temperature of the air, more than the air controls the ocean surface temperature.
            The average tropical ocean surface temperature is about 26 C and it’s about 40% of the global area of ocean, the remain 60% has surface temperature of about 11 C and entire ocean average surface temperature is about 17 C- with air above it average about 17 C.
            In comparison the global land surface temperature is about 10 C, giving the global average surface air temperature of about 15 C.
            In terms of greenhouse gases, the most dominate greenhouse gas is water vapor. One could roughly say that water vapor has “warming and cooling effects” which one could discuss separately from it’s radiant effects.
            For example the latent heat of water vapor, and water vapor forms clouds which reflect sunlight and have radiant warming effects. And H2O condenses in the atmosphere- and because it condense and evaporates it effects lapse rate. Eg, one has dry lapse rate vs wet lapse rate.
            But if you exclude, all effects including cloud {water droplets] and just look H20 as a gas, it still strongest greenhouse gas in terms of solely it’s radiant effects.

        • “OK. So you agree that GHGs do not raise surface temperature beyond what the sun alone can do?”

          C’mon Zoe! This is MarkW you are arguing with. He agrees with the alarmists that atmospheric CO2 can warm the planet surface by back radiation. He just doesn’t think it is dangerous. In short, MarkW is a lukewarmer.

          GHGs either warm the surface or they don’t. Some idiots think there is a middle ground. Some idiots are useful to some other idiots.

          • Don’t bother with facts, we have a fantasy to pursue.

            Warming the earth by a few tenths of a degree isn’t a problem.
            Only those who insist on ideological purity find it necessary to reject science that goes against them.

            You and the other sky dragons act as if admitting even a few hundredths of a degree of warming means that we have to do whatever the alarmists tell us to do.

            You guys are an embarrassment to scientists everywhere.

    • Zoe,
      As long as you keep conflating heat transfer via radiation versus conduction, you will always be confused. Two other concepts often conflated are heat and energy; they are NOT the same thing. Finally, using the same language to describe the behavior of a single atom versus the average behavior of a (much larger) mass of atoms is just wrong. These three areas are where most of the contention is between the “radiation physics”, “cold object can’t warm a warmer object”, and “convection/latent heat” groups (and a lot of folks in between). They all shout past each other and it’s so obvious to me that they often are talking about different things because they use the wrong/conflated terms.

      • Paul Penrose – March 13, 2020 at 9:50 am

        Zoe,
        As long as you keep conflating heat transfer via radiation versus conduction, you will always be confused.

        Right you are Paul P, ….. but Zoe is just one (1) of millions that are guilty of said “conflating”.

        Me thinks they actually believe that the IR (infrared) longwave radiation that is being radiated from the earth’s surface ….. or from radiant gases in the atmosphere, ……. are responsible for “warming” their bodies when exposed to said.

        Those people don’t realize it but iffen they were dependent on said IR radiation to keep them warm, …. they would freeze to death post haste.

  5. We are just entering a period that will make an excellent natural experiment:
    With global recession starting and, concomitantly, a drastic decline in air travel, power consumption, et al., C02 and Methane levels might level-off for the duration. Afterwards, they might then resume their upward climb.

    So if this turns out to be so:
    1) increases are more likely than not to be human-induced
    2) if global temperatures slow their increase, then it is due to industrial-age consumption of fossil fuels. (this can be double-checked by looking at proportions of Carbon isotopes, of course)

    Heartland should fund such research … if they are not afraid of the results. Or perhaps we’ve gone past the point of no return and, in that case, we’re all F$#&ed anyway and its Mission Accomplished for Heartland and its corporate owners.

    • Yes, and it may also prove that CO2 has absolutely no influence on climate whatsoever, and the “greenhouse effect” does not exist. But you will probably claim that it’s just a coincidence.

      • When temperatures didn’t rise for almost 20 years, while CO2 levels were, the alarmists were claiming that it meant nothing.

    • Ah yes, when you have no arguments, just insult everyone who doesn’t worship as you do.

      Since CO2 has almost no impact on temperatures, why should a slow down in the rise of CO2 have any impact on the temperature of the planet?

      If these tipping points exist, why didn’t life on earth end back when CO2 levels were above 5000ppm?

    • Since when is “More likely than not” a scientific principle?
      How about looking at the big picture?
      Pay attention to everything that is known, all at once?
      Like Earth history, the entire historical record, first hand written accounts from years, decades, and centuries past, the ice core records from Greenland and Antarctica, etc?
      And discounting “adjustments” made to data from people who have a career and financial interest in a particular outcome, and make said alterations in a manner that coincidentally always transform historical data from falsifying their ideas, into charts and graphs that confirm the narrative they have staked their career and professional reputation on?
      How about that?

  6. At the ClimateAtAGlance webpage there are nice pictures with each summary topic. It might be nice to have each of those pictures inserted in the respective printable versions of the summaries, or as an option. It might be a way to encourage interest anyway.

  7. “Satellites have been measuring snow cover since 1966. Sowpack throughout the Northern Hemisphere have increased in the fall and winter,”

    sowpack!

  8. Thanks Heartland. I miss a note about co2’s role in photosynthesis !

    What could be more important ?

  9. The sea level rise paper is incomplete and misleading on several fronts:

    1) Tide gauge measurements show world wide sea level rising at about 1.5 to 2 mm/yr. It is NASA satellite measurements that suggest more like 3 mm, but with no statement as to the precision or accuracy of the satellite measurement. How does one know the elevation of a satellite to within a fraction of a millimeter to enable such results?

    2) Tide gauge measurements, some of which go back over 150 years, show no acceleration. It is only the NASA satellite data that shows acceleration.

    3) There is no information on relative sea level rise vs absolute sea level rise. It is vital that the difference be understood. For example, The Battery gauge shows a sea level rise of about +3 mm/year while The Battery GPS land elevation gauge (designated NYBP) at the same location shows subsidence at a rate of -2.25 mm/yr. GPS data are recent, only since 2009, but if not representative of subsidence for the past century or more, then absolute sea level rise at Battery Park decreased suddenly in 2009 to less than 1 mm/yr; a substantial inexplicable decline.

    4) There is no discussion of historic sea level data. Larson, et al. concluded based on sea level estimates from salt marsh data, that the relative sea level rise in the Chesapeake Bay, Long Island Sound and Cape Cod Bay areas has been rising at a rate of 1.2 to 1.4 mm/yr for the past 6,000 years with lots of ups and downs along the way. Data from Delaware Bay shows relative sea level rising at a rate of 2 mm/yr during the past 5,000 years. See Larsen et al., “A Search for Scale in Sea-Level Studies, Journal of Coastal Research, July 2006.

    Sea level rise is a vital topic in trying to understand the influence, if any, of carbon dioxide on our climate. To treat it so casually and errantly as the Heartland has done is a disservice.

    • How does one determine the exact altitude of the Satellite within Hundredths of a MM to validate their measurements?
      Simple, they bounce Lidar Lasers off the top of Michael Mann’s head as they pass over

    • DHr
      March 12, 2020 at 12:19 pm

      Yes, I quite agree…these very good points are ones that Heartland seems to have missed completely. Sea level rise and the lack of acceleration (apart from fiddled satellite data) is the Achilles heel of the Warmists.
      They should have consulted Willis before doing that paper. A real lost opportunity.

    • How does one know the elevation of a satellite to within a fraction of a millimeter to enable such results?

      well, they use the same method as for the GPS satellites. 😉

      • To my knowledge, the elevation of my backyard is not known to within a fraction of a millimeter. Not by GPS nor even by a surveyor. The surveyor may get it to a few inches perhaps, or even one inch if using a military-grade GPS receiver with long latency periods – but certainly not a fraction of millimeter. And my back yard does not undulate up to 30 feet every few seconds as ocean waves do, has no froth or breaking waves to confuse the matter, and is not affected by the gravity of nearby land masses. So again, how does a satellite determine global sea level to within a fraction of a millimeter?

  10. Ocean heat and cooling cycles of differing length need a place on the stage. So do multi-cycle sun cycles.

  11. Nice work but please get rid of the “retuned” typo (which is propagated elsewhere). It surely should be “returned”?
    >>When that happens and people purchase expensive wind and solar power, no carbon dioxide taxes are collected, so no revenue is retuned to the people.<<

  12. Anthony’s work is top-notch, and the summaries are crucial for addressing alarmists.

    The page on “Crop Production” might more clearly show increased yields. Increased “production” and “utilization” tell us more land is being sown, and its product utilized.

    Yield increases can be distilled from the lengthy tables linked, and they should be clearly shown up front, just as the alarmists do:

    …a discussion has recently started whether French yields are stagnating. While for wheat previous results are unanimously pointing to recent stagnation, there is contradictory evidence for maize and few to no results for other crops. — Yield trends, variability and stagnation analysis of major crops in France over more than a century, Schauberger, 2018

    I believe statistics will bear out increased yields worldwide.

  13. The trick is to get the average alarmist to slow down and discuss one thing at a time.

    My favorite thing is that, if the science really was solid, ‘they’ would denounce the fraudulent* hockey stick instead of embracing it.

    *Dr. Mann’s lawyers probably warned him about adverse inference. He’s between a rock and a hard place.

  14. For one thing I would take the word alarmist out of every article, teachers who read that word will be instantly turned off. Just present the facts and facts alone with cross references with those who want to investigate.

    • alarmist: “someone who is considered to be exaggerating a danger and so causing needless worry or panic.”

      News media are alarmists.
      Fox News and CNN are alarmists.
      If it bleeds it leads.
      If teachers are unaware the News outlets aren’t alarmists, they need to educated. I imagine Teachers are mostly, well aware of this.
      They might even be aware that alarmism could considered a tool used in education. Or a surprising/shocking/interest event will cause student to remember something. I still remember Anthro prof spitting on the blackboard, and saying everyone would remember it.
      Or there is not much difference between “interesting” and “alarming”, but being constantly alarming could cause students to tune it out.

  15. Heartland needs to fix all of the typos. I read the first piece on the carbon tax and saw the word ‘retuned’ instead of ‘returned’. An educational piece that goes into the schools should be reviewed enough times that it contains NO such errors, or the rest of the article (s) will be questioned.

  16. We need much more of this. There is an awful amount of misinformation in the ether. That being said, people that don’t want to understand won’t understand. We need to be much more offensive. Showing people with very stark and realistic examples what this all will make with their lives. What it will cost and that its them, and not some miracle in the sky, that will have to pay for this entire scam. Webpages are great – but we need tireless action.

  17. I’d like to see these written at differing levels of technical depth for various audiences.

  18. It comes across as cynical and emotive. Too many complicated and disjointed streams. There should be a simpler message.

    “Greenhouse gas effect” is not evident in any data. The satellite data readily demonstrates that water vapour and OLR are strongly positively correlated:
    https://1drv.ms/b/s!Aq1iAj8Yo7jNg1uzA-KKFEvD5BzX
    This is the opposite of the claimed GG effect.

    The idea that CO2 could enhance the “greenhouse effect” by increasing the amount of water vapour in a positive feedback system defies logic. If “greenhouse gasses” provided positive feedback then Earth would have boiled off all its surface water eons ago; water vapour being claimed to be the most powerful “greenhouse gas”.

  19. Anthony,

    Climate at a glance.com has too many uses of the term “alarmist”. It is divisive us/them language and exacerbates the contention. We will not attract people and solutions by being contentious. Better to remove such phrasing, stick to the science/facts only, and not point any fingers.

    Thanks,
    Nigel.

  20. The Climate at a Glance: Subsidies table is rather poor. Some explanation of the various subsidies versus legitimate tax write-offs versus actual taxes, licence fees, rent resource taxes aid is needed. Does this include local and State charges as well as Federal charges?
    It does seem strange they would select only a few years tp put in the table and looks dodgy. A complete series over say 10 years is needed.

  21. Bringing the scientific debate to the political level is in itself wrong and both sides are right and left. Denying climate change is now plain idiocy. This mistake is also tragic because the right is right on some issues like migration and crime. The left is also on the wrong track as it opposes drastic solutions such as geoengineering.

  22. Excellent summary sheets. I hope they get widely distributed and that they help bring some sanity back to the global warming discussion.

  23. Excellent concept, but (as others have stated) most teachers are not scientists and prefer to be seen as neutral on any topic that is value-laden, but the profession world-wide has been very thoroughly indoctrinateed by the Warmista in universities, teacher training institututions, etc. Teachers see combatitive language as a complete turn-off.
    Typos scream ‘UNPROFESSIONAL’ and should be edited out completely by competent proof-readers at the pre-print stage.
    With those provisos, kudos to the Heartland Institute for a practical effort to stem the tide of nonsense that is having a serious negative effect on the mental health of the world’s kids.

  24. The link to “sea level rise” states that ocean levels have been rising since 1850, which is not true. Ocean levels have risen 130 metres since the last ice age.

    During the “little ice age” sea levels would have decreased slightly for a hundred years or so but restarted rising in the late 1600s as temperatures changed from cooling to warming.

    Saying levels started rising in 1850 is an absurd proposition and only serves to give credence that our current warming cycle started in 1850.

    The article says that sea level rise is accelerating but that is only true if you believe satellite measurement. Tidal gauges all show linear change.

    Wish Heartland would do a bit more research.

Comments are closed.