Heartland Institute: Keep Climate Denial out of Our Schools

continued

3. How do we arrive at the conclusion that the current warming pattern (assuming it exists) is significantly higher than past occurrences and how do we conclude that such event is caused by CO2, and that CO2 is the most significant root cause over the many other documented natural factors, and their interactions that have cause global warming (and cooling) over the course of long ago as well as recent Earth history.
4. If we are relatively close to a significant cold asperity in the present warm period (ie little Ice Age), why shouldn't we expect a peak heat asperity in the next few years or decades and for that peak to be naturally caused?
If you can provide this (and please don't direct me to the typical links, you know which ones they are), I will sign.

I am part of a non-partisan parent forum involved in reviewing educational content. We have reviewed some of the (proposed and current) science curriculum developed for the subject of Climate Change. Frankly, we find it lacking in both completeness, but also as a tool to educate proper scientific process.
It seems agreed by all scientists on both sides of the argument that the Earth has a long history of temperature fluctuations (Ice Age to Warm Periods) of total global average temperature amplitude of around 10°C . Also, during these periods the global temperature seems to have somewhat stabilized for centuries to a number of millennia with periodic oscillations on the order of 1-3°C. This is well understood in the scope of thermal science that can easily be taught at the high school level.
So, what we don't see and feel needs to be in the curriculum include the following.
1. How do the scientist arrive at the conclusion that we are closer to the end of a warm period (temps to trend downward), as opposed to the beginning (temps could fluctuate upward naturally)? It seems the length of these peak dwells have varied significantly over the Earth history.
2. How do scientist arrive at the conclusion that temperatures are rising faster than ever before? It seems well agreed the temperature proxies of tree rings, ice cores, etc. are somewhat effective as a general period temperature assessment but are also affected by other factors and do not show the year-to-year, decade to decade rate of change with a high degree of accuracy. So the question is if we can't measure rate of change accurately from this data, how do we make the conclusion current global temperatures are rising faster than ever before?
3. How do we arrive at the conclusion that the current warming pattern (assuming it exists) is significantly higher than past occurrences and how do we conclude that such event is caused by CO2, and that CO2 is the most significant root cause over the many

Bob writes in comment #33:
"You want to play on their team? Your choice. But don't expect me to treat you with a single speck of respect.

BTW, "The near-term warming that the early models predicted has not occurred" is factually incorrect. The planet has continued to warm ever since the very first climate change model was created."

Science isn't a team sport where good and evil clash to the death and we should stop using language that suggests that is going on. If the facts are on your side you should talk about the facts, not about possible motives of skeptics. That just takes you off message. If Heartland wants to fund some conferences for climate change skeptics this is hardly a cause for alarm. Skeptics abound in most fields--and on occasion they are even right--but where their arguments are weak they have little impact. Sound results, for example the temperature measurements recently revisited by Muller and coworkers, can stand up to close scrutiny. The climate models are more tentative and would benefit from careful review and further development.

Bob quibbles with my statement: "The near-term warming that the early models predicted has not occurred." Certainly the magnitude of warming predicted for 2000-2011 by most of the models was too high, and it should have been clear from the context that this was what I was referring to when I was critical of the climate fields underemphasis on uncertainty estimates. Bob will naturally point to lots of variable trends that could explain this warming lull, and he may be correct, but this clearly indicates the models are not robust enough to make accurate near term predictions that would allow for clear validation tests. The models should be more accurate at predicting the long term trends and the projections do contain cause for concern. It would however be an overstatement to say they are settled science.
Steven

I want to, and choose to, "use language such as 'denier force' and the like that" because I'm damned tired of "friends of fossil fuels" continued spreading of lies.

You want to play on their team? Your choice. But don't expect me to treat you with a single speck of respect.

BTW, "The near-term warming that the early models predicted has not occurred" is factually incorrect. The planet has continued to warm ever since the very first climate change model was created.

Warming continues today. Positive global temperature trends have become small or insignificant in the past decade. But nothing in climate models claims significant warming year after year.

We're just now hitting the bottom of a solar cycle, that alone will dampen down observed warming. The Sun and ENSO cycles add variability.

Furthermore if you consider the amount of energy that has gone into melting polar ice one should not be surprised that overall planetary temperatures have not risen more than they have. Combine small amounts of atmospheric warming and massive amounts of ice melt and it's clear that warming continues.

Hi:

'....I don't see why you would want to use language such as 'denier force' and the like that...'

..because in case you live in a cave, 2.6 Trillion $ (O&G yearly gross by their own statement before congress) in the structure of today's world is A FORCE!! in all social and physical regards from ethics to truth to killing etc.. no area is safe from it. That is why the term is CORRECTLY used!!

.....Bill

Bob,
I small minority thought the temperature measurements were suspect and that concern has been quieted. The accuracy of future predictions has always been the main point of contention--at least by serious scientists.

As for your remark "Here's the new denier attack - 'Well, the climate models are not 100% accurate, so let's keep on burning coal and oil.' " :
We should note that it has never been a question of the models being 100% accurate but whether or not they are even qualitatively accurate. The effect of CO2 will appear as a raising baseline amid an array of highly variable effects. If you cannot model the various variable effects correctly (and don't even know what all of them are) and much of how water vapor responds to other changes is poorly understood, the modeling becomes complex and can only make semi-quantitative predictions. Much more work is needed before near-term temperature trends will be reliable. The near-term warming that the early models predicted has not occurred, which naturally has increased doubts about all the predictions. Many in the climate community would have profited from a clearer understanding of uncertainty estimation before making predictions and would have been better served if they properly communicated the uncertainties in their models. That the extent of the threat is uncertain isn't an argument for inaction, so the environmentalists still have the better of the argument. The usual requirement is that something be proven safe before it is permitted, and there is no credible argument to suggest burning large quantities of coal is safe. I don't see why you would want to use language such as "denier force" and the like that make the discussion seem like a religious war, rational people do not want to feel like that are taking policy advice from zealots....
Steven

Anon Steve - this is an absolute crock ...

" The work of Muller and coworkers supported the reliability of current temperature measurements; this is good news because it confirms that we are gathering accurate data on current temperatures. However, there was not significant concern about these data in the first place."

There was no significant concern about the data among climate scientists, but people like Heartland and Anthony Watts were pushing "concern" and "the planet is not getting hotter" 24/7.

Muller, et al. was funded by fossil fuel interests in an attempt to support denier-dom and it resulted in a massive fail for the fossil fuel industry. In the end, Muller and the other scientists involved decided to behave like scientists and not like industry shills.

If you paid attention to the Muller study they found that not only is the planet warming, but it's likely warming somewhat faster than what other studies had found.

Muller et al. included far more pieces of temperature data than most studies had used. Climate change deniers had been arguing that the "truth" was hidden in this unused data. And they were shown to be wrong.

When that happened a whole bunch of deniers/supports of burning fossil fuels retreated and regrouped. They (you?) now claim that "everyone recognizes the planet is warming" and then turn their FUD to the uncertainty of how much/how fast the climate will change.

Here's the new denier attack - "Well, the climate models are not 100% accurate, so let's keep on burning coal and oil."

You want to fight on the denier force? Up to you.

And more FUD from John -

""Like the scientists exposed then by leaked emails from East Anglia University's Climatic Research Unit, her colleagues from the BEST project seem to be trying to 'hide the decline' in rates of global warming."

At least six high level investigations found that there was no scientific misconduct in the stolen East Anglia emails.

The Heartland Institute, while screaming about someone inappropriately obtaining factual information about their operation, continues to post this junk about climate emails.

And people like John spread it for them....

More FUD from John.

Roy Spencer's credentials are far from impeccable. He's pretty much made a laughingstock of himself in the scientific world. Roy has made major mistakes in processing data and has published papers which have been shot full of holes by other people in the field. Roy pushes hypotheses which aren't supported by existing data.

Curry has her head up her butt if she claims that warming has stopped since the end of the 1990s. Who you going to believe - Curry or NASA?

"All three major global surface temperature reconstructions show that Earth has warmed since 1880. Most of this warming has occurred since the 1970s, with the 20 warmest years having occurred since 1981 and with all 10 of the warmest years occurring in the past 12 years. Even though the 2000s witnessed a solar output decline resulting in an unusually deep solar minimum in 2007-2009, surface temperatures continue to increase."

That's what NASA has to say.


John, I sure hope you're getting paid for posting this stuff. I'd have a tiny bit more respect for you if I knew you had sold yourself out for a paycheck than to know that you actually believed the stuff you shovel.

Now Bob, calling someone a "deluder" (as in comment 21) or a liar isn't a very productive way to convince anyone of a particular set of facts. Neither is overstating claims.

In this debate there are some things virtually everyone agrees on and there are key issues where there is spirited debate and no consensus. Why try to conflate the two unless you feel your position on the latter is weak. For example you state: "Judith Curry was an author of the Berkeley climate change paper along with Richard Muller which found that the data available does fully support global warming." The work of Muller and coworkers supported the reliability of current temperature measurements; this is good news because it confirms that we are gathering accurate data on current temperatures. However, there was not significant concern about these data in the first place. The work of Muller et al. says nothing about the reliability of the climate models or of the amount of future warming we should expect, and it said nothing about how much of past warming was due to CO2 vs. other variables. It is vague to the point of meaninglessness to use the phrase "fully support global warming" when the study you cite does not address the key question raised here by John-Bronson, namely whether or not the climate models over- or under-predict future warming. That issue is not settled science and I don't see a problem with a reasoned debate on the merits of the models.
Steven

On the Curry/Muller debate:

"Like the scientists exposed then by leaked emails from East Anglia University's Climatic Research Unit, her colleagues from the BEST project seem to be trying to 'hide the decline' in rates of global warming.

In fact, Prof Curry said, the project's research data show there has been no increase in world temperatures since the end of the Nineties – a fact confirmed by a new analysis that The Mail on Sunday has obtained.

'There is no scientific basis for saying that warming hasn't stopped,' she said. 'To say that there is detracts from the credibility of the data, which is very unfortunate.'


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2055191/Scientists-said-climate-change-sceptics-proved-wrong-accused-hiding-truth-colleague.html#ixzz1nnqS3DYZ

This was an event sponsored by Heartland. I think everyone will find it a great deal more balanced and professional than the Al Gore 'child exploitation' video posted above.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=potLQR7-_Tg

Also, below is a list of prominent global warming skeptics. Their credentials are impeccable, and Dr. Roy Spencer IS included in the list.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

Anonymous Steven, congratulations, you engage in the same sort of dishonest behavior as John. You take a statement and twist it into something that was not said.

Give yourself a pat on your FUD-dispensing back.

Furthermore, Heartland is not supporting climate research. They are supporting the sort of distortion that you and John are practicing.

Hi:

"If the Heartland Institute wants to fund some skeptics to explore alternative theories I don't see a big problem with that."

You should. There is NO SEARCH FOR TRUTH IN THE KOCH BROTHERS!!. Period!! It is called a search for more money to add to their 60 Billion $ stock pile. The whole purpose for all the organizations they "touch" is to confuse the public to achieve inaction. Again, period. If you cannot see even such simple truths, then you may have knowledge and intelligence, but lack as many do common sense, in short naive...

.....Bill

Bob writes in comment #21:
"Again, the vast, vast majority of climate scientists and scientific organizations are in complete agreement on the major issues."

Virtually everyone agrees that CO2 levels are climbing due to fossil fuel use and that this will affect the climate. There is, however, enormous uncertainty about how much warming we are in for and what the most feasible approach to addressing this is. I would call those major issues for which there isn't any consensus--in contrast to Bob's claim. The extant climate models are cause for real concern but no one would be wise to bet the farm on these results. It would be prudent to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels for a great many reasons including the significant chance of adversely altering the climate. However, the notion that our current predictions for climate change are beyond reproach is unhelpful. If the Heartland Institute wants to fund some skeptics to explore alternative theories I don't see a big problem with that. The proponents of the current climate models have often been guilty of sloppy work and overstated claims, so they could use a few skeptics that will prod them to sharpen their game.
Steven

John, you're really earning your merit badge as a deluder.

You've done a great job of turning the finding that 97% of climate scientists agree that man is changing the Earth's climate to a worthless discussion about the amount of agreement over the details.

Dishonest, John, just plain dishonest behavior on your part.

Roy Spencer, as I pointed out is no longer a climate change denier. He is, as your link points out, trying to put the blame on something other than CO2. The problem is, his ideas are not supported by data. He proposes alternate explanations for observed climate change and he gets slapped down by the data.

Judith Curry was an author of the Berkeley climate change paper along with Richard Muller which found that the data available does fully support global warming. I'm aware that she's tried to walk that back in her blog writings, but she's presented nothing to the scientific community that brings question to the paper she helped author. I suspect she's someone caught between scientific reality and her desire to please her denier audience.

Again, the vast, vast majority of climate scientists and scientific organizations are in complete agreement on the major issues. That you scratch around trying to find some details that you can twist in an attempt to maintain your denier status says much about you.

Also, Judith Curry studied the data and became a skeptic:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Curry

This is her blog:

http://judithcurry.com/

Bob_Wallace wrote:

"roughly 97% of all climate scientists who state that climate change is real and largely caused by humans"

Another tobacco strawman. Of course most scientists agree that CO2 absorbs more energy than Nitrogen and Oxygen. And that human activity is increasing CO2 levels. The argument is in the amount. If you were to do a poll of how many scientists agreed with Hansen's claim that temperatures would rise by 6 degrees, and sea levels by 20' by the end of this century, you would get a very small number. So far this century we have had an 11% increase in CO2, with a 0% increase in temps. If instead we had a .6 degree increase, I would be inclined to side with the alarmists. Data trumps theory.

And since you mentioned Dr. Roy Spencer, perhaps you should study what he actually does believe:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-101/

(continued)



James Hansen, Ph.D. in physics who has published a boatload of research - or - Santorum, Romney, Bachmann, and Gingrich, a bunch of lawyers and a historian?

Even Roy Spencer, a guy who managed to get a Ph.D. but has a lot of problem presenting papers that his peers find worthy of publication has admitted that climate change is real. Spencer - or - Sarah Palin?

Here's the problem that those of outside the discipline face, we've got to take someone's word. We need people who understand the science and data in depth, who know what's likely real and what's junk.

I'd suggest we go with the side that has the largest number of well-credentialed members.

If I need my appendix removed I'm handing the scalpel to a team of board-certified surgeons and not Joe the Plumber's Helper.

I'm going to bet that you don't have an advanced degree in an area relevant to climate science nor are you well versed in the scientific research that applies to climate change. My graduate work was not in any of those areas, nor have I read more than a handful of papers in their original.

That leaves us both dependent on the people who are experts. So who are the experts we would be best off trusting?

NASA, the agency that puts satellites in space, man on the Moon and rovers on Mars - or - Anthony Watts, a TV weatherman who, as far as I can determine, didn't go to college?

The US military - or - Limbaugh and Beck, neither of whom finished a single year of college?

The roughly 97% of all climate scientists who state that climate change is real and largely caused by humans - or - the less than 3% who claim otherwise and include people like Fred Singer, a physicist who used to work for the tobacco industry and told us that second hand smoke wouldn't hurt us and now works for the fossil fuel industry?

Essentially every worldwide scientific organization - or - a small handful of private organizations, many of whom receive funding from the fossil fuel industry or are dedicated to pushing a far right agenda?

Energy Secretary Chu, Ph.D. in physics and Nobel Prize winner for his outstanding research - - or - "Lord" Christopher Mockton who holds an undergraduate degree in Greek and Latin along with a certificate of journalism?


Used-to-be skeptics Judith Curry and Richard Muller who spent a couple of years studying the raw data and came to the conclusion that the climate is indeed warming - or - an Oklahoma senator with a degree in law?

James Hansen, Ph.D. in physics who has published a boatload of research - or - Santorum, Romney, Bachmann, and Gingrich, a bunch of lawyers and a historian?

(out of space)

Anonymous wrote:

"And the blogger Maggie Fox herself is nothing more than a former shill for the Sierra Club, who took millions from a gas company to attack the coal industry."

Even that is perhaps more respectable than working for "The Climate Reality Project". An organization run and funded by the sex crazed poodle himself:

http://climaterealityproject.org/

Also, they describe the kid in this video as a "trained climate presenter". Perhaps a more apt description would be "children exploited for political purposes".

+1 for sticking to RE.

John-Bronson,

I would agree with your posts refuting those attempting to claim the high-ground using "science" and "facts". Peter Gleick has been exposed as an outright fraud. And the blogger Maggie Fox herself is nothing more than a former shill for the Sierra Club, who took millions from a gas company to attack the coal industry.

I have far more faith in the opinions of scientists like William Happer of Princeton, than I do of eco-propagandists like Maggie Fox.

I'm a firm believer in the value of renewable energy technology. But I also feel that a journal like Renewable Energy World does itself a disservice by promoting political rhetoric instead of sticking to science. As an engineer, I would prefer to see Renewable Energy World editors focus solely on technical content, and ignore politics.

Would you editors rather have the respect of scientists and engineers, or politicians and activists?

This story gets more interesting by the day. It appears that Peter Gleik (the global warming scientist who released the Heartland memo to bloggers), appears to have written the document himself.

http://heartland.org/press-releases/2012/02/20/statement-heartland-institute-peter-gleick-confession

thomas-mayrand-14505 wrote:

'Perhaps a field trip to a local greenhouse in the dead of winter will help students to understand first hand how CO2 can warm an environment.'

That's a good one. Just make sure and measure the CO2 level inside the greenhouse to show that it's LOWER than the CO2 level outside.

Are all of the signatories on this letter liars as well?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203646004577213244084429540.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Science that can not be questioned is not science - it's politics.

Perhaps a field trip to a local greenhouse in the dead of winter will help students to understand first hand how CO2 can warm an environment. I've always been skeptical about teachings in schools, especially history and science, both of which seem to change and conflict over time. Math is the only science that rings true, numbers don't lie, unless of course the data is fudged which always seems to be the case when "scientist" make reports to report "scientific findings" as proposed by their employers....

Hi:

I was watching Bioneers yesterday, 2010, and Jim Hansen was presenting. What an excellent presentation. The data and concepts are so over whelming when you don't just select out just what you want to support your current lie. The KOCH brothers have an amazing list of fronts, Heartland, and CATO are just two of them. They are responsible for or donate to:

Americans for Prosperity
John Birch Society (co-founded by father Fred Koch)
Kansas Policy Institute
Reason Foundation & Reason Magazine
CATO Institute
Heritage Foundation
Freedom Works
The Federalist Society
Mackinac Center
Manhattan Institute for Policy Research
Heartland Institute
The Franklin Center for Public integrity
ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council)
Reason Foundation (This ones title is my personal favorite)
Institute For Justice
FREE (Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment)
Mercatus center
Maclver Institute
The Lynde and Harry Bradley foundation
Tea Party Tool Box
CSE (Citizens for a Sound Economy)
WatchDog.org
Live From Cancun
Institute for Justice
Media Research Center

That is quite an impressive list capable of generating an incredible amount of misinformation and outright lies. But as they say, buyer beware....

.....Bill

I'm all for teaching the science that refutes global warming.

Problem is, there just isn't any.

Cherry-picking data points isn't science.

Trying to prove that climate models don't work by using 20 year old models rather than state of the art models doesn't refute global warming. It just shows that 20 year old models weren't highly accurate. And that just talks about models, not what is happening to the climate.

Using a small portion of a highly variable temperature record isn't good science. And calling an ocean temperature record that is obviously rising "basically flat" isn't real science.

Heartland/Watts are liars. Anyone who lets themselves be fooled by those players are fools.

For anyone with an open mind on the subject, there's a great article laying out the opposing theories at Watts' site:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/26/the-skeptics-case/#more-57635

@dennis-houghton-41194

So your idea of "good science" is a computer model with variables chosen at random, or perhaps chosen to produce a specific preconceived result? Computer models that have been proven wrong against actual measured temperatures for the past 15 years?

A science teacher explaining how wrong is right. Orwell would indeed be proud.

The science class project mentioned above is a great idea as a learning tool. Not about AGW or CO2 or politics but specifically the difference between what is called "good science" and "bad science". My class will learn about the importance of apparatus setup, accurate measurements and the limits of instrumentation. They will learn that experimental results which fall inside the instrumentation error band, while valid, should not be used to draw conclusions about rate or direction of change, if any. They will learn that a model of the earth's biosphere entropy is very complex and must include dozens of variables which are completely ignored in a simple science class project.

Mr Bronson's bet is safe. His suggested experiment will produce no valid conclusion about AGW or CO2. It may well produce opinions, everybody has one.

Obfuscation and false equivalency are very powerful anti-science tools. Orwell must be proud, except he's dead.

Here's my idea for science class - give the students a CO2 bottle, measuring equipment, and aparatus so they can run some tests themselves. Then they can see first hand if a 400 ppm increase in CO2 will cause a 3 degree C increase in temperature (as the global warming proponents claim). I'll bet it won't.

John-Bronson,

Good point. Public schools should stick to teaching established science in science classes, and not politics. It's OK to discuss the theory of AGW with school kids, but they should also be taught about scientific views opposing AGW. Then they would be free to make up their own minds about the issue. Isn't that what the educational experience is supposed to be all about, teaching kids how to think and not what to think?

We all accept that the vast majority of public school teachers have leftist political leanings. And that's OK, as long as they keep their politics out of the classroom. But when I hear Ms. Fox denouncing anyone who does not blindly accept the conventional AGW theory as a "climate denier", I become a bit saddened. Seriously Ms. Fox, do you honestly believe that those who don't fully accept AGW theory actually deny that "climate" exists? Instead, as good scientific process dictates, shouldn't they correctly take the position that AGW theory remains unproven? If you have an open mind, you should applaud those that question the conventional wisdom, rather than attacking them.

Ms. Fox says political advocacy groups like Heartland have no place in the class room, and I would agree. But would she also say the same about groups like the Sierra Club (which incidentally took $25 million from the natural gas company Chesapeake)?

I'm happy to listen to high school student Corey Husic make her case. But neither her nor Ms. Fox will convince me with tired political rhetoric or sophomoric name calling. Instead they must make their case with established fact and logic. Otherwise, they are no better than those propagandists they denounce like Heartland.

Hi:

Interesting read... I think allot of the time, academics get to far buried in the trees and loose sight of the forest. That is NOT to say that data isn't important. Of course it is. And it is also NOT to say that everything is relative and therefore TRUTH can not exist independent of the observer. It simply means that, in laymens terms, you can not analyze complex systems without knowledge and COMMON SENSE. Albert Einstein was brilliant, but they say he had trouble just going shopping. From a common sense perspective, when you add more energy to a system, like earth because of increased solar gain due to CO2, (independent of source variability) increased volatility, I.E. less stability, the breaking of norms, would be the first sign. That is certainly where we are today. Second, ice expanses and duration, all of which are shrinking whether it be the ice caps, glaciers, Winter lake ice, ground freezing etc.. year over year is rapidly going down the toilet. There is a tendency to singularize cause and effect. We can be hugely causing global warming via CO2 while simultaneously the solar output may be causing net cooling. Does this mean there is no global warming? Of course not. If a person is walking towards a cliff and keeps walking faster, then starts to run, but a third variable grabs on to the back of his shirt and slows him down, does this mean that he is no longer running to fall off the cliff? NO. It just means that for the moment his action is being mitigated. When the third variable lets go of the shirt, watch out. We have certain capabilities which are increasing every day to try and understand the short, mid and long term effects of all the complex systems on this planet.

The single biggest threat to this is not misinterpreting the data, but to MONEY AND GREED replacing truth and the scientific process that pursues it.

.....Bill

"It would be the height of irresponsibility to urge our schools to teach something known to be untrue."

It sure would.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-warming--Cycle-25-need-worry-NASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html

Hi:

Great Vid, very nicely done... I particularly like the flat earth and sun orbit: Heartland, CATO, etc. on and on.. 60 Billion dollars can buy allot of lies. KOCH brothers are still alive along with their assets.... you know, where is a drunk driver or an off course bus when you need them. It is a shame that just certain wealthy pieces of krap can not be the daily victims of random accidents.... or rather than a Gabrielle Giffords, lets substitute the above...

.....Bill