voidisyinyang Posted February 27, 2019 1 hour ago, Earl Grey said: When I lived in Tanzania, we generally tried to use the same bottles again and again as often as possible because in the rural countryside, the only way to rid ourselves of waste was to burn it, and nobody wanted to burn it and also risk bringing the entire village down during a dry season. Did you see my recent Global Dimming Effect post? turns out that if all the pollution from industry stops then Earth will warm up even faster. So all these renewables and going off carbon won't help us. Quote Severe heatwave forecast for South Australia, Victoria and Tasmania https://www.news.com.au/.../severe-heatwave-forecast-for-south-australia-victoria-and-ta... 14 hours ago - “Weather records could be broken over the next week,” Sky News Weather ... has issued a warning about the threat of an “extreme heatwave”. On Monday the sate government issued a “code red” due to the heatwave threat which will remain ... In Perth, the week got off to blisteringly hot start, reaching 37C ... 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
voidisyinyang Posted February 27, 2019 (edited) On 2/26/2019 at 8:41 AM, windwalker said: explains what climate sensitivity is https://scholarsandrogues.com/2012/04/25/errors-shortcomings-void-nasa-climate-letter/ Quote Serious errors and shortcomings void climate letter by 49 former NASA employees BY BRIAN ANGLISS ON APRIL 25, 2012 • On March 28, 2012, 49 former NASA astronauts, scientists, engineers, and administrators sent a letter to NASA administrator Charles Bolden Jr. The letter requested that NASA in general and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in particular stop publishing the scientific conclusions about the human-driven causes of global climate disruption. The letter was filled with no less than six serious errors regarding the science, data, and facts of climate science. The errors, in turn, exposed that the signers had confused their fame and/or their expertise in unrelated fields with expertise in climate science. And in response, NASA’s chief scientist politely suggested that the letter’s authors and signers should publish any contrary hypotheses and data in peer-reviewed scientific journals instead of trying to censor the publication of scientific conclusions from NASA climate scientists. ———————- The first error in the letter is that the authors and signers deny that “empirical data” shows “man-made carbon dioxide” is having an impact on global climate disruption: The second error The second error is that only a few climate scientists have declared that they deny the science underlying human-driven climate disruption, not the “hundreds” the letter claims. While the letter doesn’t provide any support for this allegation (yet another serious error), this is likely a reference to Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe’s December 2008 “Senate Minority Report” of about a supposed 700 scientists who deny human-driven climate disruption. The Center for Inquiry performed a detailed analysis of Inhofe’s list and discovered that: The third error The third error is the letter’s reference to “tens of thousands of other scientists” who supposedly deny climate disruption. Unlike the vagueness of the second error, this reference can only mean one list, namely the list of approximately 31,000 alleged scientists collected by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine. While S&R debunked this list in detail three years ago, it’s worthwhile to reiterate a few key points from the original post: The fourth error (updated) The fourth error is that the letter twice uses the subjective, unscientific term “catastrophic” in reference to climate disruption. Scientists don’t use the term “catastrophic,” and there’s a good reason for that: try to define exactly what you mean by “catastrophic” in an objective way. Whether something is a catastrophe or not is a matter of opinion, and no scientist involved in climate would ever use such a subjective term to describe something that is objectively scientific. The fifth error The fifth error is that the letter claims that there hasn’t been a “thorough study” of “natural climate drivers.” Natural factors in climate change – solar variability, Milankovic cycles, volcanism, El Nino, even cosmic rays – have been investigated very thoroughly, and none of the natural factors are capable of generating the observed disruptions in the global climate. The impacts of natural drivers on climate disruption have been investigated repeatedly and in detail, as the two figures (from the Skeptical Science website) below show. The sixth error The sixth error is that the letter claims NASA is making “unproven” and “unsupported” remarks about climate disruption and asks NASA to not make any more. The analysis of the five prior errors shows just how wrong this really is – there’s a massive amount of proof and support that human activity, namely burning fossil fuels and agriculture, are the primary driver of climate disruption. But in case there’s any question of that, here’s a link to Skeptical Science’s list of climate myths, with detailed rebuttals supported by referenced peer-reviewed scientific papers in reputable journals: Taxonomy of Climate Myths. And in case that’s not enough, we can recount a few of the established physical laws and properties of CO2 that would all be wrong if human activity wasn’t the dominant driver of climate disruption today: Conservation of energy Conservation of mass Quantum mechanics Vibrational modes of CO2 Radiative transfer Isotope ratio science for carbon-12, carbon-13, and carbon-14 Radioisotopic dating et al hat’s 13 different ways we know that human activity is driving global climate disruption, and six major peer-reviewed scientific papers that describe just how much is driven by human activity vs. natural factors. The letter’s authors and signers seem to want NASA to censor the publication of scientific conclusions about human-driven climate disruption until scientists are 100% certain the conclusions are correct. This is more than just unrealistic – it’s impossible. It’s impossible to guarantee anything in science or engineering to 100% certainty, and as former employees of NASA, every one of the authors and signers knows it instinctively: Apollo 1, Apollo 13, Challenger, and Columbia, just for starters. Anyone who works for NASA – or, like I do, works for a NASA subcontractor – lives and breathes the fact that nothing can be guaranteed to 100%. Any former NASA employee who has forgotten this should be ashamed of themselves. The sixth error The sixth error is that the letter claims NASA is making “unproven” and “unsupported” remarks about climate disruption and asks NASA to not make any more. The analysis of the five prior errors shows just how wrong this really is – there’s a massive amount of proof and support that human activity, namely burning fossil fuels and agriculture, are the primary driver of climate disruption. But in case there’s any question of that, here’s a link to Skeptical Science’s list of climate myths, with detailed rebuttals supported by referenced peer-reviewed scientific papers in reputable journals: Taxonomy of Climate Myths. And in case that’s not enough, we can recount a few of the established physical laws and properties of CO2 that would all be wrong if human activity wasn’t the dominant driver of climate disruption today: Conservation of energy Conservation of mass Quantum mechanics Vibrational modes of CO2 Radiative transfer Isotope ratio science for carbon-12, carbon-13, and carbon-14 Radioisotopic dating et al And that’s just a short list. The man-made nature of climate disruption is based on so many well established, basic physical principles that it can’t be rationally disputed without shattering large portions of modern science (physics, chemistry, biology, and geology just for starters) and ignoring most of the modern technology (GPS, IR cameras, heat-seeking missiles, weather satellites, etc.) that was successfully designed and built using that science. As serious as all those errors are, each and every one of them can be corrected with education and experience. Of greater concern is the underlying causes of the errors, namely two related shortcomings on the part of all the letter’s authors and signers – the belief that their fame or their expertise in other fields automatically granted them authority to comment on climate science. Fame is no substitute for expertise Many of the 49 former NASA employees are famous for one reason or another. I counted seven who were astronauts. Gerald D. Griffin and Joe Kerwin were both part of the team that got Apollo 13 home safe, and Griffin was also the Director of the Johnson Space Center. Christopher C. Kraft developed NASA’s Mission Control concept and also served as the Director of Johnson Space Center. But while fame occasionally comes as a result of expertise, expertise is never a result of fame. If you’re not sure about this, ask yourself the following question: would you want Paris Hilton landing your commercial airliner? How confident would you be if NASA installed Snookie in Mission Control? Would you trust your retirement to George Clooney? In reality, fame grants one thing – attention. When a celebrity speaks, people listen, even if people shouldn’t. In fact, the organizers of this letter (most likely Harrison Schmitt and/or Walter Cunningham) relied on their fame as astronauts to get Fox News, Marc Morano, the Huffington Post, Anthony Watts, the Houston Chronicle and others, to report on and repeat verbatim many of the letter’s naive or dishonest statements regarding climate. Albert Einstein was the expert in relativity, and he earned his fame partly as a result of that expertise. But Einstein’s fame merely meant that people listened when he spoke, not that he was an expert on every subject on which he spoke. [See Ed. note below] In fact, he famously denied some of the weirder implications of quantum mechanics that have since been observed. Nikola Tesla claimed that relativity was something whose “exponents are brilliant men but they are metaphysicists rather than scientists,” yet relativity has also been demonstrated. Lord Kelvin, developer of the concept of absolute temperature, denied scientific data and theories that demonstrated that the Earth’s age was older than 20-40 million years. Harold Jeffreys, one of the geologists who proved that the Earth’s outer core was molten, rejected plate tectonics entirely. Those four scientists were justifiably famous, and all were brilliant scientists in their areas. But that doesn’t mean that they didn’t make mistakes, and it doesn’t mean that they always accepted the latest and best science. Each of them denied scientific theories that have since become mainstream scientific thought. Similarly, many of the former NASA employees who signed the letter earned their fame, but they’re no more experts in climate science than Einstein was in quantum mechanics or Tesla was in relativity. The large number of errors in such a short letter (227 words in four paragraphs) demonstrates that the former NASA employees do not understand climate disruption and no amount of fame, however well earned, can change that fact. Expertise is non-transferrable But even more important than the issue of fame is the fact that expertise in one field does not make anyone an expert in a different field, even one that’s closely related. I’m an expert in designing electronics to convert light and temperatures into digital data that a computer can use, but that doesn’t make me an expert at designing the computer itself, the networking equipment used to move that data around, or the antennas used to transmit it from a satellite to the ground. The skills I have that are broadly applicable to all of electrical engineering give me a leg up in designing computers, networking equipment, and antennas, but only years of experience could make me an actual expert. Given my electrical engineering expertise doesn’t make me an expert in every field of electrical engineering, I certainly can’t claim that my electrical engineering expertise makes me an expert in climate science. If I want to claim expertise in climate science, I first have to prove that I have somehow acquired the knowledge and skills of a climate expert. None of the letter’s authors or signers have any expertise in a climate-related field, and they’ve offered no proof that they have independently acquired the necessary expertise. Expertise in the effects of high levels of carbon dioxide on astronauts doesn’t make one an expert on CO2‘s effect on ecosystems. Expertise in lunar geology doesn’t make one an expert in geochemical sequestration of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Expertise in heat transfer through space shuttle heat tiles doesn’t make one an expert in heat transfer between the Earth’s surface and the atmosphere. Even expertise in weather forecasting doesn’t make the forecaster an expert on climate. No amount of expertise on one subject can magically bestow expertise on any other subject. Expertise must be earned through dedicated effort day in and day out, over the course of years. And there’s no evidence that any of the letter’s authors and signers have earned any climate expertise. Think about this for a moment. If you were in charge of the safety of the space shuttle upon re-entry, who would you listen to first – an electrical engineer like me, or an expert in the shuttle’s ceramic heat tiles? Unless I could prove that I knew what I was talking about, you’d correctly ignore my advice and listen to the actual expert. So why would you listen to an expert on heat tiles – or medicine, or lunar geology – when he’s writing a letter about climate science? Especially a letter that is packed full of obvious, naive or dishonest errors. NASA’s response to the letter NASA’s chief scientist, Waleed Abdalati, published a short response to the letter. In it, Abdalati wrote that “NASA does not draw conclusions and issue ‘claims’ about research findings” that NASA researchers conduct. Instead, NASA “strongly encourage .......... see the link Edited February 27, 2019 by voidisyinyang 1 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
voidisyinyang Posted February 27, 2019 On 2/26/2019 at 8:41 AM, windwalker said: explains what climate sensitivity is http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2012/04/26/more-debunking-of-the-ex-nasa-49-climate-change-deniers/ I’ve been getting lots of email and other notes about a group of 49 people — including some ex-astronauts — who have written a public letter to NASA complaining about the space agency’s stance that global warming exists and is caused by humans. You can guess how I feel about it. But to be clear: it’s more denialist spin, nonsense, and noise. You can read the original leter here, and then I strongly suggest reading Shawn Otto’s devastating deconstruction of it. You can also read the response to this letter by NASA’s Chief Scientist Waleed Abdalatim if you’d like. I’ll note that it doesn’t matter that former astronauts signed this propaganda letter — I’ve written about Apollo 17’s Harrison Schmitt and his climate change denialism before — but I note it does matter that of the 49 signatories on that letter, not one is an actual working climate scientist. That should give you pause. I’ll also note that 49 former NASA employees is a tiny, tiny fraction of the total. It’s not hard to find statistical outliers in a group that big. I knew a creationist who worked for NASA! But really, my very favorite thing about this is the group behind the letter: a non-profit called Plants Need CO2, which, if you can believe it, actively advocates that more carbon dioxide is good for us. Yes, once you’re done comically rubbing your eyes with your fists you can read that again. They think more CO2 is a good thing. The sheer gall of this idea is almost beyond imagining; it reminds me very strongly of the tobacco industry’s propaganda saying that smoking is good for you. As for why this argument is weapons-grade nonsense, watch this Climate Crock video and see just how ridiculous it is: Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
whitesilk Posted February 27, 2019 As much as you might be calling for change @voidisyinyang, the hegemony will not allow it. The facts are useless. There was someone that one of my Uncles grew up with who was a mechanical genius. He invented a carbarator that used something like half the gasoline. The oil companies bought his invention and never brought it to market. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
voidisyinyang Posted February 27, 2019 On 2/25/2019 at 6:22 PM, windwalker said: Interesting he talks about how the earth should be heading into another ice age but due to human influences this is being mitigated. This influence started before the industrial age. "Climate change has become a major political issue, but few understand how climate has changed in the past and the forces that drive climate. Most people don't know that fifty million years ago there were breadfruit trees and crocodiles on the shores of the Arctic Ocean, or that 18,000 years ago there was a mile-thick glacier on Manhattan and a continuous belt of winter sea ice extending south to Cape Hatteras. The History of Climate provides context of our current climate debate and fundamental insight how the climate works." Quote After years of denying global warming, physicist Richard Muller now says "global warming is real and humans are almost entirely the cause." The admission by Muller, a professor of physics at the University of California, Berkeley and founder of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, has gained additional attention because some of his research has been funded by Charles Koch of the Koch Brothers, the right-wing billionaire known for funding climate skeptic groups like the Heartland Institute. "We can make the scientific case more solidly than had been made in the past," Muller claims. "I think this does say we do need to take action, we do need to do something about it." Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
voidisyinyang Posted February 27, 2019 (edited) 1 minute ago, whitesilk said: As much as you might be calling for change @voidisyinyang, the hegemony will not allow it. The facts are useless. There was someone that one of my Uncles grew up with who was a mechanical genius. He invented a carbarator that used something like half the gasoline. The oil companies bought his invention and never brought it to market. I'm not calling for change. I'm simply stating that modern civilization has destroyed the biosphere - ecology - and now Mother Nature is taking revenge. I just go with the flow. Please reread the recent Global Dimming research I just posted - if we get renewables then the Earth heats up even faster. Edited February 27, 2019 by voidisyinyang 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
windwalker Posted February 27, 2019 30 minutes ago, voidisyinyang said: I'm not calling for change. I'm simply stating that modern civilization has destroyed the biosphere - ecology - and now Mother Nature is taking revenge. I just go with the flow. You still have not answered nor addressed why there seems to be a data discrepancies between those who use what should be the same data from the same sources. What most of the clips I've posted talked about. meanwhile " A devastating cold front, complete with extreme low temperatures, wind and precipitation, is hitting much of the United States this week. The phenomenon, known popularly as a "polar vortex," will move across the Midwest and Northeast, keeping temperatures in many places well below freezing for an extended period of time – and wind chill levels at life-threatening lows. In parts of Minnesota, the wind chill factor could reach as low at -65 degrees Fahrenheit. Chicago might break its record low for temperature excluding wind chill, -27 degrees Fahrenheit, set on Jan 20, 1985. But even if temperatures fall below that level, it will likely not come close to Illinois’ all-time low temperature, a staggering -36 degrees Fahrenheit set in Bloomington in 1999. Yep getting warmer, weather is changing, has changed, and will change.... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
windwalker Posted February 27, 2019 gives both sides of the argument Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
voidisyinyang Posted February 27, 2019 32 minutes ago, windwalker said: You still have not answered nor addressed why there seems to be a data discrepancies between those who use what should be the same data from the same sources. What most of the clips I've posted talked about. meanwhile " A devastating cold front, complete with extreme low temperatures, wind and precipitation, is hitting much of the United States this week. The phenomenon, known popularly as a "polar vortex," will move across the Midwest and Northeast, keeping temperatures in many places well below freezing for an extended period of time – and wind chill levels at life-threatening lows. In parts of Minnesota, the wind chill factor could reach as low at -65 degrees Fahrenheit. Chicago might break its record low for temperature excluding wind chill, -27 degrees Fahrenheit, set on Jan 20, 1985. But even if temperatures fall below that level, it will likely not come close to Illinois’ all-time low temperature, a staggering -36 degrees Fahrenheit set in Bloomington in 1999. Yep getting warmer, weather is changing, has changed, and will change.... Umm really? I live in Minnesota - and so I can assure you that "cold fronts" were much more frequent when I was young. We didn't used to shut down school when it was below zero - but now we have less tolerance for the cold. As for what is causing these severe cold records? It's due to the Jet stream being weakened - as the Jet Stream is strengthened by the temperature DIFFERENCE between the equator and the poles. So Dr. Jennifer Francis has been for years - over 5 years - explaining the science of this Polar Vortex "splitting" due to global warming. The Arctic is actually much warmer than usual right now. https://www.patreon.com/posts/24951457 So you can see the hot ocean water is pressing in on the Arctic. Quote The Arctic is roasting this week. Anomaly maps (add 1 C to values to approximate pre industrial climatology) and actual temps. One set of maps is for right now (Monday), another map is for Friday. Two separate Pacific storms moving into the Arctic, sending wide swaths of the Pacific side of the Arctic Ocean Basin to over 20 C/36 F above normal. Not just very anomalous heat, but high wind and wave action hitting the thin sea ice in association with strong storms right out of the Pacific. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
voidisyinyang Posted February 27, 2019 5 minutes ago, windwalker said: gives both sides of the argument He's just a Corporate Junk Science Stooge! https://www.desmogblog.com/joseph-bast Joseph Bast Credentials Joseph Bast studied Economics as an undergraduate at the University of Chicago. According to Sourcewatch, he did not complete his degree. [42], [6] Background Joseph Bast co-founded the Heartland Institute in 1984 with David M. Padden (1927 - 2011) and served as Heartland's CEO until January 2018. Bast stayed on as a Director and Senior Fellow. Tim Huelskamp, a former member of Congress, succeeded Bast as Heartland's president. [43], [54], [44], [56], [89] According to Bast, the Heartland Institute “reaches more national and state elected officials, more often, than any other think tank,” having 270 policy advisors in all 50 states. [43], [54], [44] Bast's resume at Heartland notes that he has published several of Heartland’s periodicals since 1997 including School Reform News, Environment & Climate News, Health Care News, Budget & Tax News. It also notes that Bast “oversaw its growth from an annual budget in 1984 of $20,000 to a 2017 budget of $6 million and a full-time staff of 40.” [56] Bast studied economics as an undergraduate at the University of Chicago. He is the author of several free-market books promoting free-market solutions to public policy problems including Eco-sanity: a common sense guide to environmentalism. [42] Joseph Bast & Tobacco Bast is author of “Please Don’t Poop in My Salad (and other essays opposing the war against smoking)” published by the Heartland Institute in 2006. He has also published other pro-smoking views since, including a chapter in Smoking by Laura K. Egendorf on how “Anti-smoking Policies are Unfair and Ineffective.” [14], [56] Bast later denied that he had ever dismissed concerns about the risks of smoking, then reluctantly stood by his previous stance after being read his own words. Speaking with Republic Report: [13] Republic Report: “In 1998, you wrote in a Heartland op-ed that smoking cigarettes has little to no adverse health effects,” we noted. “Do you stand by that?” “No, I never wrote that,” replied Bast. “Why would I have written something like that?” [13] Bast asked to see the op-ed, and promised to “contest” it. After reading his piece, which claimed that moderate smoking is not deadly and has “few, if any adverse health effects,” Bast said that he actually stood by those words. [57], [13] Joe bast is also mentioned in at least 50 documents on file at the tobacco industry documents library hosted at the University of San Francisco. Some samples below. July, 2002 In an edition of The Heartlander, Bast reiterated his view that tobacco companies should be allowed to advertise comparative health claims. Bast wrote: [59] “I recently attended a debate over tobacco advertising in which Matthew Meyers, head of the Coalition for Tobacco-Free Kids and a leading anti-tobacco activist, said adult smokers must be denied access to comparative health claims in order to avoid attracting children to tobacco products. Whether advertising targets teenagers or has much influence over their decisions is much disputed. (I addressed that subject back in 1996 in an essay titled 'Joe Camel is Innocent!' which you can still find on Heartland's Web site.) But more to the point, Meyers has no right to deprive smokers of information about the choices they are making.” [59] May 29, 2002 Bast wrote to Secretary Donald S. Clark of the FTC, arguing in favor of a request by the US. Smokeless Tobacco Company that they should be able to advertise smokeless tobacco as lower risk compared to cigarette smoking. Bast lamented the “chilling effect of overregulation of advertising,” and cited the First Amendment right to commercial speech as support. [60] January 2, 2002 Bast sent a letter to the editor of the Chicago Tribune, writing that “the legal challenges could be, and properly should be, stopped” against the tobacco industry. A copy of the letter was forwarded to Emily Sedgwick of Americans for Tax Reform, according to archived tobacco industry documents. [61] “Besides thousands of frivolous civil suits pursued by lawyers who long ago forgot the meaning of justice, the U .S . Justice Department itself wants $50 million in taxpayer dollars to pursue a legal case against the tobacco industry initiated by the Clinton administration. When will it end?” Bast asked. [61] September 23, 1999 Budget documents apparently documenting pending grants for tobacco company Phillip Morris included an official request from Joe Bast for $35,000 in funding for the Heartland Institute. Bast sent the funding request to Roy Marden, Manager of Industry Affairs and Phillip Morris, to renew funding for the Heartland institute in 1999. The letter notes that Marden's funding levels have already granted him a seat on Heartland's Board of Directors. Below is an excerpt from the letter, with emphasis added: [62] “Thank you for inviting me to request renewed general operating support for The Heartland Institute for 1999. I note that Philip Morris contributed $5,000 last August (for a Gold Table at our annual benefit) and $25,000 in October (general operating support). It also has allowed you to serve on our Board of Directors, which has produced many positive results for the entire organization. Because Heartland does many things that benefit Philip Morris' bottom line, things that no other organization does, I hope you will consider boosting your general operating support this year to $30,000 and once again reserve a Gold Table for an additional $5,000.” [62] A June 1999 document lists Philip Morris Company among Heartland's “Platinum Sponsors” who donated $40,000 or more. [63] October 1998 An archived “weekly bullet report” for Phillip Morris's “federal tobacco team” notes that at least one member of the team met with Joe Bast, while another “Met with Heartland Institute officials and JPH.” The details of the meetings are not listed. [64] June 1, 1998 Bast is the author of “Smoking Under Seige,” where he describes a “war on tobacco” that “will affect your civil and economic liberties in major ways.” [65], [66] “So whether or not you smoke, you have good reasons to oppose the lawsuits against tobacco companies as well as any proposed settlement. Please don't stand quietly by while any industry is taken down by a gang of self-serving lawyers, bureaucrats, and politicians,” Bast concluded. [65] May 30, 1997 Bast forward a memo to “Heartland Members and allies with a special interest in tobacco” announcing Heartland's new report titled “The States vs. the Tobacco Industry: Smoke and Assorted Mirrors.” [67] “I think you will find it a timely contribution to the ongoing debate over government regulation of the tobacco industry,” Bast wrote. [67] August 21, 1996 Bast wrote an article titled “Joe Camel Is Innocent!” and published via Heartland where he offers “a few words in defense of smoking.” Bast points to news pieces by Peter Jennings of ABC and columnist Garry Willis who argued that the use of the cartoon Joe Camel “somehow proves that Camels’ manufacturer, R. J. Reynolds, is targeting kids.” Bast argues that, in fact, “cartoons are used to pitch scores of products that could only be of use to adults.” [68] Bast also responded to Jennings's and Willis's claims that Republican opposition to FDA regulation could be due to campaign contributions from the tobacco industry: “With respect to smoking, there’s plenty of evidence—including a recent study by the Congressional Research Service-that sound science concerning the health effects of 'second-hand smoke' doesn’t support the claims being made by EPA and FDA,” Bast responded. [68] Heartland International Conferences on Climate Change (ICCC) Bast helped organize and introduce the First (March 2008), Second (March 2009), Third (June 2009), Fourth (May 2010), Fifth (Oct 2010), Sixth (June 2011), Seventh (May 2012), Eighth (November 2012), Ninth (July 2014), and Tenth (March 2017), Eleventh and Twelfth “International Conferences on Climate Change” (ICCCs). Stance on Climate Change May 8, 2018 The New York Times reported The Heartland Institute was one of several conservative think tanks that communicated with the Environmental Protection Agency in the past year in order to stage debates around climate change. In a statement, Bast denied that the Heartland Institute holds views outside of the mainstream of scientific consensus: [84] “Our view is that the causes and consequences of climate change are very complex and future climate conditions are probably impossible to forecast,” Joe Bast said. 2003 Bast claims that most scientists believe that human activity has no appreciable effects on the climate, citing a (since-debunked) 17,000-name petition run by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine. Some of Bast's assertions include that: [1] “Most scientists do not believe human activities threaten to disrupt the Earth's climate” (This is referring to the Oregon Petition). “Our most reliable sources of temperature data show no global warming trend.” “Global climate computer models are too crude to predict future climate changes.” “The IPCC did not prove that human activities are causing global warming.” “A modest amount of global warming, should it occur, would be beneficial to the natural world and to human civilization.” “Efforts to quickly reduce human greenhouse gas emissions would be costly and would not stop Earth's climate from changing.” “The best strategy to pursue is 'no regrets.' The alternative to demands for immediate action to “stop global warming” is not to do nothing.” Key Quotes January 3, 2018 In an episode of the Heartland Institute's Daily Podcast, Bast said he believed that the Heartland Institute had been responsible for defeating cap and trade and carbon tax proposals, as well as for President Donald Trump's views on climate change: [83] “We, I think we're responsible—one of two or three groups that could genuinely claim responsibility for defeating cap and trade and carbon tax proposals at the national level for a ten year period, pretty much from 2007 until today,” Bast told H. Sterling Bernett during the podcast. “I think we're the reason President Trump discovered, or concluded that climate change is not a real problem and not a crisis facing the country, and that by running on that—by defending coal miners for example—he could appeal to a very big base in the United States. People who expected all along that global warming was junk science, that they would rather have good jobs and inexpensive energy than pursue some liberal dream of, you know, replacing all fossil fuel with wind and solar power.” “So Trump ran on that. He won, and it's been remarkable: for the last year, he's been implementing many of the promises that he made as a candidate.” (Emphasis added) November 21, 2017 Bast spoke with Michael Bastasch of The Daily Caller, declaring: [78] “Steve was an important channel for us to the White House,” Bast said. “[..] It’s changed with Steve Bannon leaving.” [78] October 2017 A leaked email from Joe Bast revealed what he viewed as key takeaway points from the Heartland Institute's closed-door meetings on the “Red Team – Blue Team exercise on climate change” proposed by Scott Pruitt's EPA. As E&E News reported, the email and notes provided “a broad look at skeptics' policy playbook under the Trump administration while exposing stark suspicions about Pruitt.” View the first of several points below: [71], [53] ”* How to effectively market our ideas was a theme of many presentations, many remarks during the panels, and conversation over meals. Among the ideas I heard offered, we should… * be briefing news reporters and news readers at Fox News. * reach the President by tweeting on the issue. * hold more congressional hearings. * simplify the issue by focusing on one or only a few arguments and images. * identify a few good spokespersons and focus on promoting them. * stop chasing the other side’s latest argument and focus instead on the benefits of CO2. * focus on the 'tuning scandal' that discredits the models. * turn debate from referring to median temperatures to high temperatures, which show no trend. * find independent funding for Roy Spencer, David Schnare, Willie Soon, Craig Idso, David Legates, etc. * push Pruitt to start a proceeding for reconsideration of the Endangerment Finding… he won’t do it without pressure. * we need to be able to say 'EPA is reconsidering whether CO2 is a pollutant.'” Bast adds: ”* Many people said 'we need a PR plan' or a 'single strategy,' otherwise we will continue to lose the battle with AGW alarmists. I (Joe Bast) observed that (a) we aren’t losing, in fact we are winning the global warming war as shown by public opinion polls, election results, scientific journals, and the agenda of the President of the United States, (b) Heartland, CEI, and other organizations and individuals in the room do have plans and strategies, (c) a marketing plan is much more than agreeing (with you) on a few slogans or spokespersons, and (d) adopting a single strategy is unrealistic and unlikely to be effective. We can always do better, and will, but we should not stop doing what is working. * The briefing revealed that Heartland, CEI, Cato, Heritage, and other groups have done a poor job communicating their STRATEGIES to people in the room. More transparency is needed. We tend to hide, or at least not advertise, our playbooks for fear the other side will use them to launch counter-offenses, which we are sure would be far better funded and more warmly received by the media than our own efforts. But we ought to find a way to communicate our plans to our friends.” March 31, 2014 Regarding the NIPCC's contradictory conclusions to the IPCC's 2014 assessment report: “How could two teams of scientists come to such obviously contradictory conclusions on seemingly every point that matters in the debate over global warming? There are many reasons why scientists disagree, the subject, by the way, of an excellent book a couple years ago titled Wrong by David H. Freedman. A big reason is IPCC is producing what academics call “post-normal science” while NIPCC is producing old-fashioned “real science.” [10] March 26, 2014 Leading up to the Heartland Institute's Ninth International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC-9) in Las Vegas, Nevada, July 7-9, 2014, Jim Lakely and Joseph Bast publish a press release in which Bast is quoted: “The scientists Heartland works with demanded we host a ninth conference this year to foster a much-needed frank, honest, and open discussion of the current state of climate science and we just couldn’t refuse. The public, the press, and the scientific community will all benefit from learning about the latest research and observational data that indicate climate science is anything but ‘settled.’” [17] September 19, 2013 “The IPCC – and all the mainstream media and environmental extremists who cite it uncritically — really have become a joke in the scientific community.” [8] In reference to the Chinese Academy of Sciences' rebuttal of the IPCC's assessment, just months before COP19 in Warsaw, Poland, Bast said: “This is a historic moment in the global debate about climate change… The translation and publication of a comprehensive critique of the IPPC’s alarmist reports by a leading national academy of sciences is one more sign of the trend toward skepticism and away from alarmism.” [7] “The benefits of a modest warming would outweigh the costs – by $8.4 billion a year in 1990 dollars by the year 2060, according to Robert Mendelsohn at Yale University – thanks to longer growing seasons, more wood fiber production, lower construction costs, lower mortality rates, and lower rates of morbidity (illness).” [2] July 1998 In an opinion piece in The Heartlander, Bast claimed: [57] “Exposure to small amounts of a toxic substance is often benign because the human body has a natural ability to repair itself.” ”[…] The fact that smoking in moderation has few, if any, adverse health effects has astounding importance in the tobacco debate.” Key Deeds August 7, 2018 Bast spoke at the Heartland Institute's “America First Energy Conference” (AFEC 2018) in New Orleans, Louisiana. [85] “The purpose of this event is to promote and expand energy freedom in the United States, as outlined in President Donald Trump’s bold America First Energy Plan, a proposal first released during the 2016 presidential campaign. The president’s plan marks a decisive change in direction from the Obama administration’s 'war on fossil fuels' and focus on the theory of catastrophic man-caused climate change,” the conference description reads. [86] Bast spoke on a panel titled “CAFE Standards: Why they need to go.” [87] January 3, 2018 Bast appeared on an episode of the Heartland Institute's Daily Podcast with H. Sterling Burnett to discuss the past and future of the Heartland Institute including his stepping down as President and CEO and his planned departure from the organization. Bast outlined some of the Institute's early work on climate change: [83] [8:10] HSB: “You mentioned climate. Let's get to that. Under your leadership, the Heartland Institute became a leader and has been recognized as such in the realm of climate science, economics, and policy. Why did the Heartland Institute become so deeply involved in this one issue? What did you see that others didn't about the importance of climate change as an issue, and what impact has Heartland's efforts had?” JB: “Well, Heartland started addressing climate actually way back, ah, 1994…1995. We did our first book that had a chapter on climate change in it. We addressed it primarily from an economic perspective, arguing that the cost of reducing emissions was really high compared to the sketchy evidence that we had about the cost of harms and offsetting benefits. Nobody listened to us. We did three, four, or five I thought really good policy studies on this topic looking specifically for example, at a carbon tax on agriculture, and the studies got almost no attention. “It turns out the reason they got no attention is because people were afraid of catastrophic climate change. When the building is on fire, people don't argue or negotiate the price of fire extinguishers; they're all too busy running for the doors, and so we concluded that we had to put the fire out before we can get a reasonable conversation to take place here. We've go to address this underlying fear of catastrophic climate change. So we did a deep dive in 2007; we said, where is this fear coming from? Is it based on sound science? Who are the scientists who are in this debate? Do they need our help? Why aren't they getting a better hearing? And why aren't Cato, and Heritage, and AEI, and other think tanks engaged in this part of the debate? “And what we learned was that virtually none of the free market think tanks were addressing the science. They weren't doing that because they felt it wasn't their job. They're mostly economists and lawyers and they didn't want to start getting into the physics of climate change. I respect that. But the result was a gap: there was no free market voice on the climate science debate that was taking place, and that was a critical error on the part of free market activists. Unless we address the science, we are going to lose this debate. “So we recruited scientists from all around the country. We ended up producing the series called Climate Change Reconsidered for the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change. We had a tremendous impact. I mean, it's quite remarkable. That book, that series of books, has been cited over 100 times in peer-reviewed articles. The Chinese Academy of Sciences thought so highly of it that it translated it into Chinese and published a condensed volume of Climate Change Reconsidered. Bast also claimed credit to the Heartland Institute for both defeating cap and trade proposals, and for President Donald Trump's views on climate change: [83] “We, I think we're responsible—one of two or three groups that could genuinely claim responsibility for defeating cap and trade and carbon tax proposals at the national level for a ten year period, pretty much from 2007 until today. I think we're the reason President Trump discovered, or concluded that climate change is not a real problem and not a crisis facing the country, and that by running on that—by defending coal miners for example—he could appeal to a very big base in the United States. People who expected all along that global warming was junk science, that they would rather have good jobs and inexpensive energy than pursue some liberal dream of, you know, replacing all fossil fuel with wind and solar power.” “So Trump ran on that. He won, and it's been remarkable: for the last year, he's been implementing many of the promises that he made as a candidate.” [83] Bast said he was “anxious about the future” given the possibility that Hillary Clinton could have won the election, but that Trump's victory gave the country “a second chance at freedom”: “Now Donald Trump wasn't the first choice for most of us. He might not even have been the final choice, but the alternative was truly scary. You know, Hillary Clinton was committed to finishing what Barack Obama started, and that was pretty much destroying the local decentralized education system in America—replacing it with a centralized curriculum. Destroying the decentralized health care system that used to depend primarily on private insurance companies and doctors in private practice. So replacing that with Obamacare, destroying the financial sector. “I mean all the commanding heights of a free society, President Obama targeted and did major damage for eight years, and for whatever reasons Congress and the courts didn't seem able to stop him. Hillary Clinton was committed to waging that war for another four years. I'm not sure we could have recovered from that. So we got a second chance at freedom with the election of Donald Trump. Incidentally I decided to step down, now, before the election of Donald Trump, so if anyone is wondering if that influenced my decision it didn't. But it was a second chance we probably didn't deserve to preserve freedom in America. It's very precarious. It is perched on an edge. And so I'm very anxious about the future of freedom,” Bast said. Finally, Bast said that the Institute needs more money to grow: [83] “What will Heartland Institute's role be in that? I am optimistic. I think Heartland is going to grow. There's a much bigger niche for what we do than what I was able to raise money for to fill. You know, I raised about six million dollars a year for the Heartland Institute. We should be at eight or ten. We should have twenty, twenty five guys working in our, just in our government relations office working with state legislators, giving them the information that they need, testifying when they need testimony, helping them draft legislation. I mean, this is all exciting stuff that they're asking us to do and we don't have the staff to do it. So I think under Tim Huelskamp's leadership we're going to raise that money. We're going to expand the staff and fill that niche. So Heartland should be doing well in future years. I only hope and pray that freedom in the United States is going to continue rising while the Heartland Institute is performing its job.” December 27, 2017 Writing at The Heartland Institute's blog, Bast made a number of “corrections” to a story written by Neela Banerjee at Inside Climate News titled “How Big Oil Lost Control of Its Climate Misinformation Machine.” Firstly, according to Bast, the billboard campaign Heartland released in 2012 featuring an image of Ted Kaczynski and the text “I still believe in Global Warming. Do You?” was actually a success. [79], [80] When Heartland introduced the campaign in 2012, their release included with the following statement: [81] “The people who still believe in man-made global warming are mostly on the radical fringe of society. This is why the most prominent advocates of global warming aren't scientists. They are murderers, tyrants, and madmen.” Heartland pulled the billboard after an outcry from supporters and opponents alike. It had run for “exactly 24 hours.” “This provocative billboard was always intended to be an experiment. And after just 24 hours the results are in: It got people’s attention,” Bast wrote in the 2012 Heartland press release announcing the cancellation of the billboard. [82] “We know that our billboard angered and disappointed many of Heartland’s friends and supporters, but we hope they understand what we were trying to do with this experiment. We do not apologize for running the ad, and we will continue to experiment with ways to communicate the ‘realist’ message on the climate,” Bast wrote in 2012. [82] Following the campaign, a number of corporations began to cut their ties with Heartland, and numerous critics denounced Heartland. Shortly after, at the Heartland's 2012 International Conference on Climate Change, Joe Bast announced that Heartland would not be holding any more conferences and was struggling to pay its bills. Heartland has held several more ICCCs since then. [12], [11] Writing in 2017, Bast claimed the billboard had actually been a success: “The billboard hit its target hard, as good satire does. It broke a news blackout that environmentalists and the legacy media had imposed on Heartland and other groups that challenged the Gore-Obama dogma on global warming. Far from hurting Heartland, as Banerjee claims, it saved us: 2012 was a breakthrough year for us with record funds raised, record media attention, and record attendance at our events.” [79] “That year also marked the moment Heartland’s views on climate change moved from marginal to mainstream.” [79] Bast also claimed that Banerjee's statement “isn't true” that “Hundreds of millions of dollars from corporations such as ExxonMobil and wealthy individuals such as the billionaires Charles and David Koch have supported the development of a sprawling network, which includes Heartland and other think tanks, advocacy groups and political operatives.” [79] “ExxonMobil did contribute around $50,000 a year to Heartland for about a decade,” Bast added, but it was “never more than 5% of our annual budget.” [79] November 21, 2017 Bast spoke with Michael Bastasch of The Daily Caller, followingThe Washington Post's reporting on Heartland's closed-door meeting in Houston, Texas. [78], [77] Bastasch said that Jim Lakely, Heartland's communication director, had claimed the article was an effort to delegetimize Heartland and its work. [78] “The tone of it is that the climate realist right isn’t happy with Trump’s progress,” Lakely told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “Nothing could be further from the truth.” [78] Bast had similar comments, saying “the left demonizes us” while pointing to the publishing of Heartland's leaked 2012 budget documents as an example. According to Bast, Heartland also never specifically told the EPA who to pick as part of a climate “Red Team.” [78] “I have never met Scott Pruitt,” Bast said. “We’ve always tried to remain arm’s length from politics. It’s never been a priority for us to engage in politics.” [78] “The real way we measure our impact is through public opinion surveys,” Bast said, referring to Heartland's surveys on public global warming attitudes. [78] However, Bast did admit to a relationship with former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon, telling Bastasch that he talked frequently with Bannon regarding orders to combat climate policies, like urging Trump to withdraw from the Paris climate agreement. [78] “Steve was an important channel for us to the White House,” Bast said. “[..] It’s changed with Steve Bannon leaving.” [78] Bast also said that Heartland's new president, Tim Huelskamp, “has been invaluable to finding new allies in the administration,” Bastasch wrote. [78] November 9, 2017 Joe Bast was a speaker at the Heartland Institute's “America First Energy Conference” at the Marriott Hotel in Houston, Texas. [75] The original event description read as follows: [47] “At the America First Energy Conference, we plan to examine—one year and one day after Trump’s shocking Election Day victory—the following: “Where does Trump’s America First Energy Plan stand? “How much progress has been made in implementing it, and what remains to be done? “What scientific and economic evidence is there that the plan is putting the nation on the right path for economic growth, environmental protection, or both?” In a fundraising letter obtained by DeSmog before the conference, Fred Palmer had promoted the event as having the goal to “review the scientific and economic evidence that exposes the fraud inherent in the Obama-era regulation regime” while discussing “the overwhelming benefits of fossil fuels to us all.” [48] Many of the other speakers have regularly spoken at the Heartland Institute's past ICCCs. Notable speaker included Joe Bast, Fred Palmer, Roger Bezdek, H. Sterling Burnett, Hal Doiron, Paul Driessen, John Dale Dunn, Myron Ebell, Heartland's new President Tim Huelskamp, Craig Idso, David Legates, Jay Lehr, Anthony Lupo, Ross McKitrick, Steve Milloy, Todd Myers, John Nothdurt, David Schnare, and numerous others. [49] As reported at the Houston Chronicle, speakers notably included two Trump Administration officials: Richard W. Westerdale II of the State Department and Vincent DeVito of the Department of Interior. David Bernhardt, deputy secretary of the Interior Department, was also formerly listed as a Heartland conference speaker, but apparently withdrew. [73] Scott Pruitt also addressed the conference in a recorded video, personally thanking Heartland for “what you're doing to advance energy” and “for what you're doing to advance natural resources. [76] The Climate Investigations Center put up a parody of the America First Energy conference website, complete with profiles on the individual speakers and highlighting their corporate funding and ties to groups such as the Cooler Heads Coalition (CHC). [74] October 12, 2017 Bast commented on President Donald Trump's appointment of Kathleen Hartnett-White as chair of the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), pending approval. Bast was quoted in a October 13 Heartland Institute newsletter: [50] “With his nomination of Kathleen Hartnett White, President Trump continues to make excellent choices for his nominations in the areas of environmental protection and energy. White is an outstanding candidate for this important position. Her past service as a chairman and commissioner of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality gives her the proper experience, and her work before and after that with private-sector groups engaged in environment and energy policy shows a deep familiarity with the issues and trade-offs involved. Best of all, White’s writing and public speaking make it clear she is committed to reversing the intense politicization of science and policy that occurred under President Obama and that started even before then,” Bast said, adding, “We finally will have a head of CEQ who genuinely understands the science and economics of energy policy, and who will resist efforts to debase and ‘weaponize’ it in support of a political agenda.” [51] Hartnett-White has a history of representing fossil fuel interests. During her tenure as chair of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), appointed by then-governor Rick Perry, the TCEQ was found to “not consistently ensure violators are held accountable.” According to a 2003 Texas State Audit, polluters “often have economic benefits that exceed their penalties, which could reduce their incentive to comply.” [52] As head of the CEQ, Hartnett-White would be in charge of coordinating interagency science, climate, and environmental policy and oversee things such as the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review process and agency compliance with that law. [50] “Though CEQ oversees the NEPA process, it remains unclear how seriously Hartnett-White will take the NEPA review process, for decades seen as a bedrock of U.S. environmental regulation since NEPA became law in 1970,” DeSmog's Steve Horn reported. [50] September 28, 2017 According to leaked emails, The Heartland Institute held closed door meetings to identify candidates for EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt's “red team” exercise on climate change. As E&E News reported, Bast's email, which includes his notes of one of the meetings, provided “a broad look at skeptics' policy playbook under the Trump administration while exposing stark suspicions about Pruitt.” [53] “EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt's proposal for a Red Team-Blue Team exercise is vague, probably would not be effective, and is unlikely to come about,” Bast wrote in the email. “More likely to occur is a similar exercise directed by the head of another department (NASA, NOAA, or OSTP) with more interest than Pruitt has shown in the scientific debate and more likely to stick around to see the results.” One of Bast's key points in the email is to “find independent funding for Roy Spencer, David Schnare, Willie Soon, Craig Idso, David Legates, etc.” E&E News notes that Idso, who heads the Center for Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, “has long promoted the benefits of carbon dioxide” and “Idso's work has been supported by Heartland as well as energy companies.” [72] View Bast's complete email below: Document Pages Text Zoom Loading Loading Loading Loading Loading Loading « Page 1 of 6 » According to the notes, those present at the meeting included David Shnare who “described how policy can be changed from 'inside the swamp' via seven 'legal points of entry' such as legal challenges under the Information Quality Act and violations of peer review,” Heartland president Tim Huelskamp, David Legates, Harry MacDougald, and Jim Lakely. Jim Lakely, Heartland's Communications Director, later called HuffPost's reporting on the leaked email “fake news” and said that the names listed were initially slated to attend an EPA “science integrity” meeting and not necessarily for the Red Team. [78] June 1, 2017 The Illinois Review reported that Joe Bast was seated in the Rose Garden, by invitation, when Donald Trump announced his decision to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris Climate Agreement: [38] “Although The Heartland Institute has been subject to many attacks from so-called global alarmists, after Joe Bast’s presence was spotted in the Rose Garden an effort was made to harm President Trump by attacking Heartland’s Joe Bast,” The Illinois Review wrote. [38] Bast, writing at the Heartland Institute's blog, said “I was honored to be invited, and view it as a sign that our efforts for the past 20 years on the climate change issue have not gone unnoticed. But the left noticed my attendance as well, and so this week they tried to hurt President Trump by attacking me.” [39] In the article, Bast also penned a response to four U.S. senators who had mailed U.S. Department of Education Secretary Betsy DeVos asking for correspondence between the Heartland Institute and her department. Bast's June 8 letter reads: [40], [41] “For the record, The Heartland Institute has contacted nearly all members of the Trump cabinet. We have sent extensive information to more than 100 members of the administration explaining who we are, enclosing multiple publications (including books, policy studies, and videos) of most relevance to their positions, and offering to make our extensive network of some 370 policy experts available to provide further assistance. Some have gotten back to us.” [41] May 26, 2017 Writing at the Heartland Institute's blog Somewhat Reasonable, Bast makes a few recommendations on “good short references to the climate debate to share with family and friends over the Memorial Day holiday.” Bast's article, titled “Happy Memorial Day, You Stupid, Arrogant, Liberal Global Warming Alarmist!” [37] Bast points to an outdated 1922 article on Artic ice as a good “conversation starter” and “a good way to poke a stick in the eye of your global warming alarmist friends.” [37] “Global warming alarmists often claim the recent Arctic warming is unprecedented or must be due to the human presence. On its face, the 1922 article makes those claims dubious. Closer study reveals they haven’t made the case,” Bast wrote. [37] Among the “short references” listed by Bast include work by by Craig Idso, Robert Carter, S. Fred Singer, Joe Bast (himself), Anthony Watts, and the Heartland Institute's newsletter. [37] May 8, 2017 Bast, representing Heartland, is a signatory to an open letter to President Donald J. Trump urging him “to withdraw fully from the Paris Climate Treaty and to stop all taxpayer funding of UN global warming programs.” [34] DeSmog reported that the 40 groups represented in the letter, including the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), The Heartland Institute, and the Heritage Foundation, have received a combined total of millions of dollars from the Koch Brothers, ExxonMobil, and other industry groups. [35] Analysis also showed that the groups accepted about $80 million through Donors Capital Fund and Donors Trust, two groups that have been confirmed is a key financial source for key U.S-based climate change denial groups. [36] March 23, 2017 Joseph Bast presented at the Heartland-Institute's ”International Conference on Climate Change” (ICCC12), providing opening remarks for breakfast, lunch, and dinner keynotes. [32] In an interview with Mother Jones, Bast said that rescinding the EPA's endangerment finding was the “number one priority” that he sees for the EPA under Trump. “We’ve been at this for 33 years. We have a lot of people in our network, and many of these people are now in this new administration,” Bast said. He added that Transition staff and new appointees in the Trump administration “occasionally ask us for advice and names of people.” [33] Opening remarks (Breakfast Keynotes) Dinner Keynotes (Thursday) Lunch Keynotes (Friday) January 12, 2017 Joseph Bast was a signatory to a January 12, 2017 official letter of support (PDF) for Scott Pruitt, in which numerous groups, including The Heartland Institute, American Energy Alliance (AEA), and others, declared that the Senate should “swiftly approve his nomination” for Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Other signatories of the letter included: [30] Thomas Pyle, American Energy Alliance Michael Needham, Heritage Action for America Grover Norquist, Americans for Tax Reform Kent Lassman, Competitive Enterprise Institute Adam Brandon, FreedomWorks David McIntosh, Club for Growth Phil Kerpen, American Commitment Craig Richardson, Energy and Environment Action Team David Williams, Taxpayers Protection Alliance Harry Alford, National Black Chamber of Commerce Jim Martin, 60 Plus Andrew Langer, Institute for Liberty Heather Higgins, Independent Women’s Voice Independence Institute Richard Martin, Americans for Limited Government Coalition Opposed to Additional Spending and Taxes (COAST) Brett Healy, MacIver Institute George Landrith, Frontiers of Freedom Randy Eminger, Energy Policy Network Paul Gessing, Rio Grande Foundation Mike Nasi, Balanced Energy for Texas Brent Mead, Montana Policy Institute Forest Thigpen, Mississippi Center for Public Policy July 12, 2016 Joseph Bast, representing the Heartland Institute, was a signatory to a “Coalition” open letter pushing back against what the Heartland Institute describes as an “affront to free speech.” The groups are responding to the recent Web of Denial Resolution brought up in the Senate, calling out fossil fuel industry-funded groups denying climate change. [26] According to the Climate Investigations Center, all but one of the open letter's signatory organizations have taken money (totaling at least $92 million since 1997) from the “climate denial web” including Koch Brothers' various foundations, ExxonMobil, and two “Dark Money” organizations, Donors Trust and Donors Capital Fund. [29] Championed by Senators Whitehouse, Markey, Schatz, Boxer, Merkley, Warren, Sanders, and Franken, the resolution condemns what they are calling the #WebOfDenial — “interconnected groups – funded by the Koch brothers, major fossil fuel companies like ExxonMobil and Peabody Coal, identity-scrubbing groups like Donors Trust and Donors Capital, and their allies – developed and executed a massive campaign to deceive the public about climate change to halt climate action and protect their bottom lines.” [27] The open letter addresses the senators, calling them “tyrants”: “We hear you. Your threat is clear: There is a heavy and inconvenient cost to disagreeing with you. Calls for debate will be met with political retribution. That’s called tyranny. And, we reject it.” [28] The full list of signatories and their respective organizations is as follows: Grover Norquist — Americans for Tax Reform Lisa B. Nelson — American Legislative Exchange Council John A. Charles, Jr. — Cascade Policy Institute David Rothbard — Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow Kent Lassman — Competitive Enterprise Institute Nicole Neily — Franklin Center for Government and Policy Integrity Benita Dodd — Georgia Public Policy Foundation Bridgett Wagner — The Heritage Foundation Fred Birnbaum — Idaho Freedom Foundation Joseph Bast — The Heartland Institute J. Robert McClure III — James Madison Institute Brett Healy — The John K. MacIver Institute for Public Policy Kory Swanson — John Locke Foundation Dave Trabert — Kansas Policy Institute Jason Hayes — Mackinac Center for Public Policy Brent Mead — Montana Policy Institute Sharon J. Rossie — Nevada Policy Research Institute Sally Pipes — Pacific Research Institute Kevin Kane — Pelican Institute for Public Policy Paul J. Gessing — Rio Grande Foundation Lynn Taylor — Virginia Institute for Public Policy Carol Platt Liebau — Yankee Institute for Public Policy May 18, 2016 Joseph Bast was a signatory to a full page color advertisement in The New York Times titled “Abuse of Power” (PDF) sponsored by The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI). The ad serves as an open letter from 43 signatories including organizations and individuals in response to New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, U.S. Virgin Islands Attorney General Claude Walker, and the coalition of Attorneys General investigating groups denying man-made climate change. [23], [24] “Attempts to intimidate CEI and our allies and silence our policy research are unconstitutional,” said CEI president Kent Lassman. “The First Amendment protects us and everyone has a duty to respect it – even state attorneys general. CEI will continue to fight for all Americans to support the causes in which they believe.” [23] The Competitive Enterprise Institute received a subpoena from AG Walker on April 7, 2016. On April 20, CEI filed an objection to the subpoena calling it “offensive,” “un-American,” and “unlawful,” and are contending that AG Walker is “violating CEI’s First Amendment rights.” [23] The “freedom of speech” argument was echoed by ExxonMobil's legal team, as well as numerous other conservative groups including the Pacific Legal Foundation, and Heritage Foundation and the recently-formed Free Speech in Science Project, a group created by the same lawyers who defended the Competitive Enterprise Institute in the past. [25] The CEI letter lists the following signatories: Kent Lassman — President & CEO, Competitive Enterprise Institute C. Boyden Gray — Former White House Counsel Andrew C. McCarthy — Former Chief Assistant United States Attorney, Southern District of New York Michael B. Mukasey — U.S. Attorney General, 2007-2009; U.S. District Judge, 1988-2006 Ross McKitrick — Professor of Economics, University of Guelph Ronald D. Rotunda — Distinguished Professor of Jurisprudence, Chapman University Richard S. Lindzen — Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences, MIT William Happer — Emeritus Professor of Physics, Princeton University Jim DeMint — President, The Heritage Foundation James H. Amos, Jr. — President & CEO, National Center for Policy Analysis John A. Baden — Chairman, Foundation for Research on Economics & the Environment Lisa B. Nelson — CEO, American Legislative Exchange Council Paul Driessen — Author & Energy Policy Analyst Thomas J. Pyle — President, Institute for Energy Research Steven J. Allen — Vice President & Chief Investigative Officer, Capital Research Center David Ridenour — President, National Center for Public Policy Research Steven J. Milloy — Publisher, JunkScience.com Brooke Rollins — President & CEO, Texas Public Policy Foundation Paul Gessing — President, Rio Grande Foundation Ron Arnold — Researcher & Author William Perry Pendley — President, Mountain States Legal Foundation Adam Brandon — President & CEO, FreedomWorks Hank Campbell — President, American Council on Science and Health Craig Rucker — Executive Director, Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow Tom McCabe — CEO, Freedom Foundation Richard B. Belzer — Economist Heather R. Higgins — President & CEO, Independent Women's Voice Joseph G. Lehman — President, Mackinac Center for Public Policy Sabrina Schaeffer — Executive Director, Independent Women's Forum Joseph Bast — President, The Heartland Institute John C. Eastman — Founding Director, The Claremont Institute’s Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence Robert Alt — President & CEO, The Buckeye Institute Michael Pack — President & CEO, The Claremont Institute Josh Blackman — Assistant Professor, South Texas College of Law Lynn Taylor — President, Tertium Quids David Rothbard — President, Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow Tracie Sharp — President & CEO, State Policy Network Kenneth Haapala — President, Science and Environmental Policy Project Tim Phillips — President, Americans for Prosperity Myron Ebell — Director of the Center for Energy & Environment, Competitive Enterprise Institute George Landrith — President, Frontiers of Freedom John Tillman — CEO, Illinois Policy Institute Craig D. Idso — Chairman, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change March, 2015 Joseph Bast is one of several climate change skeptics cc'd on an email from S. Fred Singer in hopes of countering the documentary film “Merchants of Doubt,” which exposes the network of climate change skeptics and deniers trying to delay legislative action on climate change. The October, 2014 email was leaked to journalists before the documentary was released. “Can I sue for damages?” Singer asked in the email. “Can we get an injunction against the documentary?” InsideClimate News reports in their article “Leaked Email Reveals Who's Who List of Climate Denialists,” how “Many of those copied on the email thread, such as Singer and communications specialist Steven Milloy, have financial ties to the tobacco, chemical, and oil and gas industries and have worked to defend them since the 1990s.” [18] InsideClimate News also documented all those who were cc'd on the email, including the following skeptics and groups: Ron Arnold Timothy Ball Joseph “Joe” Bast Joe Bastardi Michael Bastasch William Briggs Russell Cook Judith Curry Joe D'Aleo James Delingpole David Paul Driessen James Enstrom Steve Goddard Pierre Gosselin Greenie Watch William Happer Jim Lakely Patrick J. Michaels Steven J. Milloy Christopher Monckton Marc Morano Joanne Nova Roger Pielke Sr. (Or Roger Pielke Jr. - Unclear in Email) Thomas P. Sheahen S. Fred Singer Wei-Hock (Willie) Soon Roy Spencer James Taylor Anthony Watts DeSmog covered the emails here: “Merchants of Doubt Film Debuts, Textbook Denial Attack Campaign Led By Fred Singer Ensues” and DeSmog also archived a full copy of the Singer email thread (PDF). August 2014 Joseph Bast testified at a Travis County Texas court hearing regarding the Texas Taxpayers’ Savings Grant Programs (“TTSGP”). The court questions Bast's credibility as a witness (PDF, p. 335 - 336): “Mr. Joseph Bast, president and CEO of the Heartland Institute, testified for the Intervenors regarding the Texas Taxpayers’ Savings Grant Programs (“TTSGP”), a school voucher bill that failed in the 82nd Legislative Session. As a threshold matter, this Court finds that Mr. Bast is not a credible witness and that he did not offer reliable opinions in this matter. While Mr. Bast described himself as an economist, he holds neither undergraduate nor graduate degrees in economics, and the highest level of education he completed was high school. Mr. Bast testified that he is 100% committed to the long-term goal of getting government out of the business of educating its own voting citizens. Further, his use of inflammatory and irresponsible language regarding global warming, and his admission that the long term goal of his advocacy of vouchers is to dismantle the 'socialist' public education system further undermine his credibility with this Court.” [20] May 26, 2014 Joe Bast co-wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal with Roy Spencer entitled, “The Myth of the Climate Change '97%'.” In the commentary attacking the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate science, Spencer and Bast argued that, “There is no basis for the claim that 97% of scientists believe that man-made climate change is a dangerous problem.” May 19, 2014 As Center for Media and Democracy's PR Watch reports, Joseph Bast was featured on part of a Showtime series titled “Years of Living Dangerously” profiling climate change skeptics. A preview of the interview is available here. [21], [22] May 6, 2014 Joseph Bast was interviewed by Dorothy Tucker, of CBS 2 News in Chicago, “to give the other side of [the] story about President Obama's National Climate Assessment report.” [16] 1:22-1:40 “We have always had floods, we have always had droughts … I think they [The Obama Administration] are trying to whip up public support and attention for a political agenda. He [Obama] is attempting to shut down coal generation in the United States, and in its place, heavily subsidizing wind and solar, and biofuels.” [16] April 30, 2014 At a mining conference in Denver, CO, Republic Report, cross-posted on DeSmogBlog, spoke to Heartland Institute's president, Joseph Bast, about his past support for the tobacco industry. When first asked by Republic Report, Bast denied that he had ever dismissed concerns about the risks of smoking. [13] In a report entitled, “Please Don't Poop in My Salad,” (PDF) released by Heartland and written by Bast in July of 2006, Bast was quoted on page 57 (pg. 65 in PDF format), “A fourth lie is that even moderate smoking is deadly. Several experts (including two who are very anti-smoking) have told me that smoking fewer than seven cigarettes a day does not raise a smoker's risk of lung cancer.” [14] View Basts's response below:[15]: March 31, 2014 Bast published an Op/Ed piece in Forbes the same week the IPCC released its latest report: “Working Group II Contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report.” In the article, Bast states that the NIPCC's latest report, released that same day, fully addresses the IPCC's eight “reasons for concern” made in the final draft of its Summary for Policymakers. Bast asks Forbes' readers to not just wonder if man-made global warming is a crisis, but to “understand it yourself,” by “read[ing] one or a few chapters of one of the NIPCC reports, and ask if what you read is logical, factual, and relevant to the debate.” [10] March 15, 2013 Joseph Bast, alongside Walter Cunningham, Thomas Wysmuller, and Harold Doiron spoke at a panel discussion of The Right Climate Stuff (TRCS) where they explain “why they are urging government agencies to cease their ‘unbridled advocacy’ of Anthropogenic Global Warming & Return Integrity to the Scientific Method.” [19] In January 2013, TRCS issued this summary of its findings as follows , according to a press release: The science that predicts the extent of anthropogenic global warming is not settled science. There is no convincing physical evidence of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. Computer models need to be validated before being used in critical decision-making. Because there is no immediate threat of global warming requiring swift corrective action, we have time to study global climate changes and improve our prediction accuracy. The U.S. government is over-reacting to concerns about anthropogenic global warming. A wider range of solution options should be studied for global warming or cooling threats from any credible cause. September 18, 2013 Joseph Bast and Willie Soon appeared on Fox News Channel's, “Special Report with Bret Baier” to discuss the release of “Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science,” published for the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) by The Heartland Institute. [9] May 23, 2012 The Heartland Institute's Seventh “International Conference on Climate Change,” took place on May 23, 2012 in Chicago. Heartland President Joseph Bast, during his closing remarks of the conference, appealed for funding from the crowd due to lower attendence numbers and an insufficient ability to raise funds: “Please consider supporting the Heartland Institute. These conferences are expensive, and I’m not a good fundraiser so as a result I don’t raise enough money to cover them, we really scramble to make payroll as a result to cover these expenses. If you can afford to make a contribution, please do. If you know someone, if you’ve got a rich uncle or somebody in the family or somebody that you work with, please give them a call and ask them if they would consider making a tax-deductable contribution to the Heartland Institute.” [11] May 4, 2012 The Heartland Institute released a billboard campaign in Chicago featuring “Unabomber” Ted Kaczynski, Charles Manson and Fidel Castro. Heartland's intent with the campaign was to portray those who believe in the overwhelming evidence of man-made climate change as “radical [and] on the fringe of society.” [12] In a statement announcing the billboard campaign, Heartland explained its rationale as: [55] “Because what these murderers and madmen have said differs very little from what spokespersons for the United Nations, journalists for the “mainstream” media, and liberal politicians say about global warming…. The point is that believing in global warming is not “mainstream,” smart, or sophisticated. In fact, it is just the opposite of those things. Still believing in man-made global warming – after all the scientific discoveries and revelations that point against this theory – is more than a little nutty. In fact, some really crazy people use it to justify immoral and frightening behavior.” The billboard was immediately and widely condemned as outrageous and offensive. Bast soon issued a statement to The Washington Post, rather unapologetically stating: “We will stop running [the billboard] at 4:00 p.m. CST today. (It’s a digital billboard, so a simple phone call is all it takes.) The Heartland Institute knew this was a risk when deciding to test it, but decided it was a necessary price to make an emotional appeal to people who otherwise aren’t following the climate change debate.” [12] June 21, 2005 Testified before the Pennsylvania House of Representatives Committee on Environmental Resources and Energy, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania on the “Cost of Greenhouse Gas Control” (PDF). August 2, 2002 Bast was signed to a letter to President Bush written by Myron Ebell and Fred L. Smith. The letter congratulated President George W. Bush for not attending the World Summit on sustainable Development in Johannesburg, and warned against a “a World Environmental Organization,” which the authors described as “the worst possible outcome at Johannesburg.” [31] 1995 Wrote and designed a series of six brochures on environmental issues for distribution to elected officials, journalists, and other audiences. [3] November 1995 Bast, representing the Heartland Institute, was a confirmed speaker at the 1995 “National Orientation Conference” hosted by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), according to archived tobacco industry documents on file at the UCSF Industry Documents Library. [58], [69] 1991 Bast presented a workshop at ALEC's 1991 Washington State meeting, according to archived documents. Bast presented at a workshop titled “Controlling State Spending: How to Work With State Think Tanks” sponsored by the Heritage Foundation. [70] “This workshop will give examples of how state-level public policy 'think tanks' are contributing to policymakers' understanding of budget and spending issues—particularly structural, long-term problems—while also elevating the level of public debate against the backdrop of special interest politics and bureaucratic inertia. A directory of state-based policy research institutes will be distributed with consulting assistance outlined for ALEC members seeking to help establish institutes in states that do not yet have one,” the description read. [70] Other speakers at the workshop included: J. Stanley Marshall — President, the James Madison Institute Charles D. Baker — Director, the Pioneer Institute Massachusetts. John Carlson — President, The Washington Institute for Policy Studies Michael Sanera — Executive Director, the Barry M. Goldwater Insitute for Public Policy Research 1989 Wrote, co-directed, and co-produced a 20-minute video titled “Coming Out of the Ice.” The video covered a variety of public policy issues such as tort reform, privatization, school reform, and taxes. [3] Affiliations The Heartland Institute — Former CEO and President. Current director and senior fellow. [3], [46], [89] American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) — Conference speaker. Bast is also listed in a 1987 ALEC “Personnel Directory” designed to “provide State Legislators and other members of ALEC access to information and important contacts for a broad range of public policy issues.” [58], [90] Nomos Press Inc. — Board of Directors, 1983 - 1988. [3], [46] State Policy Network — Founding Director, officer, and member of the executive committee, 1991-1997. [3], [46] Advocates for Self-Government — Board of Advisors, 2003 – current. [3], [46] Illinois Policy Institute — Board of Advisors, 2004 – current. [3], [46] Center for Medicine in the Public Interest — Board of Advisors, 2005 – current. [3], [46] American Conservative Union — Board of Directors, 2007 – current. [3], [46] Grassroot Institute of Hawaii — Board of Scholars. [4], [46] Midwest Economic Summit — Former Consultant. [88] Publications Bast is the coauthor of 12 books, including Rebuilding America's Schools (1990), Why We Spend Too Much on Health Care (1992), Eco-Sanity: A Common-Sense Guide to Environmentalism (1994), and Education & Capitalism (2003). [3] He has not published any articles in peer-reviewed journals on the subject of climate change. A list of his books, publications, and policy studies is available at his archived profile at the Heartland Institute. [45] Resources Joseph Bast. “Eight Reasons Why Global Warming is a Scam” (PDF), The Heartland Institute, February 1, 2003. “Testimony by Joseph L. Bast President, The Heartland Institute to the Environment Committee of the Iowa House Monday, February 9, 2004” (PDF), The Heartland Institute. “Joseph L. Bast - 2008 Resumé.” The Heartland Institute. Archived February 20, 2012. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/tyQD1 “Staff and Board Members: Joseph L. Bast,” Grassroot Institute of Hawaii. Archived April 23, 2011. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/hF77v “The Heartland Institute,” SourceWatch. “Joseph Bast,” SourceWatch. “Chinese Translate Climate Change Reconsidered Volumes,” The Heartland Institute, August 14, 2013. Archived August 5, 2014. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/aP5zC “Joe Bast, Willie Soon talking 'Climate Change Reconsidered' on Fox News,” The Heartland Institute, September 19, 2013. “NIPCC Climate Report Covered on 'Special Report with Bret Baier',” . YouTube video uploaded by user “The Heartland Institute,” September 17, 2013. “The IPCC's Latest Report Deliberately Excludes and Misrepresents Important Climate Science,” Forbes, March 31, 2014. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/vZ2RQ “Joe Bast Announces the Death of Denial-a-Palooza at Final Heartland ICCC Conference,” DeSmogBlog, May 23, 2012. “Will Heartland Institute's Corporate Funders Tacitly Endorse Comparing Climate realists to Bin Laden and the Unabomber?” DeSmogBlog, May 4, 2012. “VIDEO: Heartland Institute Reluctantly Stands by Denial of Cigarette Smoking Risks,” Republic Report, April 30, 2014. Archived October 21, 2017. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/HtjZt Joseph Bast. “Please Don't Poop in My Salad” (PDF), Heartland Institute, July, 2006. Archived May 5, 2014. ““Heartland Institute's tobacco denial,” YouTube video uploaded by user “Evidence Squared,” April 18, 2014. “Heartland Institute President Joseph Bast on CBS 2 in Chicago Talking Climate,” HeartlandTube, May 7, 2014. Archived July 1, 2014. Jim Lakely, Joseph Bast. “International Gathering of Scientists Skeptical of Man-Caused Global Warming to Take Place in Las Vegas from July 7 to July 9,” Heartland Institute, March 26, 2014. Archived August 17, 2014. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/LFJvl Katherine Bagley. “Leaked Email Reveals Who's Who List of Climate Denialists,” InsideClimate News. March 12, 2015. Jim Lakely. “Apollo 7 Astronaut Walter Cunningham to Headline 'Right Climate Stuff' Event at CPAC 2013,” The Heartland Institute, March 8, 2013. “The Texas Taxpayer & Student Fairness Coalition et al. vs Williams et al. (pdf),” D-1-GN-11-003130, (District Court of Travis County Texas 2014), 335 to 336. Original also on DocumentCloud. Archived at Internet Archive, June 9, 2015. “Showtime Exposes Climate Change Deniers, like James Taylor and Joseph Bast's Heartland Institute,” PR Watch, May 19, 2014. Archived January 25, 2016. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/7Gk4r “Years of Living Dangerously: Episode 6,” Showtime. Archived January 25, 2016. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/x3Bp8 “CEI Runs “Abuse of Power” Ad In New York Times,” Competitive Enterprise Institute, May 18, 2016. Archived May 31, 2016. “Abuse of Power: All Americans have the right to support causes they believe in” (PDF), Competitive Enterprise Institute. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmogBlog. Steve Horn. “Exxon's Lawyer in Climate Science Probe Has History Helping Big Tobacco and NFL Defend Against Health Claims,” DeSmogBlog, May 10, 2016. Jim Lakely. “#WebOfDenial Push by Senate Dems Exposes Their Hatred of Free Speech,” Somewhat Reasonable (Heartland Institute Blog), July 12, 2016. Archived July 14, 2016. Brendan Demelle. “Senators Launch Resolution, Speech Blitz Calling Out #WebOfDenial Blocking Climate Action,” DeSmog, July 11, 2016. Coalition Letter to Senate Web of Denial Resolution (PDF). Retrieved from the Heartland Institute. Archived .pdf on file at DeSMogBlog. Cindy Baxter. “Front Groups Attacking #WebofDenial Senate Action Took Over $92M in Dark, Dirty Money,” Desmog, July 14, 2016. Originally posted at Climate Investigations Center. “Dear Senators,” (PDF), Competitive Enterprise Institute, January 12, 2017. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog. “An Open Letter To President Bush About The World Summit On Sustainable Development,“ Competitive Enterprise Institute, August 2, 2002. Archived November 5, 2002. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/mMFvn “International Conference on Climate Change 12,” YouTube video uploaded by user The Heartland Institute, March 23, 2017. Rebecca Weber. “Leading Global Warming Deniers Just Told Us What They Want Trump to Do: Be Afraid,” Mother Jones, March 24, 2017. Archived April 11, 2017. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/0rFXj “Dear Mr. President” (PDF), retrieved from Competitive Enterprise Institute. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog. Graham Readfearn. “Conservative Groups Pushing Trump To Exit Paris Climate Deal Have Taken Millions From Koch Brothers, Exxon,” DeSmog, May 10, 2017. Susanne Goldberg. “Conservative groups spend up to $1bn a year to fight action on climate change,” The Guardian, December 20, 2013. Archived May 12, 2017. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/TB2yy “Happy Memorial Day, You Stupid, Arrogant, Liberal Global Warming Alarmist!” Somewhat Reasonable, May 26, 2017. Archived May 27, 2017. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/oVnPF Nancy Thorner. “THORNER: RADICAL ENVIRONMENTALISTS BLAME HEARTLAND INSTITUTE FOR TRUMP'S PARIS ACCORD DECISION,” Illinois Review, June 12, 2017. Archived June 19, 2017. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/5VOa9 Joe Bast. “Four Liberal U.S. Senators Attack Heartland, and We Reply,” Heartland Institute, June 9, 2017. Archived June 19, 2017. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/4Ap56 “Dear Secretary DeVos,” United States Senate, June 7, 2017. Retrieved from Heartland.org. “Re: Your recent shameful conduct with regard to our communications with the Trump administration” (PDF), The Heartland Institute, June 8, 2017. “Joseph Bast,” Heartland Institute. Archived June 20, 2017. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/3Bne4 “ABOUT US,” The Heartland Institute. Archied June 20, 2017. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/9omX9 Joe Bast. “History of The Heartland Institute” (PDF), Heartland Institute, December 2016. “Joseph L. Bast - 2008 Resumé,” The Heartland Institute. Archied February 20, 2012. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/tyQD1 “Joseph L. Bast: 2013 Resumé” (PDF), The Heartland Institute. “About,” America First Energy. Archived October 11, 2017. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/8bTTJ October 2017 Fundraising letter by Fred Palmer. On file at Desmog. “SPEAKERS,” America First Energy. Archived October 10, 2017. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/OJWeX Steve Horn. “Trump Names Climate Denier Kathleen Hartnett-White to Head White House Environmental Council,” DeSmog, October 13, 2017. “Heartland Institute Experts React to Trump’s Appointment of Kathleen Hartnett White for CEQ,” The Heartland Institute. Archived newsletter .pdf on file at DeSmog. “An Audit Report on The Commission on Environmental Quality’s Enforcement and Permitting Functions for Selected Programs” (PDF), State Auditor's Office, December 2003. “Skeptics suspicious of Pruitt plan to press him on red team,” E&E News, October 16, 2017. Archived October 17, 2017. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/aolE0 “PRESS RELEASE: HEARTLAND INSTITUTE NAMES FORMER CONGRESSMAN TIM HUELSKAMP INCOMING PRESIDENT,” The Heartland Institute, June 29, 2017. Archived June 30, 2017. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/mzEuW Jim Lakely. “'Do You Still Believe in Global Warming?' Billboards Hit Chicago,” The Heartland Institute, May 3, 2012. Archived November 23, 2014. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/KsPdV “Joseph K. Bast: 2017 Resumé” (PDF), The Heartland Institute. Joseph L. Bast. “Five Lies about Tobacco,” The Heartlander, July 1998. “Dear ALEC Private Sector Member,” American Legislative Exchance Council, November 1995. Retrieved from UCSF Industry Documents Library. Bates No. TI10930905 “What Smokers Deserve to Know,” The Heartland Institute, July 2002. Retrieved from UCSF Industry Documents Library. Bates number 5001013374-5001013388. “Dear Secretary Clark:”, May 29, 2002. Retrieved from UCSF Industry Documents Library. Bates number 5001013365-5001013373. Joe Bast. “Dear Editor,” Americans for Tax Reform (forwarded email). Retrieved from UCSF Industry Documents Library. Bates number 2085235040. “Public Policy Review Committee Meeting: AGENDA,” Retrieved from UCSF Industry Documents Library. Bates number 2073204225-2073204271. “Heartland Sponsors,” The Heartland Institute. Retrieved from UCSF Industry Documents Library. Bates number 2073204232-2073204245. “Weekly Bullet Report For Federal Tobacco Team” Philip Morris Companies Inc. Retrieved from UCSF Industry Documents Library. Bates number 2078294765-2078294768. “Smoking Under Siege: Why It Matters to You,” UCSF Industry Documents Library. Undated. Bates No. TI10892470-TI10892471. “SMOKING UNDER SIEGE: WHY IT MATTERS TO YOU,” The Heartland Institute, June 1, 1997. Archived October 22, 2017. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/aVuWc “Memorandum - May 30, 1997” The Heartland Institute. Retrieved from UCSF Industry Documents Library. Bates number 2072174262. “Joe Camel is Innocent!” A Heartland Perspective August 21, 1996. “400 Legislators Expected at ALEC '95 NOC,” American Legislative Exchange Council, November 22, 1995. Retrieved from Retrieved from UCSF Industry Documents Library. Bates number TI10930686. “This year, Washington State will serve as host to the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) […],” American Legislative Exchange Council. Retrieved from Retrieved from UCSF Industry Documents Library. Bates number TI24220444. Joe Bast. “Friends,” The Heartland Institute, October 12, 2017. Retrieved from Natural Resources Defense Council. Chelsea Harvey and Scott Waldman. “Some groups want more CO2. Here's what that means,” E&E News, October 17, 2017. Archived October 24, 2017. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/RAvgm James Osborne. “Trump officials to appear at Houston event hosted by climate skeptics,” Houston Chronicle, November 2, 2017. Archived November 20, 2017. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/XPtYc “America First Energy Conference Stacked with Climate Change Deniers,” Climate Investigations Center, November 6, 2017. Archived November 20, 2017. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/mISrd “JOSEPH BAST,” America First Energy Conference. Archived November 20, 2017. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/0P3z2 “Scott Pruitt,” America First Energy Conference. Archived November 20, 2017. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/X4F6m “This group thinks Trump hasn’t done enough to unravel environmental rules. Here’s its wish list” The Washington Post, November 15, 2017. Archived November 18, 2017. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/9JPgH Michael Bastasch. “The Real Story Behind The Heartland Institute’s Role In The Trump Admin,” The Daily Caller. November 21, 2017. Archived November 28, 2017. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/tCDXt Joe Bast. “Heartland Institute Responds to, Corrects Inside Climate News Story,” Heartland Institute, December 27, 2017. Archived December 28, 2017. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/3dn7q “How Big Oil Lost Control of Its Climate Misinformation Machine,” Inside Climate News, December 22, 2017. Archived December 28, 2017. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/ELcwo “Our Billboards,” 7th International Conference on Climate Change. Archived May 3, 2012. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/0csXJ “Heartland Institute Ends Experiment with ‘Unabomber’ Global Warming Billboard,” The Heartland Institute, May 4, 2012. Archived May 21, 2012. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/F3pc6 “JOSEPH BAST: LOOKING BACK AND LOOKING AHEAD AT THE HEARTLAND INSTITUTE'S TRIUMPHS AND PROSPECTS,” The Heartland Institute, January 3, 2018. Archived March 11, 2018. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/YkxEe Lisa Friedman and Coral Davenport. “Pruitt’s Plan for Climate Change Debates: Ask Conservative Think Tanks,” The New York Times, May 8, 2018. Archived May 14, 2018. Archive.is URL: https://archive.li/onsj5 “Speakers,” America First Energy Conference 2018. Archived August 1, 2018. Archive.fo URL: https://archive.fo/mwtga “About,” America First Energy Conference 2018. Archived July 23, 2018. Archive.is URL: https://archive.fo/E4Gnt “JOSEPH BAST,” America First Energy Conference 2018. Archived August 1, 2018. Archive URL: https://archive.fo/AEK4N “Midwest Economic Summit: Biographical Information,” Midwest Economic Summit, November 1984. Retrieved from UCSF Industry Documents Library. Bates number TI28862864. “JOSEPH BAST,” Heartland Institute. Archived August 14, 2018. Archive.is URL: https://archive.fo/ab36h “ALEC Personnel Directory,” American Legislative Exchange Council. Retrieved from UCSF Industry Documents Library. Bates number TI29571878-TI29571893. Profile image screenshot from YouTube, Joe Bast speaking at the Heartland Institute's 12th International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC12). Related Posts Emails Reveal Pruitt and EPA Coordinating with Climate-Denying Heartland Institute Koch-funded Ex-GOP Congressman Tim Huelskamp to Lead Climate Science Denial Group Heartland Institute EPA Chief Pruitt’s 'Red Team' on Climate Science Is an Eight-Year-Old Talking Point Pushed by Heartland Institute VIDEO: Heartland Institute's Joe Bast Reluctantly Stands by Denial of Cigarette Smoking Risks Heartland Institute Tries To Poison Classrooms With Partisan Climate Pseudoscience Tags: Heartland Institute global warming climate change Joseph Bast desmogblog global warming blog denial industry climate skeptics conference climate change conference new york climate change denier global warming research climate misinformation smogger climate change skeptic climate denialism denial database Share 0 Tweet Reddit 0 Share 0 Share PRINT SUBSCRIBE Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
voidisyinyang Posted February 27, 2019 46 minutes ago, windwalker said: You still have not answered nor addressed why there seems to be a data discrepancies between those who use what should be the same data from the same sources. What most of the clips I've posted talked about. meanwhile " A devastating cold front, complete with extreme low temperatures, wind and precipitation, is hitting much of the United States this week. The phenomenon, known popularly as a "polar vortex," will move across the Midwest and Northeast, keeping temperatures in many places well below freezing for an extended period of time – and wind chill levels at life-threatening lows. In parts of Minnesota, the wind chill factor could reach as low at -65 degrees Fahrenheit. Chicago might break its record low for temperature excluding wind chill, -27 degrees Fahrenheit, set on Jan 20, 1985. But even if temperatures fall below that level, it will likely not come close to Illinois’ all-time low temperature, a staggering -36 degrees Fahrenheit set in Bloomington in 1999. Yep getting warmer, weather is changing, has changed, and will change.... Quote Yes, so the polar vortex is a new word in the lexicon of Americans, just starting a few years ago, and it gets used wrongly often. What the polar vortex truly is, is way up in the atmosphere over the North Pole, about 30 miles up, is a ring of winds blowing in the counterclockwise direction that keep the cold air bottled up over the Arctic, way high up in the atmosphere. So this is called the stratospheric polar vortex. That's the real one. And what it often gets used wrongly for is to the talk about the jet stream, which is much lower in the atmosphere. It is really what creates all of our weather that we feel down here on the surface. It is also a river of wind that flows around the Northern Hemisphere, but at a much lower level. So there are these two spinning rivers of wind up over the Northern Hemisphere that control our weather. And right now, the true polar vortex has actually split into two, which doesn't happen very often. And one of those lobes of cold air that is normally is bottled up over the North Pole has drifted down over North America and brought all that cold air with it. And that's why this particular cold front or cold air mass is just so severe. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/why-the-midwests-deep-freeze-may-be-a-consequence-of-climate-change Jennifer Francis: Quote What we think is happening that connects back to climate change is that, back in the summer, we lost a lot of ice in a region just north of Western Alaska in the Arctic Ocean. That allowed a lot of extra heat to get absorbed in the water there, and, in fact, the ice still hasn't grown back. And that heat then gets reemitted back to the atmosphere during the fall and winter, when the cold air comes back, and it makes kind of a bulge in the atmosphere. And if that bulge gets big enough, it can actually make the jet stream take a northward swing right there. And if that northward swing is big enough, it will send wave energy up into the stratosphere, where the polar vortex is, and it can kind of knock it off its rocker, if you will. If you can think of like a top spinning up there, it can bump into this top and get it to wobble, and sometimes it wobbles so much, that it actually creates this split in the polar vortex. Quote But I think this concept has gained a lot of traction in the last few years. And there is really — there is really no alternative explanation, other than this has just happened by random chance. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
windwalker Posted February 27, 2019 Your not going to address the differences in data by various scientist to support their views or discount others. Expected by still would like to read about why? Any science you and some others don't agree with is flawed and suspect. got it.... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
windwalker Posted February 27, 2019 6 minutes ago, voidisyinyang said: He's just a Corporate Junk Science Stooge! As you may be too, only with out the corporate sponsors At least you don't disappoint. In the 70s while in high school they were talking about the next ice age now its global warming, I suspect after my time here is done it will go back to the next ice age.... 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
voidisyinyang Posted February 27, 2019 6 minutes ago, windwalker said: As you may be too, only with out the corporate sponsors At least you don't disappoint. In the 70s while in high school they were talking about the next ice age now its global warming, I suspect after my time here is done it will go back to the next ice age.... Quote I searched around on Time’s website and looked through all of the covers from the 1970s. I was shocked (shocked!) to find not a single cover with the promise of an in-depth, special report on the Coming Ice Age. What about this cover from December 1973 with Archie Bunker shivering in his chair entitled “The Big Freeze”? Nope, that’s about the Energy Crisis. Maybe this cover from January 1977, again entitled “The Big Freeze”? Nope, that’s about the weather. How about this one from December 1979, “The Cooling of America”? Again with the Energy Crisis. Now, there really were news articles in the 1970s about scientists predicting a coming ice age. Time had a piece called “Another Ice Age?” in 1974. Time’s competition, Newsweek, joined in with “The Cooling World” in 1975. People have collected lists and lists of “Coming Ice Age” stories from newspapers, magazines, books, tv shows, etc. throughout the 1970s. But if it was such a big news story why did it never make the cover of America’s flagship news magazine like the faked image implies? Perhaps there is more to the story. Maybe your memory has been messed with. https://climatecrocks.com/2013/06/07/the-1970s-ice-age-myth-and-time-magazine-covers-by-david-kirtley/comment-page-1/ Quote Scientists were finding answers to the puzzle of what caused ice ages in the past: variations in earth’s orbit. Scientists were gathering data from around the world to come up with global average temperatures, and they found that temperatures had been cooling since about the 1940s. Scientists were realizing that some of this cooling was due to increasing air pollution (soot and aerosols, tiny particles suspended in the air) which was decreasing the amount of solar energy entering the atmosphere. Scientists were also quantifying the “greenhouse effect” of another part of our increasing pollution: carbon dioxide (CO2), which should cause the climate to warm. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
voidisyinyang Posted February 27, 2019 (edited) 18 minutes ago, windwalker said: Your not going to address the differences in data by various scientist to support their views or discount others. Expected by still would like to read about why? Any science you and some others don't agree with is flawed and suspect. got it.... Quote 97% of climatologists agree that adding CO2 to the atmosphere is leading to climate change, only 45% of the public know about that consensus. The other 55% must think we’re still in the 1970s when scientists were still debating the issue. So you enjoy being Spoon-Fed billion dollar corporate Junk lies paid for by 100% Tax Deductible "contributions" to science? got it. Quote “Our findings are clear: Exxon Mobil misled the public about the state of climate science and its implications,” Oreskes and Supran write in a New York Times opinion article. “Available documents show a systematic, quantifiable discrepancy between what Exxon Mobil’s scientists and executives discussed about climate change in private and in academic circles, and what it presented to the general public.” Taking up Exxon’s challenge to “Read all of these documents and make up your own mind,” the researchers examined the company’s scientific research, internal memos and paid public-facing “advertorials.” They concluded that, although the company knew of and communicated internally about its product’s climate impacts and the danger of it becoming a “stranded asset,” it told the public a different story. So keep in mind this is 100% tax deductible LIES!! Quote Exxon placed paid opinion articles in the New York Times between 1989 and 2004, at a cost of $31,000 each. Contrary to the company’s own research and internal communications — as well as overwhelming scientific evidence from around the world — the articles argued, among other things, that, “The science of climate change is too uncertain to mandate a plan of action that could plunge economies into turmoil,” and, “We still don’t know what role man-made greenhouse gases might play in warming the planet.” Oreskes and Supran also note Exxon is being sued by current and former employees and investigated by the New York and Massachusetts attorneys general and the federal Securities and Exchange Commission. Much relates to whether the company “misled consumers, shareholders or the public about the environmental or business risks of climate change, or about the risk that oil and gas reserves might become stranded assets that won’t be developed, affecting shareholder value.” Edited February 27, 2019 by voidisyinyang Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ralis Posted February 27, 2019 2 minutes ago, voidisyinyang said: So you enjoy being Spoon-Fed billion dollar corporate Junk lies paid for by 100% Tax Deductible "contributions" to science? got it. I would like to add that all the naysayers and paid shill deniers that are beating a resurrected dead horse are not participants in the ongoing research, but cherry picking data to confirm bias and protect industry. Without funding from fossil fuels along with a few other interests, there would be little or no interest in denying the research. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
windwalker Posted February 27, 2019 9 minutes ago, voidisyinyang said: So you enjoy being Spoon-Fed billion dollar corporate Junk lies paid for by 100% Tax Deductible "contributions" to science? the gift that keeps on giving. In your own words explain some of the points they make. should be easy, Take a point you don't agree with and explain were they'er wrong and why....Some of them say. There were hotter periods of time during the middle ages comes to mind. raw data is changed to reflect modeling methods used to support predetermined outcomes there is very little one way or another that can be done to change the climate is it true or not? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
windwalker Posted February 27, 2019 1 minute ago, ralis said: I would like to add that all the naysayers and paid shill deniers that are beating a resurrected dead horse are not participants in the ongoing research, but cherry picking data to confirm bias and protect industry. Without funding from fossil fuels along with a few other interests, there would be little or no interest in denying the research. common ralis, you know its a russian plot made to divide the US no one here that I've read so far is a naysayer or denier... Climate changes, has changed, is changing and will change. Thats a fact no one here that I've is protecting any industry. I'm not, are you and some others? Whats the main point, what is the desired outcome of this conversation? My own is to understand the differences and where they arise from so far I've not seen any that would change my mind about the fact that some seem to have an agenda not tied to the climate directly. If it wasn't climate my feeling it would be something else.... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ralis Posted February 27, 2019 1 minute ago, windwalker said: the gift that keeps on giving. In your own words explain some of the points they make. should be easy, Take a point you don't agree with and explain were they'er wrong and why....Some of them say. There were hotter periods of time during the middle ages comes to mind. raw data is changed to reflect modeling methods used to support predetermined outcomes there is very little one way or another that can be done to change the climate is it true or not? Are you a research scientist? Obviously not! Further, the model takes into account the entire history of the climate of the earth's biosphere. To take one event such as in bold above and proceed from a fragmentary conclusion is incorrect. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
voidisyinyang Posted February 27, 2019 1 minute ago, windwalker said: There were hotter periods of time during the middle ages comes to mind. Again you're being spoon-fed corporate Big Oil junk lies Trend in average” : Deception. Quote The original curve was sketched in 1965 by Hubert Lamb, who grafted estimates of 900-1680AD with 1680-1961AD measurements compiled by Gordon Manley. It covered a 21x34-mile patch of England, no more, and most is an estimate, not a reconstruction. Call that Lamb MWP, honest scientific effort, although estimates at left are known to be high.It is false to imply this curve to be global or even a reconstruction, as deniers have been doing since 1991. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
windwalker Posted February 27, 2019 Just now, ralis said: Are you a research scientist? Obviously not! Further, the model takes into account the entire history of the climate of the earth's biosphere. To take one event such as in bold above and proceed from a fragmentary conclusion is incorrect. ok lets do this... how many here claim to be research scientist posting on a site that has nothing to do with science arguing with those that apparently cant understand the research. on the other hand, how many here are long term followers of spiritual paths posting on a site dedicated to such.. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
windwalker Posted February 27, 2019 3 minutes ago, voidisyinyang said: Again you're being spoon-fed corporate Big Oil junk lies alinsky 101 attack, discredit not going to say you seem to be deluded, biased and ignorant of your own points......thats not the issue now if you can get past the sound bites maybe you can show or point out why you feel they'er wrong in your own words... if not,,, try clapping with one hand.... 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
voidisyinyang Posted February 27, 2019 22 minutes ago, windwalker said: So if you want to keep presenting your Big Oil Junk Science claims - go ahead. There's your "temperatures change" blah blah argument. https://skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period-intermediate.htm So this graph is already ten years old but it's clearly way warmer than your Medieval Warm claim - And so if you like the Big Oil lies so much why not really study what the Big Oil science is! https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/22/opinion/exxon-climate-change-.html?mcubz=1 Quote We found that, from as early as the 1970s, Exxon Mobil (and its predecessors Exxon and Mobil) not only knew about emerging climate science, but also contributed research to it. Scientific reports and articles written or cowritten by Exxon Mobil employees acknowledged that global warming was a real and serious threat. They also noted it could be addressed by reducing fossil fuel use, meaning that fossil fuel reserves might one day become stranded assets. So what happened? How come you got lied to so badly? Quote or the most part their research was highly technical, hidden behind the walls of Exxon Mobil offices, or reported in academic publications with access only through a paywall. In contrast, the company’s advertorials in The New York Times discussing climate change were designed to reach and influence the public, and the potential readership was in the millions. Each advertorial cost roughly $31,000. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
windwalker Posted February 27, 2019 On 2/15/2019 at 2:15 PM, flowing hands said: As Dao followers what do you think we can do to help this disaster? Give us some ideas to help solve this problem. I know what I have done, but I want to hear what others think. Be an example to those around you, accept what one can change understand what one can not. What if one who really follows the dao, does not see this as a problem, is it still a problem or is it that they may not really follow the dao if they dont agree that there is a problem? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ralis Posted February 27, 2019 57 minutes ago, windwalker said: the gift that keeps on giving. In your own words explain some of the points they make. should be easy, Take a point you don't agree with and explain were they'er wrong and why....Some of them say. There were hotter periods of time during the middle ages comes to mind. raw data is changed to reflect modeling methods used to support predetermined outcomes there is very little one way or another that can be done to change the climate is it true or not? Are you in an ESL class? Voidisyinyang has been explaining why the paid shills are wrong and yet you fail to respond to that. Have you taken any science classes? 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
