Articles Tagged &quot;Joseph Bast&quot;

REPLY TO ARTICLE JOSEPH BAST

Print Article

Reply to article: Joseph Bast: The war of words over climate change

Tuesday, December 4th 2012, 8:58 AM EST

Co2sceptic (Site Admin)

They say truth is the first casualty of war. In the war of words over climate change, that is plainly the case.

On Nov. 25, The Post ran a news article by reporter Juliet Eilperin [“Climate skeptics target energy law”] that falsely claimed my organization, the Heartland Institute, received millions of dollars from ExxonMobil and foundations affiliated with Charles G. and David H. Koch.

Not true. Over the course of a decade, ExxonMobil gave less than a tenth of the amount reported, never amounting to even 5 percent of our annual receipts. The reported level of support from the Kochs was even more egregiously wrong: Except for a gift of $25,000 last year for our work on health-care reform, the Kochs hadn’t donated a dime since 1998.

The Post ran a correction in the paper and on its Web site, but the damage was done. The article has been reprinted without correction in newspapers throughout the country. It adds to the false narrative that the only people and organizations that question the dogma of man-made global warming are shills for the oil industry.

Source Link: washingtonpost.com/opinions

CLIMATE OF DOUBT HEADLINE STORY FILM & TV ROY SPENCER UPDATED JOSEPH BAST

Print Article

MUST SEE YOUTUBE: Frontline: Climate of Doubt: Updated by Roy Spencer & Joseph Bast

Wednesday, October 24th 2012, 12:21 PM EDT

Co2sceptic (Site Admin)

Frontline: Climate of DoubtPublished on Oct 23, 2012 by ClimateProgressWorld

PBS Frontline explores the massive shift in public opinion on climate change. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/climate-of-doubt/

Climate State, more on climate change coverage
http://climatestate.com

Updated below with MUST READ comments from Roy Spencer & Joseph Bast

Print Article

JOSEPH BAST

Joseph Bast: IPCC Admits Its Past Reports Were Junk

Wednesday, July 18th 2012, 3:07 PM EDT

Co2sceptic (Site Admin)

On June 27, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a statement saying it had "complete[d] the process of implementation of a set of recommendations issued in August 2010 by the InterAcademy Council (IAC), the group created by the world's science academies to provide advice to international bodies."

Hidden behind this seemingly routine update on bureaucratic processes is an astonishing and entirely unreported story. The IPCC is the world's most prominent source of alarmist predictions and claims about man-made global warming. Its four reports (a fifth report is scheduled for release in various parts in 2013 and 2014) are cited by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the U.S. and by national academies of science around the world as "proof" that the global warming of the past five or so decades was both man-made and evidence of a mounting crisis.

If the IPCC's reports were flawed, as a many global warming "skeptics" have long claimed, then the scientific footing of the man-made global warming movement -- the environmental movement's "mother of all environmental scares" -- is undermined. The Obama administration's war on coal may be unnecessary. Billions of dollars in subsidies to solar and wind may have been wasted. Trillions of dollars of personal income may have been squandered worldwide in campaigns to "fix" a problem that didn't really exist.

The "recommendations" issued by the IAC were not minor adjustments to a fundamentally sound scientific procedure. Here are some of the findings of the IAC's 2010 report.

The IAC reported that IPCC lead authors fail to give "due consideration ... to properly documented alternative views" (p. 20), fail to "provide detailed written responses to the most significant review issues identified by the Review Editors" (p. 21), and are not "consider[ing] review comments carefully and document[ing] their responses" (p. 22). In plain English: the IPCC reports are not peer-reviewed.

Source Link: americanthinker.com

OPEN LETTER/FAX JOSEPH BAST REPLY TO ARTICLE JUDITH CURRY

Print Article

Reply to article: Joe Bast Responds to Climate Etc. post titled ‘Heartburn at Heartland’

Tuesday, May 29th 2012, 4:09 AM EDT

Co2sceptic (Site Admin)

Dr. Curry,

Thanks for reproducing in your recent post my account of the left’s attacks on our scientists and donors. It’s a story that isn’t getting nearly enough attention in the blogosphere. I’m disappointed, though, that you also reproduced, at length and even endorsed, the lies and distortions written about us by Suzanne Goldenberg. A simple call or email to me or Jim Lakely would have given us a chance to correct her many misstatements.

I won’t ask for a correction or apology, but please understand that …

(a) Concerning ICCC-7, we set a record for the number of cosponsors (60), 12 speakers asked to speak after only 2 withdrew, and the mood was decidedly upbeat. Opponents (including “Forecast the Facts” and Occupy Wall Street) promised to disrupt the conference and failed utterly – fewer than 50 people showed up for their rallies. Those who did show up wore boots on their heads and refused Christopher Monckton’s invitation to debate.

Source Link: blog.heartland.org

Print Article

JOSEPH BAST FAKEGATE

Joseph Bast: New Evidence Released in Fakegate Global Warming Scandal

Wednesday, May 2nd 2012, 7:25 AM EDT

Co2sceptic (Site Admin)

The Heartland Institute today released more evidence that Pacific Institute President Peter Gleick was the likely author of a fake “climate strategy memo” that Gleick originally claimed came from a “Heartland insider,” and later said he received “in the mail” from an anonymous source.

Heartland released a computer forensics report, conducted by Protek International, which states: “We conclude that the Memo did not originate on the Heartland System. It was not created on the Heartland System and was never present there prior to its February 14 posting online.”

The new report contradicts disgraced climate scientist Gleick’s claim to have received the memo from someone affiliated with The Heartland Institute and adds to a growing body of evidence pointing to Gleick’s guilt. A month ago, Juola & Associates, the premier provider of expert analysis and testimony in the field of text and authorship, said “it is more likely than not that Gleick is in fact the author/compiler of the document entitled ‘Confidential Memo: 2012 Heartland Climate Strategy,’ and further that the document does not represent a genuine strategy memo from the Heartland Institute.”

Source Link: fakegate.org

Print Article

WILLIAM GRAY JOSEPH BAST FAKEGATE

Joseph Bast: From Prof. William Gray: Homage to The Heartland Institute

Friday, April 6th 2012, 6:07 AM EDT

Co2sceptic (Site Admin)

This long essay is well worth your time to read. It was written, without any encouragement or coaching, by Prof. William Gray, one of the world’s most distinguished and respected hurricane experts. He’s one of the “grand old men” of climate research, a hero and mentor to thousands of students and practicing meteorologists. In his essay he tells the story of how a younger generation of researchers got co-opted by the government grant process and have abandoned objectivity on the climate change issue in exchange for money and publicity.

The essay has many kind things to say about Heartland. I’m going to print out and cherish this essay for a long time, maybe for the rest of my life. This is vindication. I don’t care if the New York Times, Washington Post, or Michael Mann never admit that they were wrong. Bill Gray says we are right, and that’s all I need.

(H/T with thanks to Joe D’Aleo.)

We should all be grateful for the Heartland Institute and for its Nobel Mission to bring enlightenment and truth to the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) question. The recent illegal acquiring of internal documents from this Chicago based institute helps remind us what a unique and important organization it is. The Heartland Institute has given a great boost and encouragement to so many of us who have attended any one or up to six of their international climate science meetings that were held in New York, Wash. D.C., and Chicago between 2008-2011.

Source Link: blog.heartland.org

JOSEPH BAST JAY LEHR OPEN LETTER/FAX ENERGY & FUEL

Print Article

An Open Letter to the Oil and Gas Industry: The Ethical Case for Fracking by Joe Bast, Jay Lehr and Mike Gemmell

Tuesday, December 13th 2011, 6:58 AM EST

Co2sceptic (Site Admin)

Those of you in the oil and gas industry are no doubt familiar with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s claim that fracking is a potential source of groundwater contamination, and that a moratorium on the use of fracking should be enacted until EPA can study it to death. (Note: For lay people, hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” is a technique used to increase oil and gas yields in petroleum-bearing formations. It involves injecting fluids at high pressure into the formation to increase its transmission properties.)

This step—one EPA has been hinting about for months—will be another nail in the energy industry’s coffin if its representatives do not step up and oppose this utterly unwarranted accusation. Will you rise to the challenge?

EPA and its allies in the environmental movement and media are claiming there is now a reason to believe fracking has contaminated the groundwater in certain wells in Wyoming, even though the use of fracking was generally considered safe and noncontroversial for the past 50 years. This is an out-and-out fabrication, which in time will be exposed. But if a moratorium is imposed before the truth comes out, energy production in the United States will suffer another serious setback. Lifting the moratorium may take years and millions of dollars in campaign contributions.

Source Link: blog.heartland.org

JOSEPH BAST FRED SINGER CRAIG IDSO BOB CARTER HEADLINE STORY

Print Article

Joseph Bast, Craig Idso, S. Fred Singer, Robert M. Carter: New Report on Global Warming Contradicts U.N.’s IPCC

Monday, August 29th 2011, 12:20 PM EDT

Co2sceptic (Site Admin)

The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), already under severe criticism for violating the requirements of academic peer review and relying on secondary sources, comes under attack again in a new report co-produced by three nonprofit research organizations.

According to the new report, “natural causes are very likely to be [the] dominant” cause of climate change that took place in the twentieth and at the start of the twenty-first centuries. “We are not saying anthropogenic greenhouse gases (GHG) cannot produce some warming or have not in the past. Our conclusion is that the evidence shows they are not playing a substantial role.”

The authors of the new report go on to say “the net effect of continued warming and rising carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere is most likely to be beneficial to humans, plants, and wildlife.”

Both conclusions contradict the findings of the widely cited reports of the IPCC.

Source Link: heartland.org/press-releases

JOSEPH BAST REPLY TO ARTICLE

Print Article

Reply to article: Joseph Bast: Heartland Replies to Nature

Saturday, July 30th 2011, 9:50 AM EDT

Co2sceptic (Site Admin)

Nature, the widely respected science journal, has a feature story and an unsigned editorial in its latest issue addressing The Heartland Institute’s contribution to the global debate over climate change. The articles can be read (for free) at the following links: here: here.

These articles are surely a sign that the debate is not over regarding the causes and consequences of climate change and what, if anything, should be done to alter the human influence on climate. But the articles themselves hardly do justice to our efforts, or the efforts of many scientists who are speaking out against the fake “consensus” that Nature itself has done so much to promote in its coverage of climate change.

Turning first to the feature story by Jeff Tollefson, titled “The Sceptic Meets His Match,” I’ve thanked Mr. Tollefson for an article that is, by and large, fair and accurate. He accurately summarizes my position, saying “he does not necessarily deny that humans are having an influence on the climate, but he does question the forecasts of catastrophic impacts and the rationale for curbing carbon emissions.” But there are some important errors and omissions we wish to correct.

Source Link: heartland.org