Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
The new Washington
Post Weather website
Jump to CWG's
Latest Full Forecast
Outside now? Radar, temps
and more: Weather Wall
Follow us on Twitter (@capitalweather) and become a fan on Facebook
Posted at 1:00 PM ET, 06/25/2009

Heartland Responds to CWG Climate Commentary

By Capital Weather Gang

* Full Forecast | NatCast | Lightning Safety | Cars w/ Weather Names *

In response to a June 18 commentary by CWG's Steve Tracton critical of a recent climate conference sponsored by the Heartland Institute, Heartland's senior fellow for environmental policy, James Taylor, has challenged Tracton's assertion that the conference presented only the view of those who doubt that humans are the main cause of global warming.

Below is the note left by Taylor in the comments section of the post, followed by a response sent by Tracton to Taylor via e-mail.

Steve's entire blog posting offers a valuable insight into the delusional mindset of the hardcore alarmists. What I find most amusing is Steve's extended whining about how we only presented one side of the issue.

Keep reading for the rest of Taylor's comment and Tracton's response...

Was Steve asleep or did he merely have his head buried in the sand when I stated from the microphone that we had invited Al Gore, James Hansen, Gavin Schmidt, Michael Mann, etc., to give presentations? Had they accepted our invitations, the conference would have had a very robust mix of alarmists vs. realists. But, as is almost always the case, the alarmists look for the nearest chair to hide under when there is a chance they may have to answer critical questions from an informed panel of peers.
If you were disappointed, Steve, that alarmists weren't filling slots on the panels, you have only your alarmist friends to blame.
James M. Taylor Senior Fellow, Environment Policy The Heartland Institute

Tracton's response...

Yes, Mr. Taylor stated he invited Al Gore, Jim Hansen, etc from the floor. What he fails to acknowledge here is what he said immediately following announcement of issuing the invitations, namely that they must know they are wrong and we are right (followed by laughter). Of course the invited individuals were well aware this was Heartland's position. For them to accept would have been equivalent to Newton appearing before an audience of vehement enthusiasts totally dedicated to and unwaveringly convinced of the proposition that gravity causes apples to fall up, not down from apple trees. There is little doubt that Heartland knew the invited individuals would not accept and, hence, its primary motive was the PR for being able to pronounce at the meeting invitations were issued but not accepted.

Related Posts
Dueling Climate Meetings Aim to Steer Policy
Heartland Institute Criticizes CWG Post
The Sureness of Global Warming Skeptics
Think Tank Reverses Course on Climate Lobbying

By Capital Weather Gang  | June 25, 2009; 1:00 PM ET
Categories:  Climate Change  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: What's In a Car's Name? Sometimes Weather
Next: PM Update: Hot Today, Stormy Tomorrow?

Comments

Sounds spicy...
But, therein lies the problem. Both sides are so pig-headed and closed minded that no one is allowed to have a clear discussion about anything. Had any of them accepted the invite, do you honestly think they would have been given a chance to speak? No way, they would have been heckled and attacked until they left the stage. Followed by the next Heartland speaker inducing something quite similar to this: http://www.metacafe.com/watch/yt-JN99jshaQbY/blazing_saddles_harumph/

Posted by: Brian-CapitalWeatherGang | June 25, 2009 1:54 PM | Report abuse

Here's an interesting article on the growing backlash against the AGW movement.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124597505076157449.html

Posted by: skywatcher1 | June 26, 2009 8:55 AM | Report abuse

skywatcher1,
Here's a clue: If it's labeled "Opinion", and it appears on the op-ed page (A13), and it's written by a member of the Wall Street Journal Editorial Board, it's probably not an "article".

Posted by: CapitalClimate | June 26, 2009 12:18 PM | Report abuse

And here are Ms. Strassel's climate credentials:
"She joined the editorial page in 1999 as an assistant editorial features editor for The Wall Street Journal after covering real estate for Journal's news pages and spending four years in London writing about technology for the Wall Street Journal Europe."

Posted by: CapitalClimate | June 26, 2009 12:21 PM | Report abuse

"Of course the invited individuals were well aware this was Heartland's position."

-------------------------------------------

That still doesn't negate the fact that the alarmists were hiding under their desks. Their science is bad science and they know it.

Posted by: waterfrontproperty | June 26, 2009 12:40 PM | Report abuse

Curious--why does it say on the frontpage that there are 5 comments to this post, yet when I click on "comments" it shows only two? this happens quite a bit on CWG. Thanks

Posted by: skywatcher1 | June 26, 2009 1:22 PM | Report abuse

CC -- you're right. I should have said it was an opinion piece instead of an article. It still doesn't negate the fact that there is growing opposition to the AGW movement. And, just aside, a lot of the "articles" you see in the major media touting this movement could be called opinion pieces, as well. But thanks so much for your comment.

Posted by: skywatcher1 | June 26, 2009 1:27 PM | Report abuse

"She joined the editorial page in 1999 as an assistant editorial features editor for The Wall Street Journal after covering real estate for Journal's news pages and spending four years in London writing about technology for the Wall Street Journal Europe."

Um, what's your point? That she's not a scientist? I guess then only scientists should write on a policy issue that affects every aspect of our economy and society? Then I guess the question becomes, which scientists are qualified to write on the topic -- only those who hold the movement's views? OK, I see.

Really, don't you see just how creepy this becomes.

Thanks!

Posted by: skywatcher1 | June 26, 2009 1:31 PM | Report abuse

The point is that she's unqualified on both science and policy, unless real estate reporting is qualification on sea-level rise; scientists are qualified on at least one of the two.

Posted by: CapitalClimate | June 26, 2009 1:42 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2012 The Washington Post Company