Independence Institute's Caldara again allowed global warming doubter to spread misinformation on public television

Summary: On Independent Thinking, host Jon Caldara again allowed the Heartland Institute's James Taylor to repeat misleading claims regarding global warming. Taylor touted a petition signed by scientists by claiming its accompanying study was "presented by the past president of the National Academy of Sciences, [and] co-authored by an atmospheric researcher at Harvard University" without noting the authors' ties to the energy industry, and he cherry-picked a survey of climate scientists to claim that a majority oppose the idea that "global warming's happening and we need to address it and turn it over to policymakers," ignoring responses that suggested otherwise.

On the December 5 broadcast of public television KBDI Channel 12's Independent Thinking, host and Independence Institute President Jon Caldara again allowed James Taylor, senior fellow for environment policy at the "free-market" Heartland Institute and managing editor of Heartland's monthly publication Environment & Climate News, to repeat some of the misleading claims regarding global warming he had made on the show's March 20 broadcast, which Colorado Media Matters documented.

While touting the Oregon Petition, which states that "[t]here is no convincing scientific evidence" of human-induced global warming, Taylor noted that the petition's accompanying study was "presented by the past president of the National Academy of Sciences, [and] co-authored by an atmospheric researcher at Harvard University." But as he had on the March 20 program, Taylor omitted those scientists' connections to the energy industry. Moreover, Taylor repeated a misleading claim regarding responses by more than 500 climate scientists to an international survey conducted by scientists from Germany's GKSS Research Centre (also known as the Institute for Coastal Research), omitting responses to one question that provided contrasting context to his claim that less than half believe current scientific knowledge of global warming justifies turning the issue over to policymakers.

During the December 5 broadcast, Taylor described the Oregon Petition as "the summary of the science presented by the past president of the National Academy of Sciences [NAS], co-authored by an atmospheric researcher at Harvard University." Taylor further stated:

It's a 12-page document that summarizes the science, that casts doubt on the theory that humans are causing global warming. It's footnoted, it's got all the peer-reviewed studies, scientific data from NASA [National Aeronautics and Space Administration], NOAA [National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration], etcetera. More than 32,000 scientists have heard about it, made the effort to read it, put their reputations on the line by signing it.

However, Taylor and Caldara did not mention that, as Colorado Media Matters has noted, Frederick Seitz, the past president of the NAS to whom Taylor apparently referred, according to a June 5, 2000, item in Business Week, "for 28 years ... was also a paid director and shareholder of Ogden Corp., an operator of coal-burning power plants." Business Week reported that Seitz "sold most of his 11,500 shares" of Ogden in 1999 -- after promoting the petition in 1998.

Accompanying the Oregon Petition were a letter from Seitz and a paper co-authored by Arthur B. Robinson, "a physical chemist" who, according to the Associated Press, "acknowledges he has done no direct research into global warming"; his son, Noah E. Robinson, also a chemist; and Willie Soon, apparently the "atmospheric researcher at Harvard" whom Taylor mentioned. As Colorado Media Matters has noted, the Union of Concerned Scientists has identified Soon as a "[s]cientific spokespe[rson] [a]ffiliated with ExxonMobil-funded [g]roups."

Responding to Caldara's question about the petition -- "When you say 32,000, the size of small city, are these climatologists, are these meteorologists, or are these guys who ... study frogs and how they jump in a puddle?" -- Taylor cited the GKSS Research Centre's survey of climate scientists:

[T]he two scientists at Germany's Institute of [sic] Coastal Research surveyed more than 500 climate scientists. And, of course, the climate scientists, when posed with the statement, "Has the physical science emerged to a point that we can turn this matter over to policymakers? Do we know enough? Can we say global warming's happening and we need to address it and turn it over to policymakers?" less than half said, "Yes."

However, as Colorado Media Matters has noted, the claim is highly misleading because it ignores other questions from the same survey that suggest a majority of respondents think global warming is anthropogenic and favor immediate "policy decisions" addressing the issue.

The GKSS international survey of climate scientists was conducted in 1996 and again in 2003. As the authors of the study -- Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch -- explained, "Most questions were designed on a seven point rating scale. A set of statements was presented to which the respondent was asked to indicate his or her level of agreement or disagreement, for example, 1 = strongly agree, 7 = strongly disagree. The value of 4 can be considered as an expression of ambivalence or impartiality."

Taylor apparently cited the following survey question: "To what extent do you agree or disagree that natural scientists have established enough physical evidence to turn the issue of global climate change over to social scientists for matters of policy discussion?" According to the 2003 results, 43 percent of the scientists surveyed disagreed to some extent (by marking 5, 6, or 7), 10 percent were impartial (by marking 4), and 44 percent agreed to some extent (by marking 1, 2, or 3). Four percent of those surveyed did not respond.

However, neither Taylor nor Caldara noted that respondents overwhelmingly disagreed with another survey question that stated, "There is enough uncertainty about the phenomenon of global warming that there is no need for immediate policy decisions." According to the 2003 responses to this statement, 80 percent of those surveyed disagreed to some extent (10 percent marked 5, 24 percent marked 6, and 46 percent marked 7), while 4 percent were impartial, and 15 percent agreed to some extent.

In addition, another survey question stated, "Climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes," to which, in 2003, 53 percent agreed to some extent, 13 percent were ambivalent, and 29 percent disagreed to some extent. Five percent of those surveyed did not respond.

From the December 5 broadcast of KBDI Channel 12's Independent Thinking:

CALDARA: All right. So this is the U.N. I've heard this panel before.

TAYLOR: Right.

CALDARA: The I -- say it again.

TAYLOR: IPCC.

CALDARA: IPCC. This is -- this is kind of the gold standard that everyone's supposed to go off of. Would that be the right way to say it?

TAYLOR: Well, they certainly portray it as the gold standard. But keep in mind, there's only 2,600 IPCC participants versus the 32,000 that have signed the Oregon Petition saying just the opposite. Moreover --

CALDARA: What's the Oregon Petition?

TAYLOR: The Oregon Petition was the summary of the science presented by the past president of the National Academy of Sciences, co-authored by an atmospheric researcher at Harvard University. It's a 12-page document that summarizes the science, that casts doubt on the theory that humans are causing global warming. It's footnoted, it's got all the peer-reviewed studies, all the scientific data from NASA [National Aeronautics and Space Administration], NOAA [National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration], et cetera. More than 32,000 scientists have heard about it, made the effort to read it, put their reputations on the line by signing it.

CALDARA: When you say 32,000, the size of small city, are these climatologists, are these meteorologists, or are these guys who studies -- study frogs and how they jump in a puddle? Are these scientists that look at people's toes and say, "You know, I think we can come up with a cure for athlete's foot"? There's a lot of scientists.

TAYLOR: Right.

CALDARA: Tell me about these scientists.

TAYLOR: And that's a good question. Because what happens is on the other side of the issue, they'll frequently -- for example in Montana there's a guy named Steve Running, he's a forestry modeler. But he presents himself as a climate expert. And I actually had the pleasure of debating him, and I can tell you it wasn't even close. So what happens is they put forestry modelers and they present them as climate scientists. So this Oregon Petition, you can be much like, you know, Steve Running, you can be a scientist of whatever sort and sign it, 32,000-plus. And -- but to respond to what you just said, the two scientists at Germany's Institute of [sic] Coastal Research surveyed more than 500 climate scientists. And, of course, the climate scientists, when posed with the statement, "Has the physical science emerged to a point that we can turn this matter over to policymakers? Do we know enough? Can we say global warming's happening and we need to address it and turn it over to policymakers?" less than half said, "Yes." So now the other side counters and says IPCC, the United Nations Intergovernmental --

CALDARA: Go back to the Oregon. So, out of the 32,000, how many of those are climate scientists or have a relationship to climate studies.

TAYLOR: Yeah, that I don't know.

CALDARA: OK.

TAYLOR: And that's why the other survey is very important, because there are 500 plus-climate scientists.

—C.H.