In October 2014, The Heartland Institute sent to 233 Congressional offices an open letter to William Ruckelshaus, thei first EPA Administrator, written by former U.S. Navy Admiral Thomas B. Hayward, a former chief of naval operations and commander-in-chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, rebutting testimony on climate change delivered by Ruckelshaus and other former EPA employees sometime earlier that year.
Read the letter below:
THOMAS B. HAYWARD
Admiral, U.S. Navy (Retired)
June 24, 2014
The Honorable Wm. Ruckelshaus
Madrona Venture Group
999 3rd Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98104
By now you have no doubt been inundated with congratulatory adulation for your testimony, along with some of your predecessors at EPA, before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works regarding Climate Change. I wish it were possible for me to join in the chorus; but, being counted among the “deniers” that the President and many others enjoy bashing I cannot let you get away without some pushback.
It was somewhat encouraging to read your words that you “believe there is legitimate scientific debate over the pace and effects of climate change …” But, then you went on to state that there is “no legitimate debate of the fact of the earth’s warming or over man’s contribution.” Aye, there’s the rub.
No one, of course, is contesting the earth’s warming since the end of the Little Ice Age. Of course it has, and probably will continue until the next ice age. It is discouraging, however, when global warming alarmists lean on the proclamation that temperatures are increasing at accelerated rates based on media reports that we have experienced several recent years of the highest temperatures on record. Not only are they factually wrong, but allegedly, this is supposed to be proof that it is “man’s contribution” through irresponsible use of fossil fuels causing this potentially calamitous trend.
FACT is, temperatures were 1-2 degrees higher than present for almost all of the past 10,000 years. (See red part of the graph below)
FACT is, since 1480 AD, there have been more than 20 periods warmer than present, long before that nemesis CO2 began to rise. (see red areas in graph below)
FACT is, there have been three periods of global warming and three periods of global cooling since 1850. The first two occurred BEFORE rise in atmospheric CO2. See graph below.
FACT is, there has been no global warming over the past 17 years and 9 months, an observation that the IPCC has been unable (or unwilling) to address. See graph below.
FACT is, global COOLING, not warming, has been occurring for the past decade. (See downward sloping satellite data in the graph below)
FACT is, CO2 has always lagged temperature rise. See graphs below.
Bill, in your testimony you make a point of relying on the recent reports of the IPCC, the National Climate Assessment and the CNA to emphasize the urgency of confronting these forecast calamities. I would like to share my thoughts, and those of thousands of authentic scientists (of which I am not one), about these reports. (BTW, while there may be hundreds, or even a few thousand scientists who ascribe to the AGW theology, you should be aware that in 2007 a petition was signed by 31,487 scientists, among whom were 9,029 PhDs, disputing the AGW theory and the work being done by the IPCC. You are outnumbered 10 to 1).
IPCC. Everyone knows that this is a political organization created to prove that human activity (read fossil fuel/CO2) is the cause of global warming (read Climate Change/Climate Disruption). The NCA and CNA reports are totally dependent on the IPCC for their “analyses.” And, the IPCC is totally dependent on “models” to support its proclamations. In fact, your own testimony favorably refers to the “models” of the world’s leading scientists as justification for your call to urgency.
FACT: IPCC models’ results are not even close to real data. See below. With each passing year, their results diverge even further from real data. What are we to conclude?
As for the NCA and CNA reports, they made no effort to listen to both sides of this significant national issue. The authors were already biased in the direction of condemning fossil fuels and/or failed to seek scientific opinion from those who might challenge the anti-CO2 thesis. I challenge you or any of your scientific associates to provide even ONE piece of empirical evidence that links human activity (i.e. CO2) as the primary cause of global warming.
FACT: Sea levels are not rising abnormally. Sea level rise has been relatively constant since 1850, long before increase in CO2. The rate of sea level rise has actually DECLINED over the past 5-7 years. To get the much exaggerated rates of sea level rise predicted by IPCC would require absurdly large change in the amount of sea water and there is no source for it—Antarctic is getting colder and the ice sheet is NOT melting. See graph.
FACT: The Antarctic ice shelf is at an all-time high. See graph below.
FACT: Arctic sea ice, that evinced unusually large melting in 2012, has returned to its normal state and rates of accumulation and melting.
FACT: Extreme weather events are not more common now, no matter what we perceive to be happening. See graphs.
Bill, I am obviously not the one to debate scientific data with other scientists. But, we do have such an individual right here in our neighborhood, Dr. Don Easterbrook, Geology Professor Emeritus at Western Washington University. As you are aware from the booklet I sent you a few weeks ago, my interest is national security energy policy, which today is being inadequately developed and exploited in large measure because of the hyperbolic dimension of the anti-fossil fuel cacophony in opposition to all things carbon. I would be delighted to introduce Don Easterbrook to you at any time that you would deem it useful from your perspective to hear facts from “the other side.” Just let me know.
The globe is not warming alarmingly. In fact, it has been cooling for at least a decade.
Sea levels are not rising abnormally.
Fossil fuels are not a significant Climate Change factor.
There is no empirical evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis.
Our national energy policy is in disarray.
Let’s do what the President said we should do – “All of the Above.”