Al Gore Leads a Purge By Holman Jenkins Jr. [Mr. Jenkins is a writer on the Journal's editorial page.] [From The Wall Street Journal [Eastern Edition], 1993 May 25, p. A14:4.] As the Department of Energy's top scientist, William Happer Jr. was popular on Capitol Hill and well regarded among his peers. Senate Democrats even urged the Clinton folks to keep him on, but the Bush appointee got the ax anyway. In the words of a top Democratic staffer, Mr. Happer is "philosophically out of tune" with the new administration. Translation: He doesn't share Vice President Al Gore's belief in an impending environmental cataclysm. Nobody in politics has a bigger investment in ecological pessimism than Mr. Gore. It was the avowed basis of his presidential bid, the theme of his best-selling manifesto, "Earth in the Balance." He may come across as a sodden lump on television, but you don't get to the big leagues without playing hardball. Every administration has the right to pick its own appointments, and Mr. Gore has gone to town. Carol Browner at the Environmental Protection Agency helped write his book. The "green" spot on the National Security Council has gone to Eileen Claussen, EPA's former top air-quality guru. Bob Watson was NASA's chief of ozone hysterics; now he's been plucked out for a job in the White House. The policy results are already showing up. Mr. Gore and his crowd are crusading for limits on greenhouse gases over the objections of grown-ups at Treasury and DOE. Attack on Heterodoxy You can't make sound environmental policy without sound science, which makes Mr. Gore's intolerance of scientific heterodoxy troubling. Mr. Happer is agnostic on the inner workings of his dismissal as DOE's director of research, but he's been impolitic about Mr. Gore's pet causes, especially global warming and the dreaded ozone hole. He says that while global warming makes an interesting hypothesis, "I don't see the data that say its the end of the world." Lately he's been sticking studies under congressional noses that show a slight decline in the ultraviolet radiation hitting the Earth's surface, the opposite of what the ozone alarmists predict. And he may have annoyed Gore staffers in a recent meeting by questioning whether spy satellites really have a useful role to play in ecological monitoring. While the Clinton administration is swinging one way, scientific opinion is swinging the other. There has been a great sobering up since the climate hysteria of the late 1980s. Many scientists now realize that they were taken in by media hype and computer simulations whose deficiencies they didn't really understand. "We can loose our objectivity as easily as anybody else," says NASA's John Christy. The now-fading outbreak of climatic doomsterism just shows that not even scientists are immune to the suggestive power of the media drumbeat. And Mr. Gore has been an adept drummer. Four years ago, he declared that there is "no longer any dispute worthy of recognition" about the planet's imminent destruction, and called on the country to assume mind- boggling costs to ward off the apocalypse. In a series of "roundtables" ending last year, he used his chairmanship of a key Senate subcommittee to intimidate skeptical researchers and promote a phony image of scientific unanimity behind his scary talk. The research community still buzzes over his flaying of Sherwood Idso, an Agriculture Department research physicist who argues that rising levels of carbon dioxide (the main green house gas) would spur Earth's vegetation to greater feats of growth and reproduction; the planet would become greener and reabsorb the carbon dioxide that might otherwise cause global warming. Mr. Idso is regarded as a bit of a zealot by some fellow scientists, but he has written hundreds of peer-reviewed papers and nobody questions his methodology. Two years ago, he was dragged before Mr. Gore's subcommittee and accused, in effect, of being a scientific shill for earth-raping coal companies. "A Gore staffer told me that the hearing was going to be an `exploration of views,'" says another scientist who testified that day. "But actually the whole purpose of the hearing as far as I could see was to hammer Idso." Adds a career scientist from DOE who was also present: "It was a setup." Mr. Idso got the message, says his fellow researcher, Robert Balling of the Office of Climatology at Arizona State University. "He came back and said, `I'm going to cool it'" on pursuing controversial research. "It sure as hell had a chilling effect on me," says one scientist. "I would be very reluctant to cross Gore." Richard Lindzen, an MIT meteorologist and a scathing critic of the computer models that predict climatic disaster, was another target. In one hearing [held 7 Oct 1991], Mr. Lindzen withdrew one of several technical objections to the models. Mr. Gore insisted on the record that Mr. Lindzen had recanted his opposition to global warming, then fired off the unpublished transcript to columnist Tom Wicker [Gore sent the transcript to Philip Shabecoff of The New York Times; Wicker picked up on Shabecoff's scoop], who repeated the canard in ["A Call for Action"] The New York Times [24 Oct 1991]. Mr. Gore has had an easy time recruiting playmates for these agitprop games from the scientific community, notably at NASA, and agency forever in search of funding and a mission. It was NASA's James Hansen [Director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies] who showed up before Mr. Gore's subcommittee with a trumped-up story about how the Bush White House tried to "censor" scientific testimony. It was Mr. Hansen who declared, in the hot summer of 1988, that Mr. Gore's greenhouse had arrived. And just last year, NASA produced a dire new ozone warning, prompting Mr. Gore to make his famous grandstand play about an "ozone hole over Kennebunkport." The study had been rushed out without proper vetting, and the predicted hole never appeared. Mr Gore may genuinely believe the world is coming to an end, but his resort to show trials and other propaganda stunts reflects a long pattern of tactical cynicism. When the Reagan folks were proposing to charge market prices for Tennessee Valley Authority electricity, Mr. Gore invited White House economist Bill Niskanen up for a "private" chat that turned out to be an impromptu hearing in front of TV crews from communities around the country. Later Mr. Gore helped pass a law making it illegal for federal employees even to discuss market pricing. Besotted With Metaphors When it comes to environmental matters, shutting out contending voices is raised to high principle. Mr. Gore, who is besotted with metaphors, sees an ecological "holocaust" coming and implies that the media ought to play down scientific "uncertainties" lest they "undermine the effort to build a solid base of support for the difficult actions we must soon take." He told the Atlanta Constitution last year that "only a few odd scientists" doubt that an environmental crisis is at hand. In fact, pretty nearly the opposite is true. Even Michael Oppenheimer of the frequently alarmist Environmental Defense Fund concedes that there's no ozone catastrophe in the offing. And as climatologists begin gazing up from their computer models at the real world, global warming looks like a flash in the pan too. It's worth remembering that Al Gore wasn't interested in letting us even get to this more reasoned assessment, that he had already moved on and was shrilly demanding that society be turned upside-down over hypothetical disaster scenarios. Now this same Al Gore is a heartbeat from the Oval Office. [The following is not part of the original article.] Replies from Dr Kevin T. Kilty (supporting), Michael B. McElroy (dismissive), and George J. Canett (supporting), in WSJ 1993 Jun 17, p. A11. [Letters to the Editor, The Wall Street Journal [Eastern Ed.], 1993 Jun 17, p. A11] When Holman Jenkins Jr. labels Al Gore as tactically cynical ("Al Gore leads a Purge", editorial page, May 25), he drives the nail only halfway into the wood. Vice President Gore and other environmental celebrities also exhibit pure contempt for the intelligence of the public at large. A more complete account of the exchange between Mr. Gore and Richard Lindzen, an MIT meteorologist who is a critic of the computer models that predict climatic disaster, is illuminating. At a round-table discussion organized by Mr. Gore in [7] October 1991, Mr. Lindzen, who remains a vocal critic of global warming hypotheses, made a concession about his objections to the way climate models deal with water vapor. Mr. Gore had the transcript of that exchange read that Mr. Lindzen had recanted his hypothesis of climate regulation. He then sent the transcript to Tom Wicker, who published Mr. Gore's version in the New York Times. [After Dr Lindzen's concession, Mr Gore subsequently stated several times that Dr Linzen had recanted. Mr Gore then sent a transcript with these remarks to Philip Shabecoff of The New York Times. Mr Wicker picked up on Shabecoff's scoop, and repeated the misinformation in "A Call for Action" in The New York Times of 24 Oct 1991]. Subsequently, Mr Gore wrote in his best-selling "Earth in the Balance" that Mr. Lindzen publicly withdrew his hypothesis about how water vapor might regulate temperature in 1991. He purposely or mistakenly confuses water vapor with clouds in this entire discussion (they are not the same thing), but more importantly he cites the New York Times article as a reference. Thus Mr. Gore manages to fabricate a supporting reference for his book that he could not have found otherwise, and simultaneously wipes his fingerprints from the whole affair. Like most contemptuous people, Al Gore's careful choreography of evidence and events sometimes leaves him. In chapter 3 of "Earth in the Balance," he states that mankind depends critically on the "stable climate we have enjoyed for the last 10,000 years." He proceeds to lift material directly out of Hubert Lamb's works that shows exactly the opposite -- the variablility of climate over this time period, and how it caused human migration and suffering. Moreover, Mr. Gore's constant focus is the danger of global warming, but every example he presents of disastrous climate in Chapter 3 is of a climate too cold. No opponent could have more neatly punctured his thesis. Apparently Mr. Gore thinks that evidence has no meaning beyond what he intends it to mean. Dr. Kevin T. Kilty LaGrange, Wyo. * * * Mr. Jenkins repeats an error of fact commonly spread by the "Earth in the Balance" crowd when he describes carbon dioxide parenthetically as "the main greenhouse gas." In fact, the main greenhouse gas from the point of view of the portion of the electromagnetic spectrum in question and the biggest driving factor in any of the computer models, is not carbon dioxide but the far more common oxide of hydrogen, in the form of water vapor. The fact that water covers most of the earth's surface, and is also present in various forms in clouds, is what helps give the numerical model builders their lifetime job security. George J. Canett Acton, Mass. * * * The six-paragraph letter from Michael B. McElroy, Chairman, Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Harvard University is not reproduced for reasons of space. The letter is insulting and dismissive. The following table addresses some of the points made by Mr McElroy. Par is the number of the paragraph in Mr McElroy's letter which contains the item being replied to. Par McElroy Reply 2 "carbon dioxide ... is the Carbon dioxide is essential for largest, and least appreciated, the growth of plants. `One waste product we produce as an species' poison is another industrial society" species' meat'. 2 "Without question, [man- The question is one of degree released CO2] has the potential and kind. The major greenhouse to alter climate and weather gas is water vapor; CO2 patterns over large regions of contributes only 3% to the the planet." greenhouse effect. Water vapor magnifies the effects in changes in the CO2 level but also provides a negative feedback by increasing the earth's albedo (due to increased average global cloud cover). A roughly 4% increase in average cloud cover would offset the warming due to a doubling of CO2 (Michaels 1992, p. 95). 3 "[S]everal hundred experts The IPCC is sponsored by the drawn from 25 countries under UN, which is vigorously the aegis of the promoting eco-hysteria. In Intergovernmental Panel on 1990, the IPCC released its Climate Change concluded that Scientific Assessment of ..." [see also the following Climate Change. Approximately block] two hundred scientists, bureaucrats, and administrators contributed to the report, but the document itself was written by a small number of lead authors. The document "is much more the consensus of a very carefully chosen group of lead authors" (Michaels 1992, p. 25). 3 ""under business as usual ... a "In a Greenpeace survey of IPCC rate of increase of global mean scientists and researchers who temperature during the next had published on issues century of about 0.3 C per relevant to climate change in decade" is to be expected ..." Science or Nature during 1991 ... 47 percent believed that business as usual would "probably not" induce a runaway greenhouse effect." (Michaels 1992, p. 182) 4 "[The] hole in the ozone ... This is a highly contentious appeared first in the mid- assertion, and Mr McElroy's 1970s, the result of reactions dogmatic belligerence is triggered by industrial worrisome, particularly as it chlorinated and brominated is coming from a Departmental chemicals." Chairman. 4 "William Happer's claim for a From 1974 to 1985, the National "decline in the ultraviolet Cancer Institute (NCI) operated radiation hitting the Earth's a UVB monitoring network of surface" is controversial and Robertson-Berger (R-B) meters. given little weight by the A summary of the results, by knowledgeable scientific members of the NCI's community." Biostatistics Branch is in: Scotto et al. ("For all the stations the R-B counts dropped an average of 0.7 percent per year since 1974 ...") See also Stuart A. Penkett, "Ultraviolet Levels Down Not Up", Nature 341:283-284 (1989 Sep 28). A more recent item, which I've not examined, is S. Liu et al. "UV Radiation Decreases Observed in Industrialized Nations", Amer. Geophysical News, 1991 Dec 24. 5 "[I]t is true that Jame's James Hansen was asked to state Hansen's testimony was censored that his conclusions "should be by the Bush administration." viewed as estimates from evolving computer models and not as reliable predictions" by OMB reviewers. 5 "Sherwood Idso's thesis that `Hocus-pocus, alakazam! Idso be "the planet would become refuted!' Mr McElroy's magic greener and re-absorb the words ("based on faulty carbon dioxide that might reasoning ...") do not provide otherwise cause global warming" a basis for rebuttal. For an is based on faulty reasoning answer to Idso's critics, see and contradicted by Sherwood B. Idso, "Reply to indisputable facts" Critics", Bulletin American Meteorological Society 72(12):1910-1913 (1991 Dec). 6 "Mr. Gore's book was written as Jenkins/Par.4: "Carol Browner indicated, not by Carol at the Environmental Protection Browner" Agency helped write his book." MORE Davis, Bob and Wessel, Adam. "NASA Aide Says White House Made Him Dilute Testimony on Greenhouse Effect" [James Hansen asked to state that his conclusions "should be viewed as estimates from evolving computer models and not as reliable predictions" by OMB]. The Wall Street Journal [Eastern Edition], 1989 May 9, p. A10:1. "Mr. Gore said that if there was any retribution against Dr. Hansen, the Bush Administration would face "the equivalent of World War III" with Congress." Gore Jr., Albert. "An Ecological Kristallnacht. Listen." The New York Times, 1989 March 19, Sec. 4, p. 27:1. Idso, Sherwood B. Carbon Dioxide and Global Change: Earth in Transition. Tempe, AZ: Institute for Biospheric Research Press, 1989. Available for $19.95 + $2.00 s/h from Institute for Biospheric Research, 631 E. Laguna Dr., Tempe, AZ 85282. Michaels, Patrick J. Sound and Fury: The Science and Politics of Global Warming. Washington, D.C.: Cato Institute, 1992. Scotto, Joseph; Cotton, Gerald; Urbach, Frederic; Berger, D. and Fears, T. "Biologically Effective Ultraviolet Radiation: Surface Measurements in the United States, 1974-1985", Science 239:762-764 (1988 Feb 12). See also J. Scotto, Letters, Science 239:1111-1112 (1988 Nov 25).