HEARTLAND'S LEAKED RED TEAM PLAYBOOK HAS BEEN
PARROTED BY BREITBART, WATTS, PRUITT AND PERRY |
| WILL THE REAL TROGLODYTE PLEASE STAND UP ? EMPHASIS ADDED IN BOLD: |
Thursday, October 12, 2017 1:31 PM
Subject: Follow-up on second Red Team briefing
Friends, On September 28, The Heartland Institute hosted a meeting of about 40 climate scientists, economists, lawyers, and other experts to discuss the possible creation by the Trump administration of a Red Team – Blue Team exercise on climate change…Here are my thoughts about the meeting…
* EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt’s proposal for a Red Team-Blue Team exercise is vague, probably would not be effective, and is unlikely to come about
.
More likely to occur is a similar exercise directed by… (NASA, NOAA, or OSTP) with more interest than Pruitt has shown in the scientific debate…
It could be a presidential commission, ala the President’s Council on Bioethics, which enabled Bush II to pivot away from Clinton’s pro-abortion stem cell research agenda.
* David Schnare described how policy can be changed from “inside the swamp” via seven “legal points of entry” such as legal challenges under the Information Quality Act and violations of peer review.
Former Congr. Tim Huelskamp said that the debate is “political and not scientific,” and that Congressmen, administration officials, and Trump himself are making decisions based on what their campaign donors …are telling them… Schanre and Huelskamp both were saying the scientific debate matters less than most people in the room were willing to admit.
* David Legates offered two iconic graphs to compete with the Hockey Stick: the first showing plant productivity and crop yields RISE in the presence of higher CO2 and warmer... the second showing how computer models “run hot” and so fail to match observations… is from [The Cato Institute] https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/commentsnhtsapjm.pdf.
* Harry MacDougald explained why judges often reject science arguments, preferring to rule on procedural matters rather than substantive matters, and so lawyers often avoid science arguments in court. Harry believes our science arguments... must be included in litigation to overcome the initial presumption held by many judges that the science is settled and EPA and other regulators are “doing the right thing.”
* Jim Lakely… stressed that surveys show we are winning the public opinion battle, since most Americans don’t believe global warming is a problem…The best messages are positive: CO2 increases crop yields, the earth is greening.
*To effectively market our ideas… we should…
* be briefing news reporters and news readers at Fox News.
* reach the President by tweeting on the issue.
* hold more congressional hearings…
* turn debate from referring to median temperatures to high temperatures, which show no trend.
* find independent funding for Roy Spencer, David Schnare, Willie Soon, Craig Idso, David Legates, etc.
* push Pruitt to start a proceeding for reconsideration of the Endangerment Finding… he won’t do it without pressure.
* we need to be able to say “EPA is reconsidering whether CO2 is a pollutant.”
* use the White House Petition process – 100,000 signatures and the administration will issue a statement on why it isn’t reconsidering the Endangerment Finding.
* ... respond to the [National Academy of Science] Climate Science Special Report
* conduct a new survey of scientists to refute the 97% consensus claims.
* sue a company for not increasing CO2 emissions, force a court to consider the evidence on CO2 benefits…
* never use the phrases “windmill farms,” “all of the above,” “carbon pollution,” “social cost of carbon,” or “air pollution.”
* emphasize that we are pro-science and pro-environment… and the other side is not...
*...reform, or replace the National Academy of Sciences, the source of much pseudoscience.
* stop funding “more research”
*…mention John Beal every chance we get… wasn’t he responsible for the Endangerment Finding? Is he still in jail?
* ...tell EPA to tell the courts “… CO2 may be a net benefit.”...
* thinking we can forecast anything 100, 200, and even 300 years into the future is pure lunacy…
90% of global warming alarmists sincerely believe man-made CO2 is causing a climate catastrophe, but the 10% who are the loudest ... pretending to be referees, “progressives” (socialists or communists) pretendng to be scientists, reporters, and experts... needs to be outed and desmocked… without offending the remaining 90%, who are just deluded.
* Many people said “we need a PR plan” or a “single strategy,” otherwise we will continue to lose the battle with AGW alarmists. I observed that ... Heartland, CEI, Cato, Heritage, and other groups have done a poor job communicating their STRATEGIES to people in the room. More transparency is needed.
We tend to hide, or at least not advertise, our playbooks for fear the other side will use them… But we ought to find a way to communicate our plans to our friends.
Thank you all once again for attending…I hope to see some of you in Houston on November 9 ... Diane and I hope to show up on your doorstep asking to spend a night or two on your living room couch.
Joe
Joseph Bast Chief Executive Officer The Heartland Institute 3939 N. Wilke Road Arlington Heights, IL 60004
WHOLE THING HERE:
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4112082-Joe-Bast-Email.html#document/p1
