Letter from The Heartland Institute to EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt
The Heartland Institute on June 7, 2018 sent the following letter and copies of the 'Climate Change Reconsidered' series of reports to Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt.
June 7, 2018
Administrator Scott Pruitt
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of the Administrator 1101A
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20460
Dear Administrator Pruitt,
We understand that on June 1 Beryl Howell, chief judge in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, ordered the Environmental Protection Agency to back up a claim you articulated in a CNBC interview shortly after taking office. In that interview you stated human emissions of carbon dioxide are not “a primary contributor to the global warming that we see.”
The day after that interview, a group called Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request demanding “EPA documents that support the conclusion that human activity is not the largest factor driving global climate change.”
We have no doubt that PEER, with the assistance of the judge, is trying to box you in and embarrass you. After all, you were only on the job for a few days and you could not possibly have reviewed all the documents EPA possessed before your confirmation – which would all toe the unscientific, alarmist dogma that marked the Obama years. Fortunately, you do not have to look far to find “documents that support the conclusion that human activity is not the largest factor driving global climate change.”
The Heartland Institute several years ago submitted the Climate Change Reconsidered series to the agency – four massive volumes and two smaller reports amounting to more than 3,000 pages from the peer-reviewed literature showing how humans are not causing catastrophic global warming. This years-long work of scholarship by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) – led by Dr. S. Fred Singer, one of the most-prominent and important climate scientists in the world – serves as a needed check on the politicized reports regularly put out by American and multi-national government bureaus. The Chinese Academy of Sciences thought so highly of NIPCC’s work that it translated and published an edition in Mandarin.
Heartland has submitted these volumes in digital form during EPA comment periods in the past, and we are certain physical copies were also sent to the agency.
In the event an Obama-era ideologue at EPA disposed of or destroyed those volumes, we have enclosed them in this package for your use in answering Judge Howell’s order. In these volumes you will find scientific evidence that:
- demonstrates the limitations of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) attempt to forecast future climate conditions by using computer climate models. (Climate Change Reconsidered, 2009)
- reviews empirical data on past temperatures and finds no support for the IPCC’s claim that climate observations during the twentieth century are either unprecedented or provide evidence of an anthropogenic effect on climate. (Climate Change Reconsidered, 2009)
- summarizes the research of a growing number of scientists who say variations in solar activity, not greenhouse gases, are the true driver of climate change. (Climate Change Reconsidered, 2009)
- challenges the IPCC’s claim that CO2-induced global warming is harmful to human health. (Climate Change Reconsidered, 2009)
- shows research published in peer-reviewed science journals indicates the model-derived temperature sensitivity of Earth accepted by the IPCC is too large. (Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science, 2013)
- explains how the sun may have contributed as much as 66% of the observed twentieth century warming, and perhaps more. (Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science, 2013)
- illustrates how there has been no significant increase in either the frequency or intensity of storms of any kind in the modern era. (Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science, 2013)
- outlines the benefits of more CO2 in the atmosphere to all life on earth. (Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts, 2014)
- the findings of hundreds of peer-reviewed research analyses suggest a much better future is in store for Earth’s aquatic life. (Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts, 2014)
- warmer temperatures lead to a decrease in temperature-related mortality, including deaths associated with cardiovascular disease, respiratory disease, and strokes. (Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts, 2014)
- articles and surveys most commonly cited as showing support for a “97% scientific consensus” in favor of the catastrophic man-made global warming hypothesis are without exception methodologically flawed and often deliberately misleading. (Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming, 2015)
- four specific forecasts made by global climate models have been falsified by real-world data from a wide variety of sources. In particular, there has been no global warming for some 20 years. (Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming, 2015)
- melting of Arctic sea ice and polar icecaps is not occurring at “unnatural” rates and does not constitute evidence of a human impact on the climate. (Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming, 2015)
- the best available data show sea-level rise is not accelerating. (Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming, 2015)
The list above, of course, is hardly exhaustive. Scholars who work for and are affiliated with The Heartland Institute would be happy to come to your office to privately brief you and your staff on the findings of NIPCC reports – which were pulled from the peer-reviewed literature and undoubtedly ignored by our predecessor as EPA administrator.
In fact, the Climate Change Reconsidered series stands on its own as the work of a “Red Team” that has been working to critique and correct the work of the ideological alarmists on the “Blue Team” for more than a decade. Feel free to cite this material, which contains more than 10,000 footnotes, in your response to the judge or in any other public setting.
At your service in this matter,
The Honorable Tim Huelskamp, Ph.D.
The Heartland Institute