Industrial Heating Epuipment Association

Heat Treat Today publishes twelve print magazines a year, and included in each is a letter from the publisher, Doug Glenn. This letter first appeared in January 2025 Technologies To Watch print edition.

Feel free to contact Doug at doug@heattreattoday.com if you have a question or comment. 

I recently attended the Industrial Heating Equipment Association Decarbonization SUMMIT in Indianapolis at the Conrad Hotel. Roughly 100 thermal processing industry professionals participated in this two-day long event. As I listened to all presentations over those two days and going back even further to the planning of the event — which, by the way, I’d like to commend Jeff Rafter of Selas Heat Technology for his leadership, Mike Stowe of Advanced Energy for his technical contributions, and Goyer Management for their diligent work to produce this SUMMIT — I noticed that nearly everything being discussed was predicated on the assumption that global warming, and specifically man-induced global warming, is a real and settled science.

I’d like to challenge that assumption.

Firstly, legacy media, the federal government, academia, and the scientists who deliver the science we’re called to follow — i.e. “follow the science” — are all strong proponents of man-made global warming and the evil of CO₂. This grouping of authorities, in and of itself, causes many to be suspicious, given this group’s historic record of dishonesty and deception. If this group has been so wrong in the past on macro-social economic issues (e.g., Covid) would it not be reasonable to question their claims about climate change?

Secondly, the science doesn’t seem to be as settled as claimed.

John F. Clauser, a Nobel laureate in Physics, has been articulate in his doubts about the climate crisis.

• “The popular narrative about climate change reflects a dangerous corruption of science that threatens the world’s economy and the well being of billions of people.”
• “I don’t believe there is a climate crisis. The world we live in today is filled with misinformation. It is up to each of you to serve as judges, distinguish truth from falsehood based on accurate observations of the phenomena.”
• “Great news! There is no climate crisis! Much as it may upset many people, my message is that the planet is not in peril.”

Ivar Giaever, another Nobel laureate in Physics, has been clear in his skepticism about global warming.

• “Global warming has become a new religion. We frequently hear about the number of scientists who support it. But the number is not important: only whether they are correct is important.”
• “It is amazing how stable temperature has been over the last 150 years.”
• “I am a skeptic. Global warming has become a new religion.”
• “We don’t really know what the actual effect [of CO₂] on the global temperature is. There are better ways to spend the money.”

Richard Lindzen, professor emeritus of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences at MIT, has been a vocal critic of the consensus on human-caused global warming.

Willie Soon, an astrophysicist, geoscientist, and aerospace engineer at Harvard’s Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, questions the extent of the human impact on climate change.

Frederick Seitz, former president of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, has expressed doubts about the severity of global warming.

Ian Plimer, an Australian geologist and professor emeritus at the University of Melbourne, is a prominent climate skeptic.

Peter Ridd, a former professor at James Cook University in Australia, has been a vocal critic of climate change science.

Jim Mason, PhD in Experimental Nuclear Physics from McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, recently published an excellent article in The Epoch Times entitled, “A Physicist’s View of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and the Impact on Climate,” which seriously calls into question whether or not the concentration of CO₂ gas in our atmosphere has the physical ability to produce global warming. Mason quotes the work done by two other physicists, William A. Van Wijngaarden and William Happer. Mason says, “The duo postulate that long-wavelength radiation (LWR) absorption does not increase in a linear fashion as CO₂ increases but does so in an exponentially DECREASING fashion. Additional amounts of CO₂ added to the [atmosphere] absorb ever-decreasing amounts of additional LWR, until at some point the CO₂ is absorbing effectively all of the LWR in the [atmosphere] that CO₂ can absorb. Absorption is saturated” (emphasis is mine).

The implication is that adding more CO₂ to the atmosphere may have essentially no impact on global temperatures if CO₂ is absorbing all that it can absorb. I highly recommend Mr. Mason’s article.

Given the above, I have a few questions:

• What if we are wrong about decarbonization and these gentlemen are right?
• Is there any wisdom in approaching this topic with a bit more caution?
• Do any of you have doubts about the need to decarbonize, and if so, how do you reconcile those doubts with continued efforts to decarbonize and/or take Department of Energy grants and subsidies?
• Is anyone concerned about the amount of money that we are throwing at this potentially non-problem and the enormous and devastating impact on our children’s financial future?

Contact Doug Glenn at doug@heattreattoday.com.

Find Heat Treating Products And Services When You Search On Heat Treat Buyers Guide.Com