Morano's Faux Indignation

By Keith Kloor | October 3, 2011 11:52 am

A typical day in Moranoland includes cynical, misleading headlines such as this:

A sad day in journalism: NYT’s Andrew Revkin promotes word ‘denier’ in global warming debate

Here is the supposed offending Dot Earth post, which discusses a recently published chart depicting a nexus of organized opposition to climate change. Of course, Morano’s faux indignation fails to acknowledge Revkin’s contextualized write-up:

That there are such well-financed and coordinated efforts is not contentious. And this is not the first attempt to map them.

But it’s important to keep in mind that not everyone skeptical of worst-case predictions of human-driven climate disruption, or everyone opposed to certain climate policies, is part of this apparatus.

What’s also important to keep in mind is how partisans shamelessly exploit the semantics of the climate debate at every turn.

UPDATE: Joe Romm rarely disappoints (or surprises):

Some try to downplay the central role of the denial machine in U.S. politics, but the fact is that what the deniers have accomplished in this country is unique in the world, going far beyond the spread of disinformation.

So two antagonists representing opposite ends of this debate fault Revkin for his interpretation of the chart. Make of that what you will.

CATEGORIZED UNDER: climate change, climate politics
  • Barry Woods

    Actually I think this bit is contentious…
    That there are such well-financed and coordinated efforts is not contentious.
    At least outside of the USA.

    I do wish Marc Morano, would give credit for to Revkin, for the second part of the quote. For some people it seems to be you are either 100% on side or the ‘opposition’ and you have to choose sides.

  • Stu

    I can’t see the chart (the names are blank).

    I need to take the ‘d’ word in context. I hate when Romm uses it for instance, and some posters here. I don’t mind so much when Andy uses it because I know (and he also makes sure to point out) that he is not using the word uniformly. 

    That’s just me. Others straight out hate the word and I can also understand that. I’d say if you have a problem with ‘radical environmentalist’ or ‘card carrying socialist’, then you should atleast appreciate that others will get their back up at ‘denier’.  

  • NewYorkJ

    With Morano, it’s personal, as he’s certainly a major part of the denial apparatus that Revkin shows.  I would argue that he probably isn’t the least bit offended by the word “denier”, though, but he knows much of his target audience is easily excitable.

    Also note that Revkin didn’t use the word “denier” at all in his post.  This is similar to a recent SkS post, where John Cook makes the distinction.

    Understanding the denial of scientific evidence is a crucial element to putting the climate controversy into proper context. The first step is recognizing that the process of denial is to be distinguished from cases where the title ‘denier’ is used derogatorily. Complaining about the word ‘denier’ can be a form of denial itself, using concern trolling to avoid a serious discussion of the scientific evidence.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/Understanding-climate-denial.html

    Morano/Watts are trolls of many varieties, concern being one of them.

  • Matt B

    My guess is that it would take an epithet substantially stronger than “denier” to truly offend Morano…..and good luck finding it……

    But, KK, since you have brought up the use of the word “denier”, I will ask once more, this time as a 2-part question:

    1. Exactly what is it that a climate change “denier” denies?

    2. Let’s say there are a number, say 5, of different tenets that, through disagreement, can make one a denier. Is disagreeing with one tenet enough to make you a denier? Three or more? Or do you need to disagree with all tenets to make you a denier?

  • Marlowe Johnson

    @4
    I would suggest that denying any of the points below puts you in tinfoil hat territory.

    1. Carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and other GHGs have  radiative properties that are well understood. 

    2. Atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and other GHGs have risen substantially compared to pre-industrial times,  primarily due to fossil fuel combustion, agriculture, and land use change.

    3. average global surface temperatures have increased by about 0.8C since the start of the 20th century.

    4. Several lines of evidence (paleo, modern obs, models) strongly suggest that climate sensitivity is greater than 2C.

     

  • Sashka

    @ 5

    (1)-(3) are correct. (4) is BS.

  • NewYorkJ
  • Tom C

    @ Matt B

    Keith will never exactly define what a “denier” is, just as he will not define what “anti-science” is.  That allows for equivocation and mis-direction which, in turn, enables a flexible rhetoric that helps in scoring political points.

  • Tom Fuller

    5, 6 & 7. That’s the whole argument in miniature. Guess we can all go home now and wait for the sensitivity thing to be settled.

  • Tom Fuller

    So, Marlowe and NewYorkJ, you are comfortable calling someone a denier if they agree with 1, 2 & 3 but claim that 4 is not yet proven. I say that’s crap. I also think using denier as a term is cheap and vicious, and those who use it are people I refuse to take seriously about anything.

    But maybe at least I’ll go home now and wait for the sensitivity thing to be settled.

  • Matt B

    #5 Marlowe,

    Very good, I do appreciate your reply & thanks! Now, my guess is that any scientifically literate follower of this debate will definitely agree to #1; if you disagree with this then you are indeed a silly person & should be called a denier. 

    #2 & 3 will have widespread general agreement; the evidence is solid on these points and while there can & will be some quibblers on these, the data and observations certainly support them. In my opinion, if you disagree with #2 & #3 you are being stubborn for no apparant reason. I’m ambivalent that this stubborness rises to the level of someone being called a “denier”, but you will look silly arguing against points 2 & 3 and you should not expect much support. So, I will agree with you on points 1-3.

    #4 is quite different than 1-3. First, I assume you mean a climate sensitivity > 2C for a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere. Also, the way you phrased it, I would agree with your statement, since there have certainly have been “lines of evidence (paleo, modern obs, models) (that) strongly suggest that climate sensitivity is greater than 2C”. So we agree, there are these “lines of evidence”.

    But, the supporting paleo-model-observational evidence of >2C climate sensitivity is definitely nowhere near as strong as the evidence supporting point #1. To that point I can also agree with the statement “There are lines of evidence that suggest climate sensitivity is less than 2C”.

    So, here is a dividing line; the amount of confidence you have in the paleo results & climate models as predictors of the climate’s future drection. I understand why someone can feel strongly on either side of this issue, but fo me these conjectures do not remotely rise to the level of being objectively verified, for either the >2C or <2C side. Because of that I cannot see justification in using a term like “denier” in relation to point #4.

  • Tom C

    @9 Tom Fuller -

    It’s not exactly the whole argument in miniature.  Even if sensitivity is 2 C, it’s not clear that any of the catastrophe scenarios which have been claimed would come about.  I think there is a huge amount of evidence that suggests the MWP was much warmer than now.  Note that I said suggests, because there is no way to know for sure.  That is why the hockey stick battle was/is so crucial.  The alarmists needed it to claim that “we have never been here before”.  But, if we have been there before and humanity thrived the whole case for alarm (instead of the world population) collapses.

  • NewYorkJ

    4. Several lines of evidence (paleo, modern obs, models) strongly suggest that climate sensitivity is greater than 2C.

    So no one denies the truth of this statement except perhaps Sashka.  That’s a start.  Now this is not the same thing as saying definitively that the value is greater than 2 C, but remember that uncertainty swings both ways.  Combining multiple lines of evidence strongly suggests the value is less than 4 C as well, but there’s a small chance it’s greater (with the distribution being a longer tail on the high end).  Deniers tend to take great liberties with the low end of the range.  To do so, they have to ignore the body of evidence on the topic, often compensating for that by declaring mainstream scientists to be pumping up a hoax or what not.  It also involves some rather goofy reasoning with how uncertainty is treated.  One example is Lindzen, on a related topic:

    However, neglecting aerosols in calculating how much the planet should have warmed does not account for their uncertainty.  On the contrary, this is treating aerosols as if they have zero forcing with zero uncertainty

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/lindzen-illusion-1-should-have-seen-more-warming.html

    When someone declares with high confidence climate sensitivity to be less than 2 C, or not agreeing to the obvious statement above on the many lines of evidence strongly suggesting > 2 C, they are guaranteed to be wearing the figurative tinfoil hat.

  • EdG

    Here’s Judith Curry’s blog on the same basic topic:

    http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/03/sceptical-about-scepticism/

  • Tom Fuller

    Oh, NewYorkJ, what does Linzen project sensitivity at? 0.8C? And how many times have you seen that? What is it with you ignoring reality? Is Lindzen a denier in your dirty little book?

  • Sashka

    Just to be clear, I’m not saying that the sensitivity is less than 2C. What I’m saying is that what they call “evidence” is not really evidence in the sense it is normally understood in hard sciences. It would be generous to call it circumstantial evidence.

  • harrywr2

    NewYorkJ Says:
    October 3rd, 2011 at 5:57 pm
    4. Several lines of evidence (paleo, modern obs, models) strongly suggest that climate sensitivity is greater than 2C.
    So no one denies the truth of this statement except perhaps Sashka.
    Nope…as far as I’m concerned the word strongly is overstating the quality of the evidence.

  • Tom Fuller

    I agree with 17. I also think the sensitivity may prove to be 2.0-3.0. But I don’t think the evidence for it is strong. At all.

  • NewYorkJ

    So some want to believe the quality of evidence is weak (although none here present even a shred of evidence supporting that claim).  Where have we heard that before?

    From a Newsweek article on Lindzen:

    Lindzen clearly relishes the role of naysayer. He’ll even expound on how weakly lung cancer is linked to cigarette smoking.

    More recently:

    Richard Lindzen: I have always noted, having read the literature on the matter, that there was a reasonable case for the role of cigarette smoking in lung cancer, but that the case was not so strong that one should rule that any questions were out of order. I think that the precedent of establishing a complex statistical finding as dogma is a bad one. Among other things, it has led to the much, much weaker case against second hand smoke also being treated as dogma. Similarly, in the case of alleged dangerous anthropogenic warming, the status of dogma is being sought without any verifiable evidence.

  • Tom Fuller

    So, NewYorkJ, you are familiar with Lindzen, and presumably his arguments about atmospheric sensitivity. Why we would care about his opinions regarding cigarette smoking escapes me at present.

    It would seem that you wrote that no-one denies that statement except Sashka while knowing that in fact the Alfred P. Sloan chair at MIT in fact does not agree with it.

    So I’ll repeat my question: Do you think Lindzen is a climate change ‘denier’?

  • Keith Kloor

    Predictably, the other side of the spectrum also faults Revkin:

    “Some try to downplay the central role of the denial machine in U.S. politics…” 

  • NewYorkJ

    Absolutely, TF.  One would think you could reasonably discern that from the last paragraph in #13.  His contrarian views on health effects of smoking reveal a tendency to severely downplay evidence and abuse uncertainty to the point of absurdity.  A better question, for you:  Why would care about what Lindzen thinks on climate sensitivity, given his demonstrably fallacious reasoning on the issue (one example noted #13), his questionable views in other areas of science, his tendency to dismiss or downlplay a huge body of inconvenient evidence on many issues, and his dismissal of anyone even potentially critical of his views as “alarmists”, as witnessed here…

    http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2011/06/lindzen_goes_emeritus.php

    And keep in mind Lindzen is supposedly one of the most “qualified” and sophisticated members of your tribe.  It tends to get somewhat worse from there.

  • NewYorkJ

    KK (#22),
    I’m between Revkin and Romm on that point (assuming Romm is referring to Revkin’s last paragraph).  Revkin isn’t convinced there would be much change in public opinion if in a world of perfect information, the “denial machine” was absent, but with this term defined to include industry, right-wing groups, media, blogs, etc., it’s quite a stretch to conclude that.  Much of these sources are a product of deeply-rooted ideologies, but they also re-inforce these views in a feedback loop.

    I find greater fault in Revkin’s paragraph comparing the denial machine to “groups and outlets pursuing a traditional pollution-style approach” as if they are truly equivalent opposite ends of the debate, sort of like you comparing Morano and Romm.

  • Pingback: A Map of Organized Climate Change Denial - NYTimes.com

  • kdk33

    Why we would care about his opinions regarding cigarette smoking escapes me at present.

    For the same reasons we3 should care bout his opinions on evolution.

  • Matt B

    Why we would care about his opinions regarding cigarette smoking escapes me at present.


    Or Shockley’s opinion about race & IQ……or Pauling and Vitamin C……

  • Robert Paulson

    “So two antagonists representing opposite ends of this debate fault Revkin for his interpretation of the chart. Make of that what you will.”

    I won’t make of it that Revkin is right.

    When people on the left of the street and the right of the street yell at you to get out of the street, you are not right.

    When everyone at a party thinks you’re a nut, you’re probably a nut.

    Only journalists and judges think that by splitting the truth in half and doing a lazy job and pissing everyone off are they somehow more accurate and righteous than the rest. 

  • EdG

    From #25 transcript of Revkin:

    “And there’s plenty to chart on the other edge of the climate debate”

  • Roddy Campbell

    I’ve never been bothered to really read up on the smoking argument, but the quote from Lindzen is unexceptional, if provocative to many:
    Richard Lindzen: I have always noted, having read the literature on the matter, that there was a reasonable case for the role of cigarette smoking in lung cancer, but that the case was not so strong that one should rule that any questions were out of order.
    And he follows with a subjective but perfectly valid point:
    I think that the precedent of establishing a complex statistical finding as dogma is a bad one. Among other things, it has led to the much, much weaker case against second hand smoke also being treated as dogma.


    So I’m not sure why those quotes would disqualify him.

  • Barry Woods

    What of course is most enlightening about the ‘map’ is that it is entirely USA centric!!!

    Insular, or what…

    I wonder what 2.5 billion Chinese and Indians think

    Of course, the UK is too small (like its emission <2%) to have any effect on ‘denial’

  • kdk33

    I wonder what 2.5 billion Chinese and Indians think

    Well, just speculating:  0.5 billion think modern lifestyles and (kinda sorta) free markets are really, really cool. 

    2.0 billion are really really hungry, and could give a flyin’ leap at a rollin’ doughnut about a denial machine map.  Frankly, they are correct.

  • Tom Fuller

    As for Revkin saying toubt that machine has a central role,, I hugely doubt that. Given the interest in the subject I would be surprised if efforts to investigate this had not taken place. The lack of reported results leads me to believe that there is no denial machine , specificallyf skeptical efforts.

    Who are they, specifically? What have they done, specifically? Vague incantations about AEI, CEI, the Marshall Institute or the Koch brothers really don’t impress me at all. They are not single issue, they do nor coordinate, they certainly don’t lead–hell, they don’t even follow. They just rotate through the cycle of issues congenial to conservatives and climate change is one of those.

    Somebody please show me one piece of evidence that my lack of concern is misplaced. 

  • Mark Renfrow

    TF
    Calling it a machine” implies that it was/is constructed purposefully. I’d say it has grown organically and often doesn’t function in concert with it’s self.
    It might be useful to define the “denial” camp’s motivation and purpose first to see all the different “machines” that are actually at work. For instance, in my view, the political “machine” is really the primary motivator and provides the most purpose in this country.

  • Tom Fuller

    Well, that chart doesn’t describe a machine. It is a black box diagram that allows people to project whatever organization or person they have already labeled as ‘denier’ and pigeonhole them.

    About on a par with Anderegg, Prall et al or Oreskes. Fact free fear frenzy on demand. De denialisters, dey is comink to get you! 

  • Frank Knitti

    When I hear the term denier I think of the people who don’t believe that millions of Jews were turned into ashes during by Nazis. So how does this have anything to do with climate? Are people arguing that those dead Jews are or are not still floating in Earth’s atmosphere as ash and CO2 and they may or may not contribute to warming? Can someone using the term denier explain why the term is used in climate? It seems very odd to me.

  • Eric Adler

    Tom Fuller @ 32,
    “Given the interest in the subject I would be surprised if efforts to investigate this had not taken place. The lack of reported results leads me to believe that there is no denial machine , specificallyf skeptical efforts.”
    I guess you have been so busy writing about Climategate, and promoting your book, you haven’t kept up with the literature regarding the denial machines that has been published. Either that or you have had an attack of amnesia or blindness.
    The effort to stop  government regulation of health, environmental and safety threats to the population is clearly public knowledge. the free enterprise solves all problems ideology is the reason given publicly by all the conservative think tanks that have been funded by wealthy individuals like the Koch Bros, the Coors family etc.. The think tanks serve to provide the politicians with the scientific justification for their opposition to government regulation. They also provide fodder for the climate science denial blogs on the internet that provide the echo chamber. The diagram in the Revkin article clearly describes what is going on.
    There have been a number of books that describe the history, among them Naomi Oreskes book “The Merchants of Doubt”, and James Powell’s book “The Inquisition of Climate Science”.  I don’t see how you can say no investigation has taken place.
    If you are referring to a government investigation, there has been no law broken, and it is clearly constitutionally protected speech.
     

  • harrywr2

    Eric Adler Says:
    October 4th, 2011 at 12:10 pm Tom Fuller @ 32,
    you haven’t kept up with the literature regarding the denial machines that has been published
    As if Fenton Communications isn’t the most successful ‘progressive’ astroturfing organization in the history of the world.
    Credit where credit is due, Fenton Communications is exceptionally gifted at creating ‘grass roots movements’ out of thin air and making sure those ‘grass roots’ movements get press coverage disproportionate to their size.



  • Tom Fuller

    Eric, like I say, keep reading. The organizations and people you name are right wing ideologues that are not part of a climate ‘denial’ machine. They fight for their philosophy on every policy front, and belatedly recognized that climate change was a new issue they could engage on. They occasionally commission work from people like Patrick Michaels to spice up their publications.

    But to call it a machine is just idiotic hype. I saw someone here (NewYorkJ? one of the trolls, anyhow), label the Marshall Institute as part of the climate ‘denier’ machine. His evidence? They invited Bjorn Lomborg to speak at a conference.

    But I guess if you’re raging against the machine, you’re a hero. 

  • jeffn

    Meanwhile the left has their own Tea Party now, living on the street in New York, banging drums and with a list of demands that makes just as much sense as a climate concerned policy proposal.
    It seems that global warming – the most important issue in the world and thwarted entirely by fossil fuel corporations and their minions in the GOP and on blogs – can’t get a break. The issue doesn’t even warrant a mention on the official list of demands: http://occupywallst.org/forum/proposed-list-of-demands-please-help-editadd-so-th/
    To be fair, it is proposed as an issue elsewhere on the site- as priority number 5, after the forgiveness of all credit card, mortgage and student loan debt, the establishment of a $20/hour minimum wage and a guaranteed income regardless of whether you work or not. So, once we make sure these folks have lots of money and no responsibility, they’ll think about forcing the rest of us to build a windmill or two (as long as it doesn’t interrupt power to the XBox). And this from the group that opposes greed!
    KK, you’re in New York, have you joined this new Tea Party yet?

     

  • Sashka

    Thanks for the link, jeffn. Had a good laugh. But I’m actually on board with item 7.

  • James Evans

    “I would suggest that denying any of the points below puts you in tinfoil hat territory.
    1. Carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and other GHGs have radiative properties that are well understood.”

    Uh huh.

    “2. Atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and other GHGs have risen substantially compared to pre-industrial times,  primarily due to fossil fuel combustion, agriculture, and land use change.”

    Yep.

    “3. average global surface temperatures have increased by about 0.8C since the start of the 20th century.”

    Sure.

    “4. Several lines of evidence (paleo, modern obs, models) strongly suggest that climate sensitivity is greater than 2C.”

    Ohhh…. so close. So close.

  • harrywr2

    #39,

    I liked this
    If this commitment on the full slate of demands is not met by midnight on the 3rd day (which it won’t be) we should be prepared to non-violently block access to all or part of the Capitol complex the next morning by traditional proven non-violent tactics.
    I guess they never of the ‘Continuity of Government’ contingency plans.

  • Marlowe Johnson

    @41
    Care to point to the evidence that suggests S < 2C? As NYJ points out upthread, no one seems to be able to point to any compelling evidence that suggest low sensitivity, nor what exactly is wrong with the other lines of evidence that would cause us to discount them. With due respect to the ‘skeptics’ here, put your cards on the table.  otherwise your complaints come across as arguments from personal incredulity….

  • Tom Fuller

    #43, perhaps before requiring #41 to show evidence for low sensitivity, you could oblige us with evidence of high sensitivity to which we are apparently required to subscribe. Emphasis on the word evidence…

  • Sashka

    @ 43

    I’m pretty sure that you actually know what is wrong with item 4. Briefly: models suck (never predicted anything correctly climate-wise except for Northern polar amplification), modern observations are inconclusive (as we have no means to separate natural variability from GH warming), paleo is too imprecise (bad proxies, poor surface coverage), very long time scales, other unknown mechanisms could have been in play.
     

  • Marlowe Johnson

    @44

    see here or here or here  for starters

  • James Evans

    43, please see 44 and 45.

    And “arguments from personal incredulity”. I like it, and may use it.

  • jeffn

    39 and 42- the sad thing about this is there are things I could get behind, but once again the proposals are so unnecessarily partisan, incoherent and improbable that the movement literally couldn’t get off the ground. Which means its a circle-jerk- they’ll get angrier and less coherent the less successful they are.
    by-the-by, here’s the list of demands where the global warming actually gets a shout-out (at priority #5). http://occupywallst.org/forum/proposed-list-of-demands-for-occupy-wall-st-moveme/
    As you read this litany of gimme, gimme, gimme remember that this is how these folks define “fairness.” Oh, and here’s a photo that shows their commitment to diversity: http://www.cbsnews.com/i/tim/2011/09/30/110930-occupy_wall_street-march-NYPD-AP110930078602_620x350.jpg
    I’ve seen more diverse crowds at Mississippi Country and Western concerts.

  • Paul Kelly

    The denial machine chart is enlightening. That a handful of moderately funded think tanks could engineer the rhetorical defeat of the funded in the billions climate establishment is surely a sign of their amazing power to control minds.

  • Marlowe Johnson

    @45
    models suck? Hansen didn’t do that bad. Paleo is too imprecise? Please clarify. Are you referring to millenial or geological reconstructions? As far as modern obs go, the issue isn’t so much the separation of a anthropogenic signal from natural variability as it is being able to constrain the effects of clouds and aerosols…

  • harrywr2

    Marlowe Johnson Says:
    October 4th, 2011 at 3:49 pm @41
    Care to point to the evidence that suggests S < 2C?
    Would you care to point us to evidence, confirmed by observation of a sensitivity greater then 2C.
    Could you point me to the evidence that we understand clouds with any degree of certainty?
    Do we have any idea what the trends are for deep ocean heat content? Are there any long term measurements available?




  • Marlowe Johnson

    @51
    i ask you to give me evidence that S<2C and instead you ask me for trends on heat transfer from the deep ocean and a treatise on cloud physics?  I’ll let the reader decide who’s throwing smoke here…

  • NewYorkJ

    What Marlowe said (#43 & #46).  Deniers are high on blather and hand-waving, very short on substance, and this thread so far has been no exception.

    As for model predictive abilities, compare and contrast to a model with a Lindzen-based sensitivity.

    http://skepticalscience.com/lindzen-illusion-2-lindzen-vs-hansen-1980s.html

    Of course, Hansen’s 4.2 C value for sensitivity in that model is likely high.  Observations during this period suggest something closer to 3.  Climate sensitivity is not estimated solely by recent observations (“recent including the instrumental record), however.  The preponderance of evidence (see Knutti & Hegerl in #13) strongly point to a sensitivity > 2 C with close to 3 C as best estimate.

  • NewYorkJ

    “Inconclusive” - nice catch-all word Sashka throws out.  Lindzen thinks smoking’s link to lung cancer is inconclusive as well (#19).

  • Matt B

    @46 Marlowe,

    To go back to your original 4 points (and again I thank you for taking the time & cojones to directly state them):

    1. IR Absorption of certain molecules – tested numerous times, in numerous lab set-ups, on different calibrated equipment, no fails - this is a lock.

    2. CO2 etc increasing during iindustrial times – numerous data sets on calibrated equipment – this is a lock, and at least some attribution to human activities is pretty much a lock. As a species we definitely are carbon liberators.

    3. Temps increasing in the last century – numerous data sets on enough calibrated equipment to support this conclusion – this is pretty much a lock.

    So, items 1-3 share similar traits -direct data gathered from independent sources, with the data taken on calibrated equipment, and solid physical theory on why they behave the way they do. All very good!

    But, point 4, the climate sensitivity calculation, does not belong in the same set as the other first three. It has a theoretical basis, no disagreement there. But, it doesn’t have the quality of data to belong with items 1-3. The paleo records, the models – they just cannot be equated to direct measured observations on calibrated equipment, no matter how logical & coherent the interpretations of their output appears to be.

    For all anyone knows, item #4 is absolutely correct.  Anyone who claims it is definitely false is silly. But, point #4 at this point in time cannot be proven any more than it can be disproven. It is conjecture, and it does not belong with points 1-3. Marlowe, I have read many of your posts and know that you have enough experience in science to know that this is true.

  • Tom Fuller

    #53, it really doesn’t matter what you say. What we read is blah blah blah deniers blah blah blah.

    Marlowe Johnson, I had time to click on your first link, a review article by Knutti and Hegerl. I provides no evidence at all, and basically reiterates the commonly given range of 1.5 to 4.5 C sensitivity, although they provide ranges that they think more probably with a 66% ‘probability’ (how is that probable? I think ‘odds’ or ‘chances’ more appropriate) that it is between  2 and 4.5 C.

    So, they don’t provide evidence. They don’t claim or support that sensitivity is high. How does this support your argument?

    How is this supposed to entice me into clicking on your second and third link? 

  • Sashka

    Sorry, NYJ, but I’m not going to engage in this sort of moronic rhetoric.

    Yes, Marlowe: clouds & aerosols, too. Sorry, I have no time to go over Hansen’s failed projections again. Been there, done that.

    No, MattB. There is no theoretical basis for point 4. Numerical modeling + a bunch of assumptions. Theories are capable of making predictions verifiable by observations. This didn’t happen.

  • kdk33

    #53, it really doesn’t matter what you say. What we read is blah blah blah deniers blah blah blah.

    Now, Tom, to be fair, he also said something about cigarettes.

  • harrywr2

    NewYorkJ Says:
    October 4th, 2011 at 4:28 pm  The preponderance of evidence (see Knutti & Hegerl in #13) strongly point to a sensitivity


    I’ll quote Hansen et al 2000 as your source quotes Hansen et al 1988
    http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2000/2000_Hansen_etal_2.pdf

    if climate sensitivity is 2″“4°C for doubled CO2, as climate models suggest
     

  • NewYorkJ

    TF: I provides no evidence at all.

    This is factually correct, if not grammatically.

    Hand-waving doesn’t impress, TF and Sashka.  Sadly, you two have been reduced to denying evidence (#56) and a theoretical basis (#57) exist on the issue, which is tinfoil hat territory.

  • Tom Fuller

    blah blah blah denier blah blah blah.

  • NewYorkJ

    harrywr2 (#59),

    From the same study:

    Paleoclimate data (13, 32, 33) imply that the equilibrium
    global climate sensitivity for doubled CO2 (a forcing of about 4
    Wym2) is 3 += 1°C…This figure is
    similar to the sensitivity derived from climate models (4, 12), but
    it has a higher precision and confidence level.

    That’s part of the point of Knutti & Hegerl.  Many lines of evidence converge on roughly the same conclusion.

  • NewYorkJ

    TF/Morano: wah wah wah denier wah wah wah

  • Tom Fuller

    Sing along with N King Troll: If I roll in mud, I will sing denier… 

  • Eric Adler

    Tom Fuller @ 38
    But to call it a machine is just idiotic hype. I saw someone here (Ne”wYorkJ? one of the trolls, anyhow), label the Marshall Institute as part of the climate “˜denier’ machine. His evidence? They invited Bjorn Lomborg to speak at a conference.”
     Are you seriously  claiming that the only thing the  Marshall Institute did to deserve the reputation that they have is that Bjorn Lomborg was invited by them to speak at a conference?? Are you kidding or are you really that ignorant?  One of the principle functions that the Marshall Institute has served is the denial of AGW, and it is no secret.
    The Marshall Institute’s  global warming denial started in 1988, and 2 of the earliest and most prominent Global Warming Denier scientists, William Nierenberg and Fredrick Seitz, were involved. Their strong opposition to the science behind AGW has continued ever since including publications by Willie Soon, and Sallie Baliunas, blaming global warming on the Sun. They currently  employ Patrick Michaels.
    http://mediamatters.org/research/200405200001
    “The nonpartisan Congressional Quarterly calls the Marshall Institute “a Washington-based think tank supported by industry and conservative foundations that focuses primarily on trying to debunk global warming as a threat.” According to an ExxonMobil report, the ExxonMobil Foundation donated $80,000 to the Marshall Institute’s Global Climate Change Program in 2002.
    Are you really the Thomas Fuller who covers climate change issues,  published the book on ClimateGate?

     

  • Tom Fuller

    Eric, read what other people write. That was the argument advanced here–that they were denialisterites based on Lomborg’s appearance.

    And, Umm, Eric, $80,000? $80,000? Do you have a list of other contributions made by the Exxon Mobil Foundation?

    The Marshall Institute covers defense, the environment, the economy,cybersecurity and space policy. Yup, they cover global warming, too.

    Because they seem very much part of the dinosaur brigade, I haven’t followed them closely. If they are typical of the dinosaur right wing think tanks, I wouldn’t be surprised if they feature skeptics prominently.

    But to call them part of the climate denier machine is just tripe, Eric. I’ll bet money they became skeptics because it fit the rest of their policy positions. They were formed in 1984, long before climate change was a big issue.

    Is it just that you don’t feel like a real man unless you blow up your supposed enemy to Gargantuan proportions? 

  • NewYorkJ

    TF’s argument is rather amusing.

    As long as an organization was formed before climate change was a big issue, and is active in other areas, it cannot possibly be part of a the denial machine.  Well gee, I guess Big Oil/Coal isn’t part of it either.  Been around too long for that to be possible.

    Yes, Eric.  It’s the same Tom Fuller.  And the logic he uses in his “ClimateGate” stuff is quite similar as to what’s on display here.

  • Tom Fuller

    Duh. I’m not saying they are not the enemy. I am saying they are not part of some climate ‘denier’ machine. They are just Republicans doing what Republicans do.

    Quick check to see if there is any truth to your allegations: What non-American, non-Republican/Independent organizations are part of your mythical climate denialisterite cabal?

    An endless supply of stupid pills sequestered in a seamy box apartment in the Bronx… just and all for you…. 

  • NewYorkJ

    TF: They are just Republicans doing what Republicans do.

    which includes engaging in global warming denial for various reasons, in the case of the Marshall Institute, CEI, etc., in an organized fashion.  Who denies that, really?

  • harrywr2

    Tom Fuller Says:
    October 4th, 2011 at 7:33 pm
    And, Umm, Eric, $80,000? $80,000? Do you have a list of other contributions made by the Exxon Mobil Foundation?

    Here it is -
    http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/community_foundation.aspx
    And a nice chart – $237 million in total giving.
    http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/Imports/ccr2010/community_ccr_datacenter.aspx?CI-01

  • Tom Fuller

    So domestic thinktanks employ independent writers to write the occasional article from a skeptic viewpoint.

    Ooooh, what a machine.

    What a bunch of wimps. 

  • Eric Adler

    Thomas Fuller @66
    You love rhetorical tactics. Do you believe that labelling the think tanks as dinosaurs proves anything?  The fact that they were founded in 1984 doesn’t prove that the Marshall Institute were insignificant in the denial of AGW. The founder Nierenberg was the author of a report commissioned by the NAS, in 1983, which denied global warming would have bad consequences.The other scientists on the commission were experts on climate and the report stated that AGW was real.  When Nierenberg  got rolling at the Marshall Institute, they wrote a report in 1989 that AGW was not going to happen.
    The archives of history show the role of the Marshall Institute was very influential in the ginning up of AGW denialism. The NY Times uncovered an industry plan to pay scientists to come out against AGW in 1998. The industry claimed at the time it had not been adopted, but things did happen afterward, including the Oregon Petition.
    http://www.nytimes.com/1998/04/26/us/industrial-group-plans-to-battle-climate-treaty.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm
    “The draft plan calls for recruiting scientists to argue against the Administration, and suggests that they include ”individuals who do not have a long history of visibility and/or participation in the climate change debate.”
    But among the plan’s advocates are groups already linked to the best-known critics of global-warming science.
    They include the Science and Environment Policy Project, founded by Fred Singer, a physicist noted for opposing the mainstream view of climate science. Frederick Seitz, another prominent skeptic on global warming, is involved with two other groups mentioned in the plan: the George C. Marshall Institute, where Dr. Seitz is chairman, and the Advancement of Sound Science Coalition, where he is on the science advisory board.
    On Monday, the National Academy of Sciences disassociated itself from the most recent effort to drum up support among skeptical scientists. That effort came in the form of a statement and petition on global warming circulated by Dr. Seitz, a physicist who was president of the academy in the 1960′s…”
    The think tanks by themselves don’t have the ear of the public. They just provide the quasi intellectual content and the prestige for the arguments that are made. The point made by the diagram is that the press and the blogosphere are effective in publicizing what they produce, to counter the peer reviewed literature produced by scientists.
     

  • Tom Fuller

    Uh, Gee, Eric. I went to that story and didn’t see the Manhattan Institute listed at all. Your citation of the evil of the Manhattan Institute does… not… mention… the… Manhattan… Institute.

    And you admit that the think tanks don’t have the ear of the public. That’s because they are tone-deaf dinosaurs. 

    The press doesn’t publish a tenth of what they write. 99% of what the press reports comes from the environmental lobbies. Because it sells soap, I guess. 

    You are making no coherent argument at all, Eric. You can and should do better.

    And you seem to think that anyone who is a skeptic should not be permitted to speak out. Why is that? Shouldn’t Fred Singer be able to participate in the debate?

    Or do you think the debate is over?

     

  • Keith Kloor

    This is worth a read.

  • Stu

    “it’s human psychology “” as much as politics “” that’s preventing us from dealing with one of the greatest threats the species faces.”

    What does the ‘very clear science’ tell you to do, Keith?

     

  • Tom Fuller

    Time can be deonded on to be late to the party, dressed as Captain Obvious. This time they’re about a decade late.

    Again? This story is about a strictly domestic catfight betwee democrats and republicans. If a denialisterite machine existed one would expect to see an international component fighting EU regulations or UN strictures. Alarmists are just trying to double count their opponents and make themselves look like the underdog.

    The simple fact is that neither side has showed an A game, which accounts for the low quality of the debate. I mean how sad is it that the best arguments are happening on blogs? At least until NYJ sticks his muzzle in.

  • harrywr2

    Eric Adler Says:
    October 4th, 2011 at 8:29 pm
    The NY Times uncovered an industry plan to pay scientists to come out against AGW in 1998
    Maybe you don’t understand some realities in academia. I could hire a Phd today to testify in a court of law that the moon was made out of cheese.
    So what.
    Years ago I was approached by a marketing company to make a ‘lottery number picker’ program.
    They already had a Yale Phd signed up to say that it would increase the statistical probability of winning. (It was something like .000001%). I passed because I thought the project was deliberately deceptive. Someone else did it and the dupes that believed the Yale PHd Mathematics professor got fleeced for $49.99 and the Yale Phd got $5,000. That was 30 years ago.
    I am sure with the proper ‘inducement/grant’ I can find a Phd that will say the earth will warm by 10C or 0C.
    Do you think your side doesn’t have ‘interests’ that would pay a Phd a few extra bucks to ‘dress up’ a report. Of course they do, just as my side does.











  • Eric Adler

    Tom Fuller @73
    Manhattan Institute??? Where do you get that??  I wrote about the Marshall Institute.
    Where did I say that the think tanks have no right to express their views?  On the contrary, in number 36, I point out that it is constitutionally protected speech.
    @76,
    Are you claiming that the campaign to deny the existence of AGW has stopped?  The facts say otherwise. The think tanks are still in business, and still doing it. Heartland Institute runs its conferences every year, Fred Singer is still active, and the WSJ, FOX News and other conservative publications are still reporting their denial of  the existence of AGW as do all conservative Republicans.
    http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/05/19/global-cooling-scientists-warming/
    “The hottest new trend in climate change may be global cooling, some researchers say.
    Contrary to the commonly held scientific conclusion that the Earth is getting warmer, Dr. Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University and author of more than 150 peer-reviewed papers, has unveiled evidence for his prediction that global cooling is coming soon.
    “Rather than global warming at a rate of 1 F per decade, records of past natural cycles indicate there may be global cooling for the first few decades of the 21st century to about 2030,” said Easterbrook, speaking on a scientific panel discussion with other climatologists. This, he says, will likely be followed by “global warming from about 2030 to 2060,” which will then be followed by another cooling spell from 2060 to 2090.
    Easterbrook spoke before a group of about 700 scientists and government officials at the fourth International Conference on Climate Change. The conference is presented annually in Chicago by the Heartland Institute, a conservative nonprofit think tank that actively questions the theory of man’s role in global warming. Last year the Institute published Climate Change Reconsidered, a comprehensive reply to the United Nations’ latest report on climate change.”

     

  • Tom Fuller

    That’s your machine? That’s it? The forces of good arrayed in all their splendor were stymied by…that?

  • Marlowe Johnson

    @55
    I never meant to suggest that all four ‘tenets’ were equivalent in terms of certainty.  This is precisely why I used the qualifier ‘strongly suggest’. IMO, the point of the exercise from a policy relevant POV is not to nail down climate sensitivity to a tenth of a degree at the 3 sigma confidence level.  It’s to determine whether or not the balance of evidence points to climate sensitivity being high enough that there are significant risks attached to our current emission path.  And the balance of evidence does indeed suggest that S > 2C and that very bad things may follow (i.e moving from WG1 to WG2).  Now you can try and assemble alternative evidence that suggests otherwise but you’d have to overturn a lot of existing work…

  • Paul Kelly

    Marlowe,
    You’ve nailed it. It’s not about scientific accuracy. It’s about policy relevance. 2C sensitivity is much too low to affect policy. Even the IPCC 3C +/- 1.5 has not been compelling. In the world as it is, sensitivity needs to be shown to be 5C or above for the risk of what may happen to become unacceptable.
    Now, if climate is your only or your most essential reason for decarbonization, you must change the world just to get started. If climate is but one of a number of equally or even more compelling reasons for decarbonization (climate is #5 on my list), the world can stay as it is as you make your way in it. It’s a mistake to think that a person’s opinion on sensitivity necessarily determines his willingness to decarbonize.

    So let’s acknowledge that we agree on the end goal of decarbonization. Our differences are on how to get there. This denier machine chart is one more bit of irrelevancy from the information deficit model. It’s an engagement in the wrong battle.

     

  • http://www.davidappell.com David Appell

    Morano can feign outrage, but I don’t think there’s a genuine bone in his body. Everything he says or writes is filtered to get maximum attention for his client(s). He’ll say or write whatever it takes to get that, regardless of its truth or ethics. It’s pure Drudge tactics, and it’s the height of cynicism, and Morano knows that they work on a large subset of people.

  • Tom Fuller

    #81, stop… making… sense.

  • NewYorkJ

    Marlowe (#80):  It’s to determine whether or not the balance of evidence points to climate sensitivity being high enough that there are significant risks attached to our current emission path.

    This is perhaps why some are so resistant to acknowledging your obviously correct point #4.  It becomes a slippery slope towards admitting that evidence strongly suggests potentially dangerous warming or catastrophic consequences (there’s always the out of claiming any warming is good, but that’s a tough argumentive path to go down), which is another slippery slope towards the dreaded thought of supporting policies to reduce emission.  So just assert with confidence that all the evidence is bogus and there’s nothing to worry about. 

    PK (#81):  In the world as it is, sensitivity needs to be shown to be 5C or above for the risk of what may happen to become unacceptable. 

    And this is based on…?

  • Paul Kelly

    And this is based on”¦?
    Observations and non computerized modeling

  • NewYorkJ

    PK,

    Which observations and which “non-computerized modeling”?  Do tell.  As to avoid veering off topic, let’s keep in mind your confident assertion:

    In the world as it is, sensitivity needs to be shown to be 5C or above for the risk of what may happen to become unacceptable.

  • Stu

    From Keith’s article.

    “Whether it’s planning for retirement or losing weight, we find it too easy to disregard very clear science”

    Deniers disregarded Phil Jones’ work on UHI, because he did not and could not show his data. They are deniers.

    Deniers deny that Micheal Mann’s various attempts at a historical temperature reconstruction say anything conclusive about Medieval temperatures, even though Gavin Shmidt admits that they don’t, either. 

    They are deniers.

    Deniers deny a link between increasing temperatures and the spread of malaria. They are deniers. 

    Deniers deny that a hurricane or drought somewhere in the world right now can say anything conclusive about AGW. They are deniers.

    Deniers generally agree that getting scientific data out in the open is the proper, scientific thing to do.

    They are deniers.

    Deniers agree that not displaying adverse data that spoils your ‘nice, tidy story’ regarding historical temp reconstructions from policy makers, is a pretty bad idea.

    They are deniers.

    “Very clear science”…

    This reminds me of another discussion that I found myself in on another blog somewhere, where people were talking about the recent UK riots. Representing the left were people saying that it was all basically Thatchers fault and the closing of community centres. On the right came the claims that this was ‘the public face of multiculturalism’ and that the protesters were ‘black’. These two sides hashed it out, and in both cases- the reasoning for why the riots occurred was crystal clear. All you needed to do to fix the problem was to vote for the other guy- then none of this would have happened. 

    Somewhere in the middle of this political tourettes loudspeaker karaoke I raised a question which had been bugging me. Which was the seemingly schizophrenic nature of the main message coming out of the affected communities there… on the one hand arguing that not enough was being done to tackle violent crime, basically blaming the government and police for turning their backs, and on the other- this enormous resentment in regards to the stepping up of weapons checks in these areas. I asked for some clarification. This was atleast a more angle to me than the cardboard claims being tossed out on either side, and I awaited the response.

    The answer came…

    Crickets.

    Then more answers came.

    Thatcher Thatcher Thatcher.

    Black people Black people Black people.

    I logged out.


    The moral of the story is that partisans always see things clearly.
     

  • jeffn

    “This denier machine chart is one more bit of irrelevancy from the information deficit model. It’s an engagement in the wrong battle.”
    Paul Kelly, we’ve spent more than 20 years of watching these goofs put action on “the greatest crisis ever” on hold if it doesn’t conform precisely to their preconceived political notions- ie their only acceptable “action” is an ineffective tax increase, an ineffective treaty and an ineffective technology.
    The fact is that so-called “climate concerned” are engaging in the battle they want to engage in- politics. Meanwhile, some – Al Gore, GE and Solyndra – are engaging in the battle they want to engage in: collecting profits from subsidies and mandates.

  • kdk33

    We could, for the sake of argument, pretend climate sensity was 2.5 C (about 4 F). 

    Now, we should recall a few details; warming will primarily act on:
    a) cold temperatures at high latitude (less so the tropics)
    b) night-time lows (less so day-time highs)
    c) winter time temps (less so summer temps)

    It is also interesting that some predict about a 10% increase in rainfall.

    So, in the end, AGW tends to moderate temperatures, with a bonus: more rain falls during a longer growing season over expanded crop ranges with free fertilizer to boot.

    And to forestall this catastrophe, we would eliminate the only affordable, reliable energy source on the planet – destroy trillions in wealth and, in effect, murder millions.

    It certainly is an interesting point of view.

  • Marlowe Johnson

    @81
    I disagree. Sensitivity >5C hasn’t been ruled out by any means, so I’m not sure why you think that political action on climate change has stalled because the central estimate is 3C.  I would suggest that it is the unique characteristics of the problem – asymmetrical costs and benefits in both time and space –, as well as well as our general inability to act collectively at the global scale,  that are the key obstacles to concerted, rational action. Debates about sensitivity at this point are meaningless in terms of policy relevance as there is already plenty of evidence to support aggressive mitigation policy. As others have pointed out ad nauseum, uncertainty cuts both ways and the risks associated with S>2 are significant.  But hey if you don’t believe me, ask the Pentagon.

  • Marlowe Johnson

    @84

    btw does ‘non computerized modeling’ = ‘back of the envelop’ ? 

  • Sashka

    @ Marlowe (80)

    the point of the exercise from a policy relevant POV is not to nail down climate sensitivity to a tenth of a degree at the 3 sigma confidence level.

    I agree. Let’s nail it down to 0.5 degree within 2 sigma and then we’ll talk.

    @ Paul Kelly (81)

    let’s acknowledge that we agree on the end goal of decarbonization.

    Let’s acknowledge that we do NOT agree on that.

  • Sashka

    @ 89

    Ah, yes, the Pentagon. The ultimate expert on all things risky. Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan … They get it right every time.

  • NewYorkJ

    kdk is not quite up to speed.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives-intermediate.htm

    The cost-benefit gap tends to rise exponentially with a greater magnitude of warming.

    As far as fossil fuels being “reliable”, unless kdk know of another planet we can plunder for carbon riches, I beg to differ, but kdk certainly presents an interesting point of view.  Without fossil fuels, millions will be murdered and trillions in wealth will be lost.  What a scary future: a bit alarmist I would say.

    #91…uncertainty is not your friend.  Read up a bit on risk management.

  • Paul Kelly

    Sashka,

    I’ve identified 5 commonly held reasons for decarbomization. From most immediate and compelling they are IMO:
    Economics
    Environment
    National/International Security
    The march of human progress
    Climate

    Of course, at a sufficient time scale, decarbonization becomes not a goal or a choice, but an inevitability. Marlowe and I want to speed up the process. Marlowe favors a top down approach working through the political process. I favor a bottom up approach working outside of politics through a social process. Those who take Marlowe’s position agree that a market solution is the most effective way to overcome the asymmetrical costs and benefits in both time and space impediment. Those who take my position must show that the free market can account for the so called externalities of carbon burning without government intervention.

     

  • Eric Adler

    KDK33 @ 88,
    Your narrative ignores extreme weather events such as floods, and drought, as well as fires. All of these have made the news in this year and last, with rainfall, and droughts which are off the charts.  There has been a rising number of these events as global warming has taken place.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/13/extreme-weather-flooding-droughts-fires
    These will become more numerous, intense and costly as global warming proceeds.

  • Eric Adler

    Sashka @ 91
    “I agree. Let’s nail it down to 0.5 degree within 2 sigma and then we’ll talk.”
    That is probably not a good idea. Watchful waiting can kill a patient.There is enough evidence that the patient is sick already; and it could get much worse than the current estimate. The models don’t include phenomena we know are operating, that will worsen global warming, and sea level rise i.e. large scale releases of methane, large scale loss of glaciers that are sliding into the ocean and the loss of CO2 absorption capability by the oceans.
     

  • Paul Kelly

    The assertions in #94 are as far from the scientific consensus as anything Morano puts out. They also demonstrate how assumption of facts not in evidence is the root cause of the failure of the climate message.

  • NewYorkJ

    Eric is essentially correct, although the costs are by no means limited to floods, droughts, or wildfires, nor are a season of record-setting events in some areas a strong line of evidence for it.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives-intermediate.htm

    The cost-benefit gap also increases exponentially with more warming.

  • NewYorkJ

    Higher latitudes will be adversely affected as well.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climate-Change-Expensive-Canada-NRT-Report.html

  • Sashka

    Paul,

    Decarbonization is an expensive proposition. Thus, economics is a reason NOT to do that. Not sure what you mean by progress. The rest could be to various extents good reasons to decarbonize but none are sufficient to make it a goal.

  • Sashka

    @ 96

    Exactly.

  • Paul Kelly

    Sashka,

    Lot’s of decarbonization is already cost effective. Ground temperature assisted heat pumps, LEEDs building standards, green roofing, my ’92 Geo Storm – well the list goes on.

  • kdk33

    I think CaS has given rise to a newly defined logical fallacy:  Appeal to Skeptical Science. 

    Rather common of late.

  • NewYorkJ

    kdk engages in the old logical fallacy: Shoot the Messenger

    SkS cites the peer-reviewed literature in #97.  Not that one can expect any learning to occur at this point, but I invite our trigger-happy shooter to have a look.

  • Eric Adler

    Paul Kelly @96
    “The assertions in #94 are as far from the scientific consensus as anything Morano puts out. They also demonstrate how assumption of facts not in evidence is the root cause of the failure of the climate message.”
    So according to you, the World Meteorological Organization is assuming facts not in evidence, and is far from the scientific consensus.
    http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/news/documents/1075_en.pdf
    “For example, there is scientific
    evidence that supports the link
    between climate change and
    frequency of heatwaves. The summer
    heatwave in Europe in 2003 was the
    hottest since at least 1540. It is very
    likely that human influence on climate
    has at least doubled the current risk
    of a heatwave such as the one that
    occurred in 2003, compared to preindustrial
    times. Society will face
    considerable challenges in coping with heatwaves of similar or even greater magnitude to 2003 that are
    projected to become more common in the future.
    In another example, observation of monsoons in India between 1901 and 2004 showed that they have become
    more frequent and intense over the last few decades. Another recent study links observed intensification of
    extreme precipitation over a significant part of the Northern Hemisphere land areas to increases in greenhouse
    gases…”
     

  • NewYorkJ
  • Eric Adler

    KDK @ 102
    “I think CaS has given rise to a newly defined logical fallacy:  Appeal to Skeptical Science.
    Rather common of late.”
    Not a logical fallacy at all, but an excellently done site which is a source of published peer reviewed literature which debunks most denier talking points.
    That is why John Cook has won the Eureka Award given annually by the Australian Museum of Science for excellence in the fields of scientific research & innovation, science leadership, school science and science journalism & communication.
    http://climate.uu-uno.org/news/view/169999/?topic=50699#text

  • NewYorkJ

    Recent study:

    Climate change, the monsoon, and rice yield in India


    Recent research indicates that monsoon rainfall became less frequent but more intense in India during the latter half of the Twentieth Century, thus increasing the risk of drought and flood damage to the country’s wet-season (kharif) rice crop. Our statistical analysis of state-level Indian data confirms that drought and extreme rainfall negatively affected rice yield (harvest per hectare) in predominantly rainfed areas during 1966″“2002, with drought having a much greater impact than extreme rainfall. Using Monte Carlo simulation, we find that yield would have been 1.7% higher on average if monsoon characteristics, especially drought frequency, had not changed since 1960. Yield would have received an additional boost of nearly 4% if two other meteorological changes (warmer nights and lower rainfall at the end of the growing season) had not occurred. In combination, these changes would have increased cumulative harvest during 1966″“2002 by an amount equivalent to about a fifth of the increase caused by improvements in farming technology. Climate change has evidently already negatively affected India’s hundreds of millions of rice producers and consumers.

    http://www.springerlink.com/content/x1249530l01316j8/

  • kdk33

    Oh dear, we’ve hit a new low: the appeal to Real Climate.

    But, because I have such an open mind, I’ll go look at ye ‘ol skeptical science link.  I’ll let you knwo what I think.

  • Sashka

    @ Paul,

    We don’t need to debate cost-effective ways to decarbonization. Nobody is against it. The cost-ineffective way are the problem.

    @ Eric (104),

    Yes, this is a pile of crap, all that WMO quote of yours. Specifically: there is no reliable temp record going to 1540 (and, even if there was, it doesn’t prove anything); “very likely” is purely subjective unless the can state the probability (they can’t); “considerable” is the word that has no quantitative meaning; “projected” by whom and based on what? (on nothing scientifically established, really); monsoons could change frequency for natural reasons, too – there is no attribution; last sentence refers to a study based on a model which in itself is not demonstrated to be correct.

  • kdk33

    Sorry gents, I went to SS and downloaded the very first peer reviewed article under agriculture (Solomon 2009)- I take this to be the best SS has to offer.

    The section for precipitation changes seems the only relevant part of the paper.  It begins brilliantly: climate change might change precipitation, which could be bad.  A passing nod to reality:  confident projections of future changes remain elusive.  Then it runs an amalgam of climate models to conclude:  some dry places may get 10% – 20% drier.  The changes are described as irreversible, which is silly – sooner or later it’s gonna cool down, a lot.  This is typical non-scientificc climate science speculation; it’s crap.

    Lookit, GHG only change the climate by warming (yea, yea, ocean acidification).  The planet cooled from ~1940 to ~1975, then warmed from ~1975 to ~2000, then sits flat since.  We should have reasonable meteorological data for that period.  It should be childs play to plot the observed weather variable of your choice as a function of temperature.  This should be the minimum required first step as it will at least show whether weather correlates with temperature as claimed, or not.

    I still have an open mind, so maybe yous guys can point me to some real science.  Until then the appeal to skeptical science remains a logical fallacy.

  • Marlowe Johnson

    Sashka,

    FWIW I decided long ago that your mind is anything but open.  

  • Marlowe Johnson

    sorry that last sentiment was originally intended for kdk33 but  on further thought applies equally to Sashka…

  • Sashka

    Do I need to tell you what I think about you or you’ll figure it out yourself?

  • NewYorkJ

    I’m trying to find something to credit kdk for but it’s proving difficult.  For example, kdk states that the study concludes: “some dry places may get 10% ““ 20% drier”.  However, the 10 and 20 percent numbers are only focused on 2 C of warming, so full credit can’t be awarded.  So close!
    It worsens from there.
    The changes are described as irreversible, which is silly ““ sooner or later it’s gonna cool down, a lot.  This is typical non-scientificc climate science speculation; it’s crap.
    The study defines “irreversible” in the context of (straight from the abstract) “for 1,000 years after emissions stop”, so kdk is attacking a strawman.
    Darn.  And I had at least slight hope for kdk.  Perhaps kdk will submit a damning rebuttal to PNAS, complete with fallacies, hand-waving, and dismissal of results as “non-scientific speculation” then complain in a wuwt guest post about the gatekeepers of the “AGW Dogma” when it’s rejected.

  • Tom Fuller

    troll, troll, troll.

  • kdk33

    Heavens, I thought NYJ and MJ were going to point me to real science.  I don’t know what went wrong.

    I repeat: It should be childs play to plot the observed weather variable of your choice as a function of temperature.  This should be the minimum required first step.

    Show me the data,

  • EdG

    Re the “recently published chart depicting a nexus of organized opposition to climate change”

    Here’s a map of the other side:

    http://joannenova.com.au/2011/10/map-the-climate-change-scare-machine-the-perpetual-self-feeding-cycle-of-alarm/

  • Eric Adler

    EdG,
    Joannenova’s map is interesting. At the center of it is basically peer reviewed scientific literature.  This is basically research at universitites and agencies funded by government and foundations.  This is a good thing to have at the center of the diagram.
    It is not clear what is meant by “independent” scientists? Many scientists have tenure at universities. That makes them independent,  and this category includes the ones who accept AGW as a correct theory, as well as the dissenters.
    The ones whom Nova might label as “dissenters” are do get published but are largely  ignored because the quality of their work sucks. Nevertheless, they still have jobs and publish somewhere. For example, Michaels, Lindzen, Baliunas, Soon, Scaffeta, Singer and West and many more have good jobs.
    There is no evidence that governments are pushing the idea of AGW. The public who elects these officials would rather not give up fossil fuels and change their life styles. I don’t see government officials, who are ultimately responsible to the public, wanting to push scientists to come up with proof of AGW. Historically it has arisen as a result of discoveries John Tydall,  about the IF spectra of GHG’s 152 years ago , calculations of global temperatures due to CO2 doubling, by Arrhenius in 1898, and finally confirmed by modern scientitic measurements and  computer modelling, in the 1970′s.
    This all happened long before any green energy lobby was in place.
    Scientific research since then has confirmed and refined  the early projections of the impact of GHG’s on global temperature.
     

NEW ON DISCOVER
OPEN
CITIZEN SCIENCE
ADVERTISEMENT

Discover's Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest science news delivered weekly right to your inbox!

Collide-a-Scape

Collide-a-Scape is a wide-ranging blog forum that explores issues at the nexus of science, culture and society.

About Keith Kloor

Keith Kloor is a NYC-based journalist, and an adjunct professor of journalism at New York University. His work has appeared in Slate, Science, Discover, and the Washington Post magazine, among other outlets. From 2000 to 2008, he was a senior editor at Audubon Magazine. In 2008-2009, he was a Fellow at the University of Colorado’s Center for Environmental Journalism, in Boulder, where he studied how a changing environment (including climate change) influenced prehistoric societies in the U.S. Southwest. He covers a wide range of topics, from conservation biology and biotechnology to urban planning and archaeology.

ADVERTISEMENT

See More

ADVERTISEMENT
Collapse bottom bar
+

Login to your Account

X
E-mail address:
Password:
Remember me
Forgot your password?
No problem. Click here to have it e-mailed to you.

Not Registered Yet?

Register now for FREE. Registration only takes a few minutes to complete. Register now »