(I made the following post several weeks ago. Recently, The Union of Concerned Scientists took decisive action to refute the Wall Street Journal nonsense, see below, that originally prompted this essay. Here is UCS’ response - http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2010/02/21/205537/newsweek-mann-hansen-libel/)
I've altered the chronological sequence of the following correspondence to insure that the most important parts come first.
The Wall Street Journal article, "No Need To Panic About Global Warming is a collection of opinions by scientists speaking outside their areas of expertise. (I have positioned "No Need To Panic" at the bottom of this post.
Frankly, I'm surprised at myself. It took decades to realize The Wall Street Journal has the integrity of Wall Street itself.
***
Dear Ed,I just discovered the following website with a "must see" NASA video. http://www.nasa.gov/topics/ earth/features/2011-temps.html (It was posted on the Facebook page of my town's mayor, Tom Stevens.)
Pax
Alan
***
On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 10:46 PM, Ed M wrote:
"The National Academy of Sciences of the U.S. (set up by President Abraham Lincoln to advise on scientific issues), as well as major national academies of science around the world and every other authoritative body of scientists active in climate research have stated that the science is clear: The world is heating up and humans are primarily responsible.".....and 97% of climate scientists agree. What is the additional information your analytical brain needs to take it seriously? Ed
From: carl w
To: Ed M
Sent: Wednesday, February 1, 2012 10:19 AM
Subject:
Ed: this probably answers the question as well as any. forward to Alan. carl
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204740904577193270727472662.html
Check With Climate Scientists for Views on Climate
- Do you consult your dentist about your heart condition? In science, as in any area, reputations are based on knowledge and expertise in a field and on published, peer-reviewed work. If you need surgery, you want a highly experienced expert in the field who has done a large number of the proposed operations.
You published "No Need to Panic About Global Warming" (op-ed, Jan. 27) on climate change by the climate-science equivalent of dentists practicing cardiology. While accomplished in their own fields, most of these authors have no expertise in climate science. The few authors who have such expertise are known to have extreme views that are out of step with nearly every other climate expert. This happens in nearly every field of science. For example, there is a retrovirus expert who does not accept that HIV causes AIDS. And it is instructive to recall that a few scientists continued to state that smoking did not cause cancer, long after that was settled science.
Climate experts know that the long-term warming trend has not abated in the past decade. In fact, it was the warmest decade on record. Observations show unequivocally that our planet is getting hotter. And computer models have recently shown that during periods when there is a smaller increase of surface temperatures, warming is occurring elsewhere in the climate system, typically in the deep ocean. Such periods are a relatively common climate phenomenon, are consistent with our physical understanding of how the climate system works, and certainly do not invalidate our understanding of human-induced warming or the models used to simulate that warming.Thus, climate experts also know what one of us, Kevin Trenberth, actually meant by the out-of-context, misrepresented quote used in the op-ed. Mr. Trenberth was lamenting the inadequacy of observing systems to fully monitor warming trends in the deep ocean and other aspects of the short-term variations that always occur, together with the long-term human-induced warming trend.The National Academy of Sciences of the U.S. (set up by President Abraham Lincoln to advise on scientific issues), as well as major national academies of science around the world and every other authoritative body of scientists active in climate research have stated that the science is clear: The world is heating up and humans are primarily responsible. Impacts are already apparent and will increase. Reducing future impacts will require significant reductions in emissions of heat-trapping gases.Research shows that more than 97% of scientists actively publishing in the field agree that climate change is real and human caused. It would be an act of recklessness for any political leader to disregard the weight of evidence and ignore the enormous risks that climate change clearly poses. In addition, there is very clear evidence that investing in the transition to a low-carbon economy will not only allow the world to avoid the worst risks of climate change, but could also drive decades of economic growth. Just what the doctor ordered.Kevin Trenberth, Sc.D.Distinguished Senior ScientistClimate Analysis Section National Center for Atmospheric Research
|
(What follows is a little rough but I will soon "tighten it up" and post it to my blog.)
Dear Ed,
Thanks for your email.
My reply is long, but worthwhile.
The bulk of the verbiage that follows is attributable to an article - complete with "user comments" - that I've pasted in its entirety.
If pressed for time, you can skip this reference altogether.
Here goes...
The Wall Street Journal article you sent contains an embedded video-interview with Princeton Physics professor, William Happer. http://online.wsj.com/ article/ SB1000142405297020430140457717 1531838421366.html?mod=WSJ_ WSJ_News_BlogsModule
In that interview, Happer says: "Most people like me believe that industrial emissions will contribute to global warming."
Happer's bottom line is not an argument against fact of anthropogenic global warming (which the Wall Street Journal has long tried to discredit) but an argument with the purported lack of global warming after the year 2000 which, in some quarters, has resulted in a perception that computer-model predictions have been inflated.
Happer goes so far as to say that global warming may be beneficial to humankind insofar as it will increase agricultural production.
However, given the ongoing desertification in the American southwest - and elsewhere in the world - Happer's view in this regard strikes me as a naive generalization, one that is clearly outside his purview as a physicist. (One wonders if Professor Happer has spoken with his Princeton fellows in Botany and Horticulture.)
Here's an article from today's press that points to the contraction of agricultural output as a function of global warming - http://www.physorg.com/news/ 2012-01-climate-driven-peaks- wheat-crops.html
As I see it, Happer's twice-stated belief in the presumed "benefits" of global warming calls into question his overall judgement.
Happer conclusion is that we "do nothing for several decades" to see how things play out.
If indeed the planet has not warmed significantly since 2000 (which the data below does not indicate) -- the cause of this purported "pause" in AGW could be "the melting ice in Greenland and the Poles," combined with melting permafrost, so that both factors create the effect ice cubes have when placed in a mint julip: i.e., the ambient temperature remains the same, but the refrigerated liquids within the overall domain cool. (We do know -- incontrovertibly -- that ocean temperatures have risen throughout the last decade, which, alone, goes a long way to refuting the dubious claims made by "16 scientists." N.B. The only purported climate scientist on the list of signatories, William Kininmonth of Australia, does not hold a doctorate. According to his Wikipedia page, Mr. Kininmonth is a meteorologist, not a climate scientist. Notably, meteorologists often argue against anthropogenic global warming whereas bona fide research climatologists, to my knowledge, never do - http://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/William_Kininmonth_( meteorologist) By the way, the committee that launched his book against global warming was chaired by Hugh Morgan, the President of the Business Council of Australia. Despite his sparse scientific credentials, Kininmonth does hold a Masters of Administration degree from Monash University (wherever the hell that is... Monash... Sounds vaguely Iranian. ;>)
I just discovered the following webpage whose author investigates the background of "all" 16 signatories. Although he has only had time to discover pertinent information on five of them, his findings are what I would expect - a group of quirky characters, with shady politics and shady "pasts. http:// brutishandshort.com/2012/01/ 27/shock-news-global-warming- denialists-are-dishonest-pt-1/ )
I just discovered the following webpage whose author investigates the background of "all" 16 signatories. Although he has only had time to discover pertinent information on five of them, his findings are what I would expect - a group of quirky characters, with shady politics and shady "pasts. http://
Or (resuming my earlier theme) perhaps less sea ice augments seawater's absorption of heat through some combination of conduction, radiation, "expanded surface area" and "expanded volume."
Clearly, I am not a climate scientist, so I do not know if any of my speculation carries weight.
That said, the following webpage does carry weight.
Considerable weight.
Considerable weight.
N.B. I have pasted extensive "user comments" to the following page - comments which, by-and-large, exhibit the careful thinking of "scientific minds," not "shoot from the hip" jabberwock characteristic of right-wing ideologues. If you have neither time nor patience for "all this," be sure to see the continuation of my analysis immediately following "user comments" (below).
What has global warming done since 1998? The skeptic argument... It hasn't warmed since 1998 For the years 1998-2005, temperature did not increase. This period coincides with society's continued pumping of more CO2 into the atmosphere. (Bob Carter) What the science says...
No, it hasn't been cooling since 1998. Even if we ignore long term trends and just look at the record-breakers, that wasn't the hottest year ever. Different reports show that, overall, 2005 was hotter than 1998. What's more, globally, the hottest 12-month period ever recorded was from June 2009 to May 2010. Though humans love record-breakers, they don't, on their own, tell us a much about trends -- and it's trends that matter when monitoring Climate Change. Trends only appear by looking at all the data, globally, and taking into account other variables -- like the effects of the El Nino ocean current or sunspot activity -- not by cherry-picking single points. There's also a tendency for some people just to concentrate on air temperatures when there are other, more useful, indicators that can perhaps give us a better idea how rapidly the world is warming. Oceans for instance -- due to their immense size and heat storing capability (called 'thermal mass') -- tend to give a much more 'steady' indication of the warming that is happening. Here records show that the Earth has been warming at a steady rate before and since 1998 and there's no signs of it slowing any time soon. Last updated on 17 August 2010 by John Russell. Further reading Tamino further explores the warming trend since 1998 in Garbage is Forever and Wiggles. I've kept my original treatment of the subject as other websites hotlink to the images. My original treatment uses similar arguments to Fawcett and Jones 2008 although their analysis is much more rigorous (as you'd expect in a peer-reviewed paper). Comments (Alan here... The comments are superb but too long to post here. Please see http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html) |
While contemplating "No Need to Worry About Global Warming," consider the following parallel with Linus Pauling, the only person to win two Nobel Prizes.
Pauling's advocacy of the miraculous benefits of Vitamin C mega-doses was as wrong as any fly-by-night snake oil salesman, even though he voiced his views from within his area of prize-winning expertise.
Now...
Recall for a moment, the expertise of William Kininmonth, holder of a Masters Degree in Administration from Monash University (best known for its Zarathustrian Seminary ;>) - http://en.wikipedia.org/
The Right Wing "makes shit float" because American "conservatism" is populated by so many dimwits - aggressively ignorant, anti-scientific crackpots, eager to fill the web with sludge - very much like a sewer backing up.
In any "demographic" there will always be a group of contrarians, which leads me to the hypothesis that the issue "in play" is not so much scientific as psychological.
Furthermore, the fact that the signatories of "Don't Panic" contain no real climate scientists reveals a situation in which we have the rough equivalent of consulting with The Car Guys" to advance cutting edge research in "controlled nuclear fusion."
Furthermore, the fact that the signatories of "Don't Panic" contain no real climate scientists reveals a situation in which we have the rough equivalent of consulting with The Car Guys" to advance cutting edge research in "controlled nuclear fusion."
In the WSJ video interview, recall that both interviewer -- and Happer -- are more than a little "off": the interviewer is a glib dimwit who thinks The Left is "out to destroy industry," whereas Happer (a rather hapless fellow) validates the mechanism of anthropogenic global warming but goes on to posit a dubious interpretation of "trend lines," finally arguing that we should see if the wildly-speculated benefit of increased agricultural productivity outweighs the negative effects of greenhouse gasses on the very atmosphere that makes Life possible.
If it is true that we have another 30-50 years before crossing "the point of no return," this global warming grace period "should" be construed as "just what we need" to turn the tide - a tide that is currently swamping us... and our coasts. Whole inhabited islands have already disappeared. http://www. independent.co.uk/environment/ climate-change/disappearing- world-global-warming-claims- tropical-island-429764.html /// http://blogs.edf.org/ climate411/2008/10/14/ kiribati_evacuating/ /// http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Carteret_Islands
If it is true that we have another 30-50 years before crossing "the point of no return," this global warming grace period "should" be construed as "just what we need" to turn the tide - a tide that is currently swamping us... and our coasts. Whole inhabited islands have already disappeared. http://www.
I would also note that a small group of scientists - and 16 is a minuscule group - does not automatically comprise a group of "reasonable policy-makers."
Nazi physician Mengele headed a group of far more than 16 capable scientists all of whom got their political priorities wrong. Completely wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Mengele
The last time The Specious Right "got mileage" from seeming refutation of global warming was when England's Lord Monckton made the following argument: http://www.guardian. co.uk/environment/ georgemonbiot/2010/jun/08/ monckton-gift-climate-denial
If you have patience for a meticulous, elegantly scientific refutation of Monckton, see http://www.stthomas.edu/ engineering/jpabraham/ It is a scrupulous "textbook" refutation of ideologically driven falsehood, which - sadly - also reveals the pains that must be taken to un-ring bells that can "never" be un-rung.
Tens of thousand of serious, peer-reviewed research scientists (belonging to a growing group of such scientists) are scientifically certain that anthropogenic global warming (caused by greenhouse gasses) is already wreaking havoc on the planet.
"Wall Street Journal Industrialists ---" ever eager to make a quick buck (even if it puts the United States at insurmountable economic disadvantage by failing to deploy sustainable energy sources NOW, particularly when oil's "days are numbered" even if we "squeeze the sponge tighter for another 50 years") ---- are trying to resurrect a dead business model.
Despite their "last gasp" (and "last gasps" are typically quite loud) fossil fuels are on their way out. And those nations which first develop solar grids (and, I think, geothermal) will be the ones that "win" the future.
Despite their "last gasp" (and "last gasps" are typically quite loud) fossil fuels are on their way out. And those nations which first develop solar grids (and, I think, geothermal) will be the ones that "win" the future.
Once again, "the forces of Wall Street" (and I see ever less difference between reckless Wall Street bankers and the editorial slant of their flacks at the Wall Street Journal) have assembled a small cadre of scientific wankers in a bogus attempt to refute the ever-mounting consensus of peer-reviewed scientists operating in their field of expertise.
Carl should also be reminded that the Pentagon (and Joint Chiefs) are preparing furiously for the catastrophic geopolitical effects that are overwhelmingly likely to accompany global warming.
Would Carl like to see them do an about face?
Also, does Carl think these 16 little league contrarians (operating outside their fields of expertise) are anything other than a non-recurring blip on The Big Screen? (I do not have sufficient statistical skill to analyse the post-2000 "global warming charts." But I do know that 2005 and 2010 were the warmest years on record. http://www.guardian.co.uk/ environment/2004/feb/22/ usnews.theobserver /// http://www.guardian.co.uk/ environment/2004/feb/22/ usnews.theobserver /// http://chattahbox.com/us/ 2009/08/09/military-admits- global-warming-a-threat-to- national-security/http://www. nytimes.com/2009/08/09/ science/earth/09climate.html? hp
I have also seen the effects of global warming personally while conducting work in the Yucatan. Since establishing my business in Yucatan, I have seen -- with my naked eyes -- serious beach erosion on the two coasts I frequent (north and east).
Perhaps the most compromising component of the WSJ piece is the bogus allegation that researchers deliberately advance "the global warming hoax" to secure research money.
As we've known since Ike warned against the Military-Industrial-Academic Complex, the BIG research money is in traditional defense research, not global warming. http://www. paradigmpublishers.com/Books/ BookDetail.aspx?productID= 168000 /// http://www.countercurrents. org/us-turse290404.htm
Given the comprehensive paranoia that surrounds "homeland security," it is plain-as-potatoes that any researcher can devise a "defense angle" to tap The Really Big Bucks, if indeed money is what motivates them.
On the face of it, I see this allegation of scientific venality as a psychological projection of the greedy minds of the conservative-reactionary-neo- fascist industrialists, minds that sleep with the anti-scientific, anti-rational bozos who constitute the Republican Base.
On the face of it, I see this allegation of scientific venality as a psychological projection of the greedy minds of the conservative-reactionary-neo-
It is risible that The Right makes allegations of "research profiteering" when very few people -- including those "on the right" -- disbelieve the ubiquitous extent of defense profiteering - at every conceivable level, not just research.
If you have yet to see the documentary "Why We Fight," I strongly encourage you to watch it. The "hero," ironically, is Dwight Eisenhower. "Why We Fight" is freely available online. Go ahead... make your day! http://video.google.com/ videoplay?docid= 9219858826421983682 /// http://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/Why_We_Fight
Speaking of American paranoia, I highly recommend Zbigniew Brzezinski's interview with Diane Rehm - http://thedianerehmshow.org/
More generally, I think any understanding of America's persistent paranoia requires at least one reading of Hofstadter's classic, "The Paranoid Style in American Politics." No gringo policy-maker should even think about trotting out his ponies until this cornerstone masterwork is taken to heart - http://karws.gso.uri.edu/
On the flip side of "16 Scientists" here is a recent NPR report entitled "Climate Change: Public Skeptical, Scientists Sure," arguing that the reality of anthropogenic global warming is settled science. http://www.npr.org/ 2011/06/21/137309964/climate- change-public-skeptical- scientists-sure
No matter where people stand on the issue, it is impossible to refute the message of the following cartoon. Those who attempt refutation were, I think, afflicted by Oppositional-Defiant Disorder while young, and have now "graduated" to fully-certified obstreperousness.
One way or another, modern "conservatives" are dangerous people who propagate falsehood as zealously as The Prince of Darkness propagates obfuscation and bafflegab.
Pax on both houses,
Alan
PS In "Don't Panic," I would note that Lysenko - with whom the WSJ author draws a parallel - was an ideologue born-and-bred. He was not interested in "the data" - and did not subscribe to, nor honor, any rubric of intellectual rigor. You and I -- and all other people of scientific orientation -- delight in grappling with "the data" and are eager for its dismissal when proven false. However, unlike right-wing ideologues, Truth means more to us than political victory. This is why liberals endure so much division. We are, by nature, inquisitive people drawn to Truth wherever it lies, not where we want to find it. As Pat Buchanan, the living American who has spent most time advising inside the White House, put it: "The Republican philosophy might be summarized thus: To hell with principle; what matters is power, and that we have it, and that they do not.” "Where the Right Went Wrong" - http://www.amazon. com/Where-Right-Went-Wrong- Neoconservatives/dp/0312341156 )
No comments:
Post a Comment